ML20155B861
Text
_
a L %/4 Por 6
u APR 0 81983 e
N IDENTICAL LETTER 5LNT T0:
Alan Simpson, Chairman Richard L. Ottinger, Chairman
=-
United States Senate U.S. House of Representatives cc: The Honorable Gary Hart cc: The %orable Carlos Moorhead The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman m
y Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment 3
J Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs t-United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 L
Dear Mr. Chairman:
(=
I The Commission is preparing to adopt amendments to its " Rules of Practice
[
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 and to its regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization m
Facilities," to reflect Public Law 97-415, enacted on January 4,1983, n-L authorizing the Commission to issue temporary operating licenses.
W The legislation also directs the Comission to promulgate, within 90 days of enactment, regulations which establish (a) standards for determining whether I
an amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards 3
)
consideration, (b) criteria for providing or, in emergency situations, for F
dispensing with prior notice and opportunity for public comment on such a a
7 determination, and (c) procedures for consultation on such a determination g
with the State in which the facility involved is located.
To implement this legislation, the Commission has prepared the enclosed a
r regulations for publication in the Federal Register. The statements of ij k
consideration describe and explain the regulations in detail. A public i:.
announcement is also enclosed.
a 1
C l
Sincerely.
1 b
cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan Guy H. Cunningham, III l
Executive Legal Director
?
Enclosures:
L As stated w
Distribution
- l TFDorian Regs R/F EDO F
WJ0lmstead Central File OPE t
GHCunningham OGC R&P Branch Chief r
OELD S/F SECY R&P r
OELD R/F OCA R&P R/F
^
[
OFC :0 ELD
- 0 ELD [4_____.:J.lf./._____:
- E A
0CA a i
1
. __$ _ _$_:d/2,/83._.__$$
____$:////83S_~_/_"A
____f____________._____
_____ : [_________
[ DATE ///b/83 14/83
(
\\\\
41 376 060327
(:
2 4SFR20491 PDR
AAU4 702 l-
[ ""*3, UNITED STATES
({fr%(j NUCLEAR REGULATORY'COMMISS!ON 7
%/
Office of Public Affairs j
"4 1-M/ashington, D.C. 20555 l
No.
83-58 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel.
301/.492-7715 (Thursday, April 7, 1983)
NRC TAKES STEPS TO IMP.LE}!ENT NEW PUBLIC LAW The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is taking steps to implement provisions of a recently enacted Public Law 97-415 i
that: (1) authorizes 'the Commission to issue temporary operating' licenses, and (2) clarifies the agency's authority to issue operating license amendments involving no significant d
ha:ards considerations before the conduct of any public
(
hearing.
5 The temporary operating license authority was requested by the Commission in March 1981 when it appeared that--
because licensing reviews had been suspended'largely in
[
order to assess the lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident--some nuclear power plants might be ready for fuel loading and the start of operations before all of the NRC's requirements for issuance of an operating license, including any public hearing, ha3 been completed.
The costs of such delays were estimated to be in the range of tens of e
millions of de lars per month for any delayed plant.
,c Under proposed amendments to Parts 2 and 50 of the t
NRC's regulations, an applicant for an operating license would be able to make a written request to the Commission for a temporary operating license authorizing fuel loading, testing and operation at a specified power level (initially no: to exceed five cercent of the reactor's rated thermal
' power level).
High'er specified power levels could be requested later.
The written recuest, and supporting affidavits, could
$~
no: be filed until the NRC staff has issued its Final Snviron-5 mental Statement and its initial Safety Evaluatien Repor:
L; and the inde:endent Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has sucrlied'its views and the staff has responded to those views 'in a supelemental Safety Evaluation Report.
In addition, l
a State, local'or utility emergency plan would have to be on file.
i i
s
2-Provisions also would be made for giving prompt public notification of a request for a temporary operating license and amendments to such a license and for a 30-day comment period.
The changes to the regulations, however, would not specify a time after the 30-day comment period by which the Commission must act on a request.
They only provide tha't the Commission would act as expeditiously as possible.
The issuance of a temporary operating license would not prejudge the outcome of any public hearing on the final operating license or the rights of any party to raise proper issues in the hearing and have those issues decided.
- Further, parties to any final operating license hearing, as well as
.the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, would be required to notify the Commission of any information made available as part of the hearing that suggests the conditions of the temporary operating license were not being met or that they were insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the publ.ic health.and safety are being protected during the period.of temporary operation.
Further, the Commission would use its best efforts to minimi:e the need for temporary operating licenses before the authority to issue them expires on December 31, 1983.
Public Law 97-415 also requires the Commission to promulgate--within 90 days of enactment of the law--regulations which establish:
(1) standards for determining when an amend-
~
ment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration; (2) criteria'for providing--or for dispensing with--prior notice and public comment on such a determination; and-(3) procedures for c,onsulting on such a determination with the State in which the facility involved is located.
The enabling legislation was requested by the NRC after the U/S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found, in "Sholly versus NRC," that it was improper for the agency not to provide an opportunity for a prior hearing on operating license amendments not involving signif-icant ha:ards considerations.
The ruling did not involve the agency's authority to issue immediately effective amend-ments, without prior notice or hearing, when recuired to protect public health and safety.
However, the Commission believed it could have resulted in unnecessary disruptions or delays in the operations of nuclear power plants and could have imposed unnecessary regulatory burdens--not related to significant safety matters--on the NRC and the industry.
3 The standards for determining when an amendment involves no significant ha:ards consideration were published for public comment in March 1980 in response to an earlier petition for rulemaking.
They now will become an interim final rule, except that they will not apply to amendments to construction permits where the determination about no signifi-cant hazards consideration is not applicable.
As amended, part 50 of the NRC's regulations will define an amendment to an operating license as involving significant hazards consideration, unless a finding is made that operation of the facility with the amendment would not:
{
(1) Involve a significant increase in'the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind j
i of accident from any previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Unless the Commission finds that an amendment involves i
no significant ha:'ards consideration, prior notice and l
opportunity for a public hearing will be provided.
Examples of both kinds of amendments are included in the rule; however, reracking of spent fuel pools is.not included in the list of those amendments that will be con-
~
sidered likely to involve a significant ha:ard consideration.
It has been the Commission's past practice to provide prior notice and opportunity for prior heari'ng on those amendments and, in view of expressions of Congressional understanding that the practice would be continued, the Commission has determined that the matter requires further
' study.
Accordingly, the staff has been directed to prepare, by August 1 this year, a report which:
(1) reviews the agency's experience to date with respect to spent fuel pool expansion reviews; and (2) provides a technical judgment on the basis on which a spent fuel pool expansion amendment may or may not pose a significant ha ards consideration.
When this report has been completed, the Commission intends to reconsider this portion of the rule.
-In the meantime, the question of whether a reracking application involves a significant hazards consideration will be. determined on a case-by-case basis.
If it does, an opportunity for prior hearing will be offered.
--.-_-n
~
i e
- 4 To meet the requirement for establishing criteria for providing--or for dispensing with--prior notice and public comment on operating license amendments involvin'g no l
significant ha:ards considerations, the Commission is proposing to amend Parts 2 and 50 of its regulations.
I l
As proposed, the Commission would publish monthly or l
individually in the Federal Register prior notices of (1) proposed action providing an opportunity for a hearing on applications requesting amendments to operating licenses, (2)~ proposed determinations on no significant hazards consid-eration with a request for comments within 30 days or some lesser period, and (3) final issuances.
The Commission could make an amendment effective even though an interested person has requested a hearing -- a required hearing would-l normally be held after issuance of an amendment.
Provisions also would be made for issuing.such amendments without prior notice if prompt action were required to avoid derating or E
shutting.down a nuclear power plant.
The Commission's l
authority to impose amendments without prior notice or public hearing in order to protect the public health and l
safety also would be preserved.
In addition, proposed amendments to Part 50 would set forth procedures for consulting with States on amendments involving no significant ha:ards-considerations.
~
As proposed, the procedures would require that:
(1) a l
licensee notify the State of it.s request for an amendment and its evaluation of the issue of no significant hazards
~ consideration; (2) the NRC send its proposed determination on whether-the licensee amendment involves no significant ha:ards consideration to the State; (3) the NRC listen to and consider comments, if any, from a designated State l
offici'al; and (4) that the NRC make a good faith effort to consult with the State before issuing the license amendment.
l The procedures would not:
(1) give the State a right to veto a proposed NRC determination; (2) give the State a i
right to a hearing before the amendment becomes effective; (3) give the State the right to insist on a postponement of the SRC determination or issuance of the amendment; or (4) l alter the provisions of existing law that give the NRC exclusive responsibility for setting and. enforcing radiological
' health and safety requirements for nuclear power plants.
l The separate and additional views of individual Comnis-l sioners on the interim and proposed amendments are included
~in the notice published in the Federal Register on April 6.
l
.t 5-i The' interim amendments to Part 50 with resoect to standards on no significant ha:ards consideration will become effective on May 6, 1983.
In addition, comments on these effective amendments and on the proposed amendment;s.to i
Parts 2 and 50 are invited.
They should be submitted'by l.
May 6, 1983 and-should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DlC.
20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
g l
[.
l.
l I
1 1-
?
i l
l I
l l
Q.
.. gg....m;,u.7..~..w-,-~~--y
.. - y-14884 Federal Register V
' 8, No er / Wednesd y, April 8,1983 / Rules cnd Regulations 4
.e 10 CFft Part 50
'**'M amendments to opera liceness or :: Bodysund
- , A r q @. C -
Standards for Determining Whet'her n d unde (b)
A. A ectedlegislaflon, alo lons and ucense Amendments involve No Significant Hazards Conalderatione (including testing facilities) involve no significant hazards con.iderations (item When the Atomic Energy Act of1954 aosNcy: Nuclear Regulatory (a) abo ve) were published for comment (Act) was adopted in te54, it contained Commlulon.
.a..
In the Federal Register by the no provision which required a public.
Acnose Intuim final rule.
20491). Since the Commission rarely '
permit or operating license for a nuclear thnmtssion on Maach 28,1980 [45 FR hearing on Issuance of a construction ~
sumasaRv. Pursuant to Public Law 97.
Issues amendments to construction '
Power nactorin the absence of a 415, NCR is amending its regulations to pumits and has neverissued a
~
. requal from an intuested person In.
specify standards for determining.
whether requested amendments to construction permit amendment 1957, the Act was amended to requirt operating licenses for certain nuclear involving a significant hazanis that mandatory hearings be held before considuation,it has decided not to issuancuf both a constmetion permH power reactors and testing facilities apply thesestandards to amendments to and an operating license for power involve no significant hazards considerations. %ese standards will construction permits and to handle these nect rs and certain other facilities.
help NRCin its evaluations of these case-by. case. %is is in keeping with the - Public Law 85256 (71 Stat. 576) requests. Research reactors are not
'legisladon which applies only to amending i189a.of the Act.
covered. However, the Commission is operating license amendments..
%e 1957 amendments to the Act were reviewing the extent to which and the ~
Additionally, these standards wHI not interpreted by the Commission as way such standards should be applied now be applied to research reactors, nquiring a " mandatory hearing" before to neearch nacton.
he Commission is currently reviewing issuance of amendments to construction antemHAm May 8,1983.De whether and how it should apply these permits and operating licenses. See, e,g.,
Commission specifically requests -
or sim!!ar standards to research Hearing Before the Subcommittee on comments on this interim final rule by reactors. In sum, the interim final rule.
I4gisladon, joint Canmutu a Atanic May 8.1963. Comments received after will amend Part 50 of the Commission's Enugy,87th Cup,2d. Sess. (A 417, 1
this date will be considered ifit is regulations to estab!hh staridards for 1962), at 8. Partlauy in response 12 the, practical to do so, but assurance of determining whether an amendment to administrative rigidity and cumberu.se '
rocedures which this interpretadon consideration cannot be given except as an operating license involves no forced upon the Commission (see. Ioin to comments received on or before this -
date.
significant hazards consideration' He rule takes account not only of the Committee on Atomic Energy Staff Study," Improving the AEC Regulatory l
ADOREssEs: Written comments should s newlegislaUon but also the public **
be sent to the Secretary of the comments received on the proposed Process". March 1961, at 4c-50), section 189a.of the Act was amended in 1962 to f
Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory rule. For the sake of clarity, affected eliminate the requirement for a Commiasion. Washington, D.C. 20555, priorlegislation as well as the n
Attention: Docketing and Service Commission's regulations and practice mandatory public hearing except upon Branch. Copies of the documents are discussed as background the application for a construction permit discussed in this notice and of the information.
for a power or testing facility. As stated and interim final rules may be examined in the report of the joint Committee on comments received on the proposed rule Simultaneously with the prompigation Atomic Energy w,hich recommended the in the Commission's Public Document of these standards in l 50.92, the -
amendments:
. Room at 1717 H Street, NW.,
Commission is publishing an interim
~,,
. Washington. D.C.
- final rule which contains criteria for Aa:ordirigly, this wetion will e!!minate the POR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.*
providing or,in emergency situstions.
requirements for a mandatory hearing. except
-t DPon the application for a construction permit Romas F. Dorian. Esq, Office of the for dispensing with prior not!Ce and for a power or testing facility. Under this.
Executive I4 gal Director. U.S. Nuclear reasonable opportunity for and public plan, se inuance damedmats to such Regula tory Commission. Washington, comment on a deterinination about constmetion pumits, and the Isnance d D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492ra690.,
whether an amendment to en operating enung acune ud ammdmeta to uch SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
license involves a significant hazards
[pUaun'g 1c se a d am nd ents consideration (item (b) above). %!s rule also specifies procedures for..
operating ticenses, would be only after a 30-Introduction
-.,. - ' - D Pursuant to Public Law 97-415 NRC consultation on any such a day public notice acd an offer of hearing.In
~
the obsence of a request for a hearins.
must promulgate, within 90 days of determination with the State in which -
tuuance of an amendment to a construction enactment, regulations which estab!Ish the fa cility involved is located (item (c)
Permit, or invance of an operating license, or (a) standards for determining whether above).Re rule appears separately in
"" **"d* " *" * '* ""8
'""* ***Id s
U be possible without formal an amendment to an opera license the Federal Regleter.
on the public record. It wi!! proceedings, but Involves no significant ha also be possible s.
nese regulatims am issued as final.
or,in emergency (b) criteria for providing though in interim form, and comments for the commission to aspense with the 33
~
considerations.
day notice requirement where the application situations,for -
. Will be considered on them.%ey will prennis no significant hazards consideration, dispensing with prior notice and become effective 30 days after This criterion is presently being applied by reasonable opportunity for public publication in the Federal Register..
the Commission under the terms of AEC comment on any such determination.
Accordingly, interested persons who.
Regulations 50.50. H. Rep. No.19as, erth and (c) procedures for consultation on wish to comment are encouraged to do Cong,2d. Seu, at a.
any such determination with the State in so at the earliest possible time, but not nus, according to the'1962.
- which the facility involved is located..
later than 30 days after publication, to amendments, a mandatory public Prcposed regulations to specify permit the fullest consideration of their' hearing would no longer be required i
standards for determining whether-views. -
.i before issuance of an amendment to a f
e y
e
~
r.
Y Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 67 / Wednesday, April 6,1963 / Rules and Regulations 14865 a
n i-construction permit or operating license motice and publication and may leone the amendment en' tails prior notice, no N -
and a thirty. day prior public notice amendment-emendment to any license may be..
would be required only if the proposed Hus,it is very important to note that issued unless it conforms to all,...
i amendment involved a "significant a determination that a proposed license applicable Commission safety
.m w hazards consideration."In sum, section amendment does or does not present a standards.nus, the "no significant N q
1ssa.of the Act,now provides that..
- significant hazards consideration" has hazard con.ilderation" standard has rpon thirty. days' notice published in the involved the hearing and attendant been a procedural standard only, 4
Federal Register, the Commission may notice requirements. Consequently, governing whether public notice of a '
. Issue an operating license, or an under its present rures the Commission proposed action must be prdvided.
amendmrat to an operating license, c' has generally coupled its determination before the action is taken by the.
an amendment to a construction permita about whether it should provide a Commission. In short, the "no cant
{'
for a facility licensed undet sections 103 hearing before issuing an amendment haards consideration
- standa has
.or 104b. of the Act, or for a testing with its determination about whether it been a notice standard and has had no facility licensed under section 104c.,
should issue a prior notice, and the substantive safe significance, other :.
l' without a pub!!c hearing if no hearing is central factor in both determinations than that attribu ble to the process of -
3~
l requested by any interested person.
has been the determination about "no Prior notice to the public and reasonable I
Section 199a. also permits the significant hazards consideration".It opportunity for a hearing.
c
,I I
has been charged that in practice this B. The ShollyDecIslon ondthe New irty. day ' noti e and ede a Reststor has meant that the staff has sometimes W"Iorion publication with respect to the issuance coupled the decision about the merits of j,
.cf an amendment to a construct:on an amendment to the decision about
%e Commission's practice of not i
permit or an amendment to an operating when it should notice the amendment, roviding an opportunity for a prior 4
)
license upon a determination by the -
f.e;. whether it should give prior notice eering on a license amendment not i
Commission that the amendment or post notice. Additionally, there has involving significant hazards been some concern that the Act and the considerations was held to be improper involves no significant hazards r.egulations have not defined the term in Sholly v.NRC, est F.2d 780 (1980).
considers tion. These provisions have d
been incorporated into ll 2.105,2.106,,
. significant hazards consideration" and rehearing denied, n2 F.2d 792 (1980),
50.58(a) and (b) and 50.91 of the that they have not established criteria cert grunted 101 S. Ct. 3004 (1981)
Commission's regulations, for determining when a proposed (Shb/ly). In that case the U.S. Court of ne regulations provide for prior amendment involves a "significant Appeals for the District of Columbia notice of a, proposed action on an hazards consideration." Section 50.50 Circuit ruled that. under section 18Da of e
3 tpplication for an amendment when a does set forth cdteria for determining the Act, NRC must hold a prior hearing determination is made that there is a when a proposed change, test or before en amendment to an operating significant hazards consideration and experiment involves an "unreviewed license for a nuclear wer plant can provide an opportunity for interested safety question " but it is clear that not become effective,if ere has been a members of the public to request a every such estion involves a request for hearing (or an expression of a
hearing. See il 2.105(a)(3) and 50.91.
"significant azards consideration."In
- Interest in the subject matter of the e
lience,if a requested license any event, the Commission's practice proposed amendment which is sufficient amendment is found to involve a with regard to license amendments to constitute a request for a hearing). A significant hazards consideration, the-involving no significant hazards prior hearing, said the Court, is required smendment would not be issued until consideration (unless, as a matter of even when NRC has made a finding that after any required hearing is completed discretion, prior notice was given) was a proposed amendment involves no er after expiration of the notice period to lasue the amendment and then significant hazards consideration and In addition 5 50,.58(b) further explains publish in the Federal Register a notice has determined to dispense with pdor the Commission s hearing and notice of issuance. See i 2.106. In such a case, notice in the Federal Register. At the procedures, as follows:
interested members of the public who request of the Commission and the The Commission m!! hold a hearing after wished to object to the amendment and Department of justice, the Supreme r,
at least 30 days notice and publication once request a hearing could do so,but a Court agreed to review the Court of in the Federal Register on each application request for a hearing did not, by itself, peals' interpretation of section 180s suspend the effectiveness of the o the Act.ne Supreme Court has j
s$1za on eft ty(h c is f a amendment.%us, both the notice and remanded the case to the Court of described in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or which is I
a testing facility. When a construction permit hearing. If one were requested, have
^> peals with instructions to vacate it if has been issued for auch a facility following occurred after the amendment was it is moot and, if it is not, to reconsider rpplication is made for an operating license It is very important to bearin mind legislation.
Yl the holding of a public hearing and an issued. -
its decision in light of the new or for an amendment to a construction permit that there is not intrinsic safety he Court of Appeals
- decistoit did algnificance to the "no significant not involve and has no effect upon the old ha fleIn le t
a e n ti hazards consideration" standard.
Commission's authority to order.
J cnd publication once in the Federal B Whether or not an action requires prior immediately efle:.tive amendments, 2
or,in the absence of a request therefor any person whose interest may be affected, notice, no license and no amendment without prior notice or hearing. when h
may issue en operating license oc an may be issued unless the Commission the public health, safety, or interest so i smendment to a construction permit ce co'ncludes that it provides reasonable requires.See, Administrative Procedure operating license without a hearing. upon 30 assurance that the public health and Act. Section 9(b),5. U.S.C. I 558(c).
safety will not be endangered and that section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act.
nient to7o so the the action will not be inimical to the and 10 CFR 2.202[fj and 2.204. Similarly.
ra es o Commission finds that no significant hazards consideration is presented by an application common defense and security or to the the Court did not alter existing law with for an amendment to a construction permit or health and safety of the public.See, e.g.,
regard to the Commisssion's pleading operating license,it may dispense with such I 50.57(a). Also, whether or not an requirements, which are designed to
=
7 9
o1 e
a
m n
]
v,.-
2
.r.
. v Federal Register / Vol. 48 No. '87 / Wednesd y, Aprl! 8,1983 / Rules cad Regulations 14888 enable the Commission to determine (B) W emendment shaE periodically (but the comunercialsee ofmeclear -
whother a person requesting a 1 earing mot less fmtuently than once av thirty power. u,the provision does not dispeam
. Is,in fact, an " interested person"within days)pubbh nouce of any amen to with the requirement for a hearins, and the the meaning of section taea.-that is, 188ud or proposed to be luusd, se provided NRC,if requested (by ar. internted person],
-I whether the person has demonstrated la subparagraph (A). Each such notice shad
' must conduct a hearing after the license standing and identified one or more-include eB amendments land or proposed 3
1 i
leaves to be litigated. See, EN v. Afamic to be issued, since & date of publicanon of amendment takes effect.S. Rep.No er-113,f 1
the last such periodic motice. Such motim yth Cong 1st Sas. at u (toss) ~,*~
i Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424,428 shatl, with rupect to each amendment e,,
It should be also noted,in light of the E
(D.C, Cir.1974), where the Court stated amendment (I) Identify the fedilty previous discussion about the coupling that, "Under its procedural regulations it volvd and (!!) provide a brief decriptica of the decision on the merits of an le not unreasonable for the Commta,lon of such amendment.Nothingin this,,
amendment,with the decision about t
that th pecti
&c% ham cuaM WF when to notice b amendnwnt, that i
Int rv r first e the als for thia 4
(
slon sha uring b Section 12 of Public law 97-415, by -
request for a hearing."
ninety. day period following the esective date -
3 providing for prior public notics and However, the Commission believed of this persgraph, promn! sets regulatione comment,in effect uncouples the that legislation was needed to cheTolly whetherany a)medmenuo ci opwouasestabbhIns (i standards for d determination about prior versus post the result reached by the Court in S nodce frons &a determinadon about l
bcausuf tb impHeauons of &e license involves no sign 1 Scant hazards requirement that the Commission ant considers tion: (U1 criteria for providing or, la whether to issue an amendment, in sum, the Commission is a requested hearing before it coul issue emergency situadons, dispensing with prior a license amendment involving no notice and reasonable opportunity for public promulgating as an interim final rule the comment on an such determinetion,which propond studards in $ 50.92 for significant hazards consideration.no criteria shall ts e into acmunt the exigency determining whether an amendment to.
^
commission believes that, since most of the need for b amendment involvd and an operatinglicenseinvolves no requested license amendments involving (110 Pmcedures for casultatie on any such sign 1 Scant hazards consideration, and it no significant hazard consideration are determina tion with b State in which the routine in ne ture, prior hearing on such faculty involndis located."
is publishing separately an interim final rule to establish (a)procedurse for amendments could result in Section 12(b) of thatlaw specifles noticing opera ting license amendment unwarranted disruption or delay h's the that:
requests for an opportunity for a.
operations of nuclear plants and could (b) W enthority of the NuclearIteguletory
- "I'
- " E'"
"I "'
impose regulatory burdens upon it and.
the nuclear industry that are not related amendment made by su$rovisions of the emersency situadons, dispensing wie" Commisefon, under the
[or public comment on any propo section (a). to lune to significant safety matters.
and to make immediately effectfwe any Subsequently, on March 11.1981, the -
amendment to an operating ilcense sha!! take determination on no significant hazards.
Commission submitted proposed effect upon the promulgation by the legiststion to Congress (Introduced as S.
Commiselon of the regulations requiredla.
considera tion, and (c) procedures for consulting with the requisite State on.
912] that would expressly authorize it to any such detenninstion.
- L I
issue a license amendment before Rus, as noted above, the legislation holding a hearing re uested by an authorizes NRC to issue and make
- gag, rim FinalRule on Standards for
~3 interestedperson,w enIthas madea immediately effective an amendment to. Determining Whther an.bnendment to determination that no significant an operatinglicense upon a an Operaung Licena Involus Ne hazards consideration is involved in the determination that the amendment Significant Hazards Considerations and
'I involves no significant hazards Examples ofAmendments nat Are t
amendment.
After the House and Senate conferees e nelderation, even though NRC has Considered Likely os Not Likely To l
considered two similar bills, H.R. 2330 before it a request for a hearing from an Involve Significant Hazards u
Considerations i
v h$t ry es'It Metit/on andLywdRule
,[
v lon Cr p
97 97th w v r, e!
I d
Cong. 2d. Sess. (1982)) and passed Public clear est Congress expects NRC to Law 97-(15. Specifically section 12(a) of emcise its authority only in $e case of
%e Commission's interim finalrule thatlaw amends section189s of the Act amendments not involving slanificant on standards for determining whether by adding the following with respect to safety qmuons.%e Conference Report an amendment involves no significant license amendments involving no states:
hazards consideration completes its actions on the notice of proposed sir.l.) cant hazard consideration:
- N conference screement maintains the rulemakin6 (discussed above), which i
requirement of the current section tsoa. of the was issued in response to a petition for a e ed! e ff v anyamendment fee ame dme i b!
t uest to an operating license, upon a determination i
by the Commluton that such amendment of any person whose interest may be
- te*
e et"#I*!
- N,, ;
involves no signift: ant hazards considerstlan. affected. N agreement s!mpty authorises Commission on Efay 7,1976, Mr. Robert notwithstanding the pendency before the the Comm!ssion. in those cases where b Lowensteln. For the reasons discussed Commission of a request for a hearing from amendment involved poses no significant ~
below, the petition is denied. However, any person. Such amendment may be issued hazards consideration, to Issue the license the Commission is promulgating q
and made immediately effective in advance amendment and allow it to take effect befose standards, as intended by the petitioner, of the holding and compation of any required this hearing to held or completed.h beartng, in determtalog unde-this section conferees intend that the Commisalon w!B.
though not the sfcndards petitioned for.
whether such amendmentinvolves no use this authority carefu!!y, applying it only (PRM-50-17 was published for comment to those license amendments which in the Federal Register on June 14,1978 significant hazards consideration, the significant hazards consideration.1[at 37, (41 FR 24006)). De staffs se no Commission shall consult with the State la I
which the faciff ty involved is located. In an In this regard, the Senate stressed:
recommendations on this petition e in SECY-79-ee0 notice of propo(December 13,1979). no other respects such amendment shall most It "stro destre to presern for b public a sed r.nlemaking was the requirements of this Act.
right to participate in dedstons published in the F# ietal Register on me
- d
?.
~
.~
-7
Y h Y.
T i
3 s
i.'
?
d Federal Register / Vol. 48 No. 67 / Wedneedsy, April e,~1983 / Rules and Regulations 14867,
A s
March 28,1C80 (45 Mt 20491).%e sCs the failure to include accidents ' f a type nolongerbe used to make a -
o recommerdations on the interim final different from those previously -
lesue prior notice of an amendment,
determination about whether or not to O
rule are in SECY-41-386,81-366A. 83 -
evaluated.
se,83-16A and 83-16B. (nese During the past several years the request. As fully described in the " ',,, '
i s
f", ?
4 documents are ava!!able foe
' Commission's staff has been guided,in separate Federal Register notice.
M cxamination in the Commission's Public reaching its determ! nations with respect saentioned before, the Commission,has Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W.
to no significant hazards consideration, formulated separate notice and Stata r d
' by standards very similar to those now consultation procedures that will..
Washington, D.C)
Q]
2 p
ne petitioner requested that 10 CFR described in this interim final rule as pmvide in all(except emergency and g
- part 50 of the Commission's regulations.
well as by examples of amendments some exigent) situations prios notice of,
be amended with respect to the likely to involve, and notlikely to amendment requests.De standards and procedures forissuance of amendments involve, significant hazards the examples will usually be limited to a rM to cperatig licenses for production and considerations.nese have proven proposed determination and, when a utilization Iscilities. He petitioner's
'useful to the staff, and the Commission hearing request is received, to a final
- t.
proposed amendments to the regulations employed them in developing the determination about whether or act f
Q~
crould have required that the staff take proposed rule.De notice of proposed significant hazards considerations are r
ints consideration (in determining rulemaking contained standards.
involved in connection with an F
'J whether a proposed amendment to an proposed by the Commission to be amendment and, therefore. whether ce F
- y operating license involves no significant incorporated into Part 50, and the not to offer an opportunity for a hearing h zards consideration) whether statement of considerations contained before an emendment is issued.no d'g eperation of the plant under the examples of amendments to an.
decision about v'hether or not to issue i
proposed license amendment would (1)
, persting license that are considered an amendment is meant to remain one 10 c
substantially increase the consequences tixely and not likely to involve a that, as a separate matter. is based on ela major credible reactor accident or significant hazards consideration.%e public health and safety.
q%
(2) decrease the margins of safety examples were samples of precedents g c
,g,
g n
substantially below those previously with which the staff was fainillar, they r
evsluated for the plant and below those were representative of certain kinds of
- 1. Cen' ral. Nine persons submitted I
e approved for existing licenses. Further, circumstances: however, they did not comments on the petition for rulemaking i
j
.the peutioner proposed that,if the staff cover the entire range of possibilities;.
and n!ae persons submitted comments t J reaches a negative conclusion about nor did they cover every facet of a on the proposed amendments.%e.
f Oy' 1.h both of these standards, the proposed particular situation. %erefore, they had comments on the petition are in SECY-J cacndment must be considered not to to be used together with standards in 79-660. ne comments on the proposed
- [Q involve a significant hazards consideration.
determining whether or not a proposed rule are in SECY file PR-2,50 (45 FR
,n amendmen' involved significant hazards 20491). A summary of the comments and i. 7,1 In issuing the proposed rule, the considerations.
Initially. proposed responses to the
.g 1
Commission sought to improve the
%e three standards proposed in the comments are in SECY-41-308, L 5
[
licensing process by specifying in the notice r,f pro sed rulemaking were available for examination at the 3 i regulations standards on the meaning of whether the Icense amendment would:
Commission's Public Document Room.
i M"
.f no significant hazards consideration.
(1) involve a significant increase in the In light of the legislation, the d
j ;joi
%:se standards would have applied to probability or consequences of an Commission has decid(d to make its cmendments to operating licenses, as accident previously evaluated. (2) create approach more precise (as described f
e
. {/
requIsted by the petition for rulemaking, the possibility of an accident of a type below) and has, therefore, revised its
' [d i
g cnd clso to construction permits, to different from any evaluated previously, response to the comments.%e new whatever extent considered appropriate, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a response is found in SECY-83-16A and d'
As mentioned bgfore, the Commission margin of safety.83-16B.
Q}
now believes that these standards Before responding to the specific One of the commenters stated that all should not be applied to amendments to comments on the proposed rule it tliree standards are unclear and useless
.l construction permits, not only because should be noted agaIn that it was In that they imply a level of detailed f
construction permits do not normally structured so that the three standards review of amendment applications far involve a significant hazards would have been used to decide not beyond what the staff normally I
consideration but also becawe such only whether the Commissionwould performs. It is the Commission's d
cmendments are very rare; the proposed publish prior notice of an amendment considered judgment that the standards d
rule has been modified accordingly.
request (as opposed to notice after the have been and will continue to be useful i:h Additionally, the Commission is amendment was issued) but also to in making the necessary reviews. '
reviewing the extent to which and the decide whether to grant an opportunity Moreover, the Comm{ssion believes that i;
way standards should be applied to for hearing before issuance of the the standards when used together with resurch reactors.De Commission will amendment (as opposed to granting the the examples will enable it to make the i-handle case.by. case any amendments ~
opportunity after issuance). As requisite decisions. In this regard. it
$'5 requIsted for construction f>ertn!!s or for explained before, the standards were should be noted that Congress was more d
research reactors with respect to the not meant to be used to make the than aware of the Commission's H',
issue of significant hazards ultimate decision about whether to issue standards and proposed their E'l an amendment-that final dec!alon is a expeditious promulgation. For example,
, considerations.
E7 In the statement of considerations.
public health and safety judgment on the Senate Report No.97-113, cited above, QI which accompanied the proposed rule, merits, not to be confused with the stated:
4.-
the Ccmmission explained that it did r*ot decisions on notice and reasonable
... & Commmes m.
D
. agrei with the petitioner's proposed opportunity for a hearing.
Commission has already iss.ed for bM 6
strndants because of the limitation to As a result of the legislation,tcader comment rules including standards S c
major credible reactor accidenta" and the final rule the three standards would determining whether en amendment involves-d 4
?
- m..
3
.,y
- n p --
- ' ~ ~
s -
=
e
,. e,
,j/.
...g
,.f
- 3.,-
~ <
.q
^
. - - - ~ - ~
f 3
h4868 Federal Register / Vol. 48, N2 67 ] Wedn'e'eday, April 6,1983 / Rules ahd Regul;tions no significant hazards considerettoa.b
.imue In'thi review of tim proposed ~.
. ne contam sise expect se a=*=u-
. Committee believes that the Commission amendment, at leset arguably, could la promugating the regulations aquired by the new subwetion (2XCXI) of secuan less.
should be able to build upon this past effort.
[revent a finding of no significantazards consideration, even though the of the Atomic hergy Act, to utaMah i
and it expects the Commission to act ta$drd cifie$ta issue would ultinintely be satisfactorily
',tanda s
c,, e on t
t e en 301 (Le, within so days after enactment). Id resolved by the issuance of the amendments that involve a signi!Icast
.: 33, amendment. Accordingly, the-haurds consideration and those Similarly, &e Nouse noted:
Commission added to the list of amendmate thatinvolve no nch examples considered likely to involve a considerstion.hw standards should not
& committee amendment provides the significant hazards consideration a new require the NRC staff to prejudge the merits a
of the tsun raised by a proposed license 7
Commission with the authority to luce and example (vil).
y*
amedmat. Raeu, they should only mquim make immed!ste effective amendments to When the leg!alation diescribed before the sta!! to identify those issues and
!! censes prior to the conduct ce completion of was being considered, the Senate detumine mether they involve stgntBeant hearing required by section tee (s) when INetermines that the amendment involves no Committee on Environment and Public, heeth, urety or environniental
[
significant hazards consideration.However.. Works commented upon the.
oonsideration.%ese staridards should be g
the authority of the Commission to do so le Commission's proposed rule before it capable of being applied with ease and j
discretionary, and does not negate the reported S.1207. It stated:
certainty, and should ensure that the NRC ff staff does not resolve doubtful or borderline u
requirement imposed by the Sholly decieloo
' ne Committee recogntzes that reasonable caus with a finding of no significant hazards E
that such a hearing, upon request, be persons may differ on whether a Ikenee considera tion. Con!. Rep. No.97-484,97th b
subsequently held. Morrorer, th, amendment involves a significant hazards Cong.,2d Sesa, et 37 (1982).
Commitue's action Is in light of thefact that consideration. %erefore, the Committee y'
the Commission hos oliradyissuedforpublic comment rules Includirtg stondords for expects the Commission to develop and
. It should be noted that the determining whetheran amendmentinro7res promulgate standards that, to the maximum Commission has attempted to draft
.?
no significant hosords considemtions. 2, extent practicable, drsw a clear distine' s standards that are as usefui and as clear S i
as possible, and it has tried to formulate A
Comminion o/so has a long line of cose4y.
between IIcense amendments that inv; ea coseprecedents under which it has significant hazards consideration and tu*
examples thet will help in the h!
that involve no significant hazards application of the standards.Dese final eI estoNished eriferio for auch determinctlans. ' considera tion. De Committee anticipates. for standards are the E,
- *
- H. Rep No. 97-22 (Part 2),97th Cong, 1
tot Sess, at 26 (1981) (Emphasis added),
example, that cons! stent with prior practice, deliberative process. As willbe recalled.
the Commission's standards would not permit A number of commenters a "no significant hazards consideration-standards were submitted by a petition E1 g
recommended,in regard to the second determination for licenu amendments to for rulemaking in 1976 for the y!
criterion in the proposed rule, that a permit wrecking of spent fuel poola. ld, at 1,s.
Commission's consideration.De threshold level for acddent standards and examples are as clear 4 ;,
I' consequences (for example, the limits in ne Commissim agmes with the and certain as the Commission can g
10 CFR Part 100) be established to committee "that reasonable persons make them-and,to repeat the I'
r eliminate insignificant types of may differ on whether a license Conference Report. "should ensure that amendment involves a accidents imm being given prior notice.
hazards consideration,signiScant the NRC staff does not resolve doubtful and it has tried
'or borderline cases with a finding of no His comment was not accepted. Setting a threshold level for accident "to develop and promulgate standards - significanthazards consideration"He consequences could eliminate a group of that, to the maximum extent practicable. Commission welcomes suggestions from draw a clear distinction between license the public to make them clamr and amendments with respect to accidents which have not been previously amendments that involve a significant more precise, recogt!.mg. in the Senate evaluated or which,if previously hazards consideration and those that Committee's words "ht reasonable evaluated, may turn out after further involve no significant hazards penons may differ on whether a license evaluation to have more severe consideration. He Co nmission amendment involves a significant I
- 4. )t consequences than previously believes that the standards coupled with hazards consideration" l
evaluated.
the examp;es help draw as clear a With It is possible, for example, that there distinction as practicable. It has decided Commit a statemen bove -
I may be a class oflicense amendments not to include the examples la the text that the " standards shou 1uot d not re utre of the rule in addition to the ori I
I sought by a licensee which, while the NRC staff to prej"dge the me to of I
designed to improve or increase safety standards, but, rather, to keep em as i
'n l
may, on balance, involve a significant guide!!nes under the standards for the g t,'g"'e'n't,1 sed by a proposed licen as will be recalled. it has ai hazards consideration because they use of the OfIice of Nuclear Reactor b" the Conunissim a gennal practice result in operation of a reactor with a Regulation.
t l
reduced safety margin due to other
%e Commission wishes licensees to versus notice i1 e
,p factors or problemfs (ie, the net effect is note that when 1ey consider license determination about W st*f
- Pri" i
l a reduction in safety of some amendments outside the examples, the be.nns unus a adng ahn luuance j
significance).Such amendments Commission may need additional time r t}
4 6
typically are also proposed by a licensee for its determination on no significant the issue o prior versus post notice was as an interim or final resolution of some hazards considerations; thus, they b
significant safety issue that was not should factor this information into their ~ * *$'y a me asInc uding a judgment
""' i" *"
- f
- schedules for develo Ing and raised or resolved before issuance of the. implementing such c$anges to facility-mendment. Consequently one i
operating license-and, based on an evaluation of the new safe issue, they design and operation.
$mmenter suggested that application of may result in a reduction o a safety.
He interim final rule thus goes a long in m nyins an es i eces margin believed to have been present way toward meeting the intent of the require the resoluti " fsub al '
when the liscense was issued.In this legislation.In this regard, the fa 1
instance, the presence of the new safety Conference Report stated:
the ssu r on the eN l
S
~
,e
?&MW'$ $NT-[RM.?DM57*2KND T M.TW,*WMREP-'?KMg E.7"'M.isW Mgg r
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 87 / Wednesday; Apr0 8,1983 / Rules and Regulations "t4889 :
I.
the license amendment. %e imp!! cation has been qu'oted above; the discussion -
levolves no significant hazaide monalderation, cf the comment was that the In the House is found at127 Corg.
the Cornmfulm should be espedany 4<
Comm!sslon at the prior notice atage Reconf at H 8158, Nov. 5,1981.
suertin to the Ism pond by nouse <O could lock Itulfinto a decision on the ne Commission is not induding amadmats &at han trwwnshte N w 0
merits. Conversely, the commenter.
rerecking in the list of examples that
- ""97)#"
[,*4 **[,
L stated that the staff,in using the ao will be considered likely to involve a -
indictfen em/tsedbm eA#itywesody s!gnificant hazards consideration algnificant hazard consideration.
o A##y 80 opmieM operiodofeiner -
E.
st:ndards, was reluctant to give prior ~
because a significant hazards witboof fh#sefrtyprotect/onsJ ts teme 4 5'
notice of amendments because its consideration finding is a technical cases.ls the order in advanes af a W-i' determination about the notica might be matter which has been assigned to the' hearing
- d. as a practical snetter, viewed as constituting a negative Commission.!!owever,in view of the foreclose the pubhe's right to have fis stews' k-connotation on the merits.
expressions of Congressional omsidered. In addition, b Beenstag boert
{
In any event, the legislation has made understanding, the Commission feels would often be unable to order any -
f e.
these comments moot by requ! ring that the matter deserves further study.
N'g'*" "[
h*I"* *A*' 8
~
,f,,,
separation of the criteria used for Accordingly, the staff has been directed intend the Commisalon be sensitive to those b
providing or dispensing with public to prepare by August 1,1983, a report (1) licenn amendments which involve sed 5>
notice and comment on no significant which reviews NRC experience to date Irnversible consequences. (Emphuis added.)
h b:zards consideration determinations with respect to spent fuel pool
- 14. at gr-se.
determination about no eignificant provides a technicalludgment on the We statement was explained in a.
L[
from the standards used to make a expansion reviews, and (2) which hazards consideration. Under the basis which a spent fuel pool expansion c 11 quy between Senators Simpson and public notice and comment would not be significant hazards consideration. Upon Mr. Domenid.In b statement of.
DoinenM asfoDown:.
legislation, the Commission's criteria for amendment may or may not pose a.
the same as its standards on the receipt and review of this report the managere. I direct attention to a paragraph ta d; termination about no significant Commission will revisit this part of the petim 12. &e maUed Shdy provisdom,
- hI8 8' d th*' t" *pplying the.
[{
h:zards consideration.In fact, the rule.
Commission will normally provide prior During the interim, the Commluton N.'.jI,N, Oat pfW'
'b
, c Dy
&e ' '
Eotice (for public comment and for an will make a finding on the question of no luue posed by limnw amendments that have E
opportunity for a hearing) for each significant hazards consideration for -
trnvenfW consequencu."Is that paragraph it c perating license amendment request.
each teracking application, on a case-in general, or specafically, b words.
f I-(ne Commission's criteria on public by-case basis, giving full consideration
" irreversible consequencee int==Imt es. s notice and comment are discussed in the to the technical circumstances of the impose restrictions on the %=mtasian's use r
separate Federal Register notice noted case, using the standards in i 50.92 of of that authority beyond the provia.ons of the before.) Additionally, the Commission the rule.It is not the intent of the statutay languaset Can se senator clar@
believes that use of these standards and Commission to make a no significant '
OM';'
IeMit h w b hm cxzmples will help it reach sound hazards consideration finding for of b managers that the paragraph ta j
d:cisions about the issues of significant reracking based on unproven general. nor the words "irrevmible versus no significant hazard technology. However, where reracking connquences." provide any restrictice on the considerations and that their use would technology has been well developed and Commission's un of that sothority beyond cct prejudge the merits of a decision....
demonstrated and where the b statutory provision in section taea. Under l
It holds this belief because the Commission determines on a techn! cal.
that provision, the only determination which stIndards and the examples are merely basis that reracking involves no,
b Commlulon must maka ts that its actica
}
screening devices for a decision about significant hazards, the Commisalon does not involve a stanificant hazard. In bt i1 whether to hold a hearing before as should not be precluded from making o ataxt."trreversibthty"is only one of the 3
8 Pect c'pposed to after an amendment le such a finding. If the Commisalon
$[ s d Sh &e g
to m issued and cannot be said to prejudge determines that a particular reracking dete:mination of hazard which le important.
i th3 Commission's final decision to issue involves significant hazards not mbether the action is irreversible.
i or deny the amendment request. As considerations it will provide sa Clearly, then are many irreversible actions l
cxplained above, that dedston is a opportunity for a prior hearing, as which could not pose a hazard. hs where
!' ~*4 i
separate one, based on separate pub!!c explained in the separate Federal the -inie determines that no l
significant hazard is involved, no further,
t hulth and safety fmdings.
Register notice.
(
2.Reiocking ofSpenf Tue/Pbols.%e AdditionaUy, ft should be noted that constderation need be given to the l
Commission has been providing prior imder section 1M of the Nuclear Waste I'"d"j];$$** sedw f4 notice and opportunity for prior hearing Pohey Act of1982, an interested party clarification. ht is mns! stent with my en requests for amendments involving may request a " hybrid" hearing in nadinas of the language.. 134 Corv. Jtsa l
reracking of spent fuel pools.%e connection with reracking, and may.
(part II) at S.1305e (daily ed. Oct.1. test). ~
Commission is not prepared to say that participate in such a hearing, if one is a reracking of a spent fuel storage pool held. He Commission will publian la the
.ne statement was further explainad willnecessard involve a significant near future a Federal Registee notice,.
In a coUoquy between Senators MitchaH hmrds consf[eration. Neverthelese, as describing this type of hearing with and Hart, as foHows:
sh:wn by the legislative history of respect to expansions of spent feet Mr.Miteben.N portion of b stat nr Public I4w 97-415, section 12(a), the storage capacity and other matises -
of managers discuulns section 12 of the t-
]
Congress w.s awa,e of ess.
-ning spent seei..
r ap-t = -canea sha n ro * %- = v i
't==a S ' m d*>=tq,*IzaE S
Comminion s praetice and statemeni.
- 3. Amemiment,invoirtwirrev=me
{,',[,
,*,y,",y,]r were made by members of both Hooses. Consequenome can h before passage of that law, that theos ne Conference Repott stateck -
members thought the practice would be
'& confenes intend bt in determlnfny especially sensit:ve... to Bcense
/
consideration, the commission "should be continued.%e report on the Senate side whether a proposed Bcense amemba==a amendments that have irmversible J
V
. ;, *i.'
l I
-n a
J.
.c'
~.:.'... n.-
g,
.. -..... = = - '.:c m..-.
14870 Federal Register / Vd. 48, No, er / Wednesday, April e,1983 / Ruhe cnd Reguhtions sensequences"Is my underst:ndtag correct procedums of the OfBce of Nuclear (1) A purely administretive che to that the statement means the '**
Reactor Re ulation, a copy of which wtB technical specifications: for exam a
should take special cars in evaluating, for be placed in the Commission's Public change to achieve consistency d ents theNv inv bis -
Document Room.
. c.
throughout the technical specifications, consequences? -
Examples of Amendments not A$e correction of an error, or a change in
. Mr. Hart.The Senator's unders is~
Considered likely ToInvolve
.. %4 cornet. As you know, this provision see a to Significant Hazards Considerations Am. nomenclatum.
(11) A change that constitutes an overrule the holding of the U.S. Court of IJated Below additional limitation, restriction, or s Appeats for the District cf Columbia in ShoHy control not presently included in the.
against Nucleat Regulatory Commission. net Unless the specific circumstances of a ~ technical specifications: for example, a case involved the venting of radioactive license amendment request, when more stringent surveillance requirement.
measured afainst the standards in (iii) For a nuclear power ructor, a.
a Unit 2 re et l ve e etion.
I 0.92,les to a contrary con uslan' change resulting from a nuclear mactor As in this case. once the Commission has approved a license amendment, and it has then, pursuant to the procedures in core reloa if no fuel assemblies gone into effect. It could prove impossible to I 50.91, a proposed amendment to an signacandy 'fferent from those found correct any oversights of fact or errors of operating ucense for a facility licensed.
judgment. nerefore, the Commission has an under 150.21(b) or I 50.22 or for a previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question obligation, when essessing the health ce testing facili willlikely be found to,
are involved.%1s assumes that no safety implications of an amendment ha involve a cant hazards ch de N N n* 5 *Ntatc t Y c nsiderations,if operation of the
^
significant hazards issues wi[1 facility in accordance with the proposed t ce cri ria f a te cal n
a take effect pnor to a public be ring. Id. (Part III), at S..
amenoment involves one or more of the specifications, that the analytical 3
. methods used to demonstrate 1)
Ignif! cant relaxation of the In light of the Conference Report and colloquies quoted above, the criteria used to establish safety limits.
8Pecifications and regulations are not.
@ can Previousl)ound such methodsdanged, an (gj) A significant relaxstion of the Commission wishes to note that it will bases for hmiting safety system settings make sure "that only those amendments or limiting conditions for operation.
(iv) A mHef granted upon acC*ptab e.
-s that clearly raise no significant hazards (iii) A significant relaxation in limiting issues will take effect prior to a public.
conditions for operation not demonstration of acceptable operation hearing " It will do this by providing in accompanied by compensatory changes, Imm an operaung metricdon that was I 50.92 of the rule that it will review conditions, or actions that maintain a Imposed because acceptable cperation proposed amendments with a view as to commensurate level of safety (such as was not yet demonstrated.Ris assumes whether they involve irreversible allowing a plant to operate at full pow that the opera restriction and the consequences. In this regard, example during a period in which one or more,er criteria to be app ed to a request for (iii) makes clear that an amendment safety systems are not operable).
re!!af have been established in a prior which allows a plant to operate at full (iv)Renewalof an operatinglicense.
review and that it is justified in a Power during which one or more safety (v) For a nuclear power plant, an satisfactory way that the criteria have systems are not operable would be increase in authorized maximum core been met..
s
,w treated in the same way as other
~
powerlevel..
(v) Upon satisfactory completion of examples considered likely to involve a (vi) A change to technical
. construction in connection with an significant hazards consideration in that specifications or other NRC approval operating facility, a reDef granted from it is likely to meet the criteria in i 50.92 involving a s!gnificant unreviewe'd an operating restriction that was of the rule.
safety question, imposed because the construction was Finally, it is once again important to (viij A change in plant operation not yet completed satisfactorily.%is is note that the examples do not cover all designed to improve safety but which, intended to involve only restrictions peselble extmples and may not be due to other factors, in fact allows plant, where it is justified that construction representative of all possible concerns.
operation with safety' margins has been completed satisfactorily.
. As new information is developed, the significantly reduced from those (vi) A change which either may result Commission will refine thesa examples believed to have bee'n present when the in some increase to the probabili or and add new examples,in keeping with license was issued.
consequences of a previously.ana yzed the standards in I 50.92 of the interim accident or may reduce in some way a final rule-and, if necesssry, it will Examples of Amendmentsnat Are safety margin, but where the results of tighten the standards themselves. -
Considered Not Likely To Involve the change are clearly within all ne Commission has left the proposed. SIgnificant Hazards Considerations Are acceptable criteria with respect to the.
mted Below rule intact to the extent that the rule system or component specined in the
' states standards with respect to the. ~
license amendment request,when change resulting from the application of Unless the specific circumstances of a Standard Review Plan: for example, a meaning of"no significant hazards consideration." The standards la the measured against the standards 'n a smallrefinement of a previouslyused interim final rule are substantially -
l 50.92, lead to a contrary conclusion calculational model or design method, identical to those in the proposed rule, then, pursuant to the procedures in (vii) A change to make a license though the attendant language in new I 50.91, a proposed amendment to an conform to changes in the regulations, I 50.92 as well as in i 50.58 has been operating IIcense for a facility licensed where the license change results in very revised to make the determination under $ 50.21(b) or I 50.22 or for a testing minor changes to facility operations easier to roe and understand.To facility will likely be found to involve no clearly in keeping with the regulations.
supplemenche standards that are being significant hazards considerations,if (vill) A change to a license to reflect a incorporated into the Commission's operation of the facility in accordance minor adjustment in ownership shares regulatloc, the dance embodied in with the proposed amendment involves among co owners already shown in the the examples be referenced in the only one or more of the following:
license.
O p
e e
7 s -
9 s
~
~
r Federal Register /'Vol. 48 No. 67 / Wednesday, Spril'6,1983 / Rules and Regula6ons iten f
h type described in l BC21(b) er i % '* ' h Papstwork Redsetion Act Statessent 123, es stat. see les UAC risal. seamans sano and so.si also tesoed under sec. tad, as which is a testing facili'I' and *I nis final rule contains no new or -
stat.es4. u am kt UAc azae).
make the amendment immediately. ".;.-
amended requirements for record section, so.3co.asca also issued under ses. -
3 keeping reporting, plans or procedma, 2ss es UAC ses (42 UAc'sasst effective, notwithstanding the pendency j
rpplications or any oeer type of For the purposes of see. 223, es Stat, see, as before ft of a request for a hearing hunt i}
information,nitenen amended (42 UAC 2273k ll 210 lek (bk any person,in advance of the holding
~
and (ek sa44, so te,504a, sn34. and sano(a) and completion of any requimd bearing, Regulatory Flexibility CarH&mdam en tesued ander sec. ssibs as seat.ees, as where it has determined that me +
In accordance with the Regulatory amended (42 UAC 2aogblk li sano (b) and significant hazards consideretionis.
Flexibility Act of1980,5 U.S.C. 806(b),
(*",d
[3g'3,Q. as ed I'YOI'*d-
- ^
the Commission certifies that this rule il %W5eM m sa71, sa72, and
- 3. Sicdon 5031la redaalsnated an' "
does not have a significsnt economic sa7s an ineued under anc.ssto, as saat.ase, I 50.g2 and revised to read as follows:
F Impact on a substantial number of small as amended 62 USA 3204eg entitle,s.%Is rule affects only the 2.In I m4arW @ rWd I 50.92 Iseuence of amendment, l',-
{
ens d
o n aar
~~
to read as follows:
(a)In determining whether as g,
am m men a cem w mnstmenos companies that own these plants do not I sc.se Hearbge and report of see
-Penn d b lasuo te ah t
y fall within the scope of the definition of Advsoory comm#ttee on Rooseer -
the Cenission wW be guided by the f
"small entities" set forth in the safeguents.
considmtim which mere the a
Regulatory Flexibuity Act or t!.e Sunall
- 4 3
imance din!Uallimnem or Business Size Standards set out in (b)%e Commission willhold a regulations issued by the Small Business hearing after at least 30-days' notim and constmedon pennits to &e erw f
Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. Since publication once in the Federal Register applicable and appropriate.If the t
these companies are dominant in their -
on each application for a constniction app!! cation involves the matarlaf servim areas, thi. rule does not faR perrnit for a action or etilization alteration of a licensed facftfty, a..
within the purview of the Act.
facility whi is of a type desaibed in.
construction permit will be issued prior RegulatIAnalyuls I m21(b) w I m22 of this part or to &e imance d ee amendmenm te which is a testing facili. When a licente. If the amendment involves a The Commissia has a-construction permit has issued for significant hazards consideration, the -
mgulatory ana' is ce such a facility following the holding of,a C-=6!on will give notsoe ofits cmendmer+
ensing the costs and public hearing and an application is proposed action punnant to l 2.105 of t
benefits ;
_ source impacts. it may be made for an operating hcense or for an this chapter before acting thereon.He
'g examined at abe address indicated amendment to a constmetion permit or notice wf!] be issued as soon se above.
operating license, the 'ammtasjon usay practicable after the application has r
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of hold a he after atleast stH!ays'
>een docketed.
1954, as amended, the Energy nouce and pu icadon onm in te -
' g %gg y enbc 15 ofTi 5 particularly sensitive to a licanae Feder ter, or,in the absence of a n
United States Code, notice is hereby
$terest may be affeNed, my issue an am m men m e atin e m
- '"*9"*"'I'****"*
given that the following =manA-ts to operating license or an amendment to a e'#**
- at, fw exampk, permits a signW-t Title 10. Chapter L Code of Federal construction permit or operating fir,nne inmease in &e amwnt defHuents or
.j Regulations,10 CFR Part 50, ars
.without a hearing, upon 30-days' notice published as a document subject to and publication in the Federal Registee adon einitted by a nuclear power j
l codification.
ofits Intent tg do so. If the Commission P ant).
List of Subjects in le CFR Part se finda,in an emergency situation, as (c)He Commission may make a final Antitnast, Classified information. Fire detined in I 5a.91, that no significang determination, pursuant to the hazards considerstion is presented by procedures in i 50.91, that a proposed an application for an amendment to an amendment to an operating license for a I
prevention,Inte overnmental relations, ty,$tfoPm et $ k "e' tor operating license, it may dispense witlp facihty liennaad under i 50.21(b) or pub!!c notice and commentinay issue i 50.22 or for a testing facihty involves i
siting criteria Reporting requirementa.
the amendment. If the Conimission finds no sign!!! cant hazards considerations,if PART 50-DOMESTIC 1.lCENSING Op that exigent circumstancas exist as operation of the ucihty in accordans t
PRODUCTION AND UTil.IZATION described in 5 50t91,it may reduce the with the proposet amendment would FACILITIES period provided for public notice and not:
[
comraent. Both in an emergency (1) Involve a sigalficant increas's la 1.%e' authority citation for Part 50 is situation and in the case of exigent the probability or consequences of an I
revised to read as follows:
circumstances, the Commission wiD accident previously evaluated; or j
Authority: Secs. tal.104,181.182, }ss,1as, provide 30 days notice of opportunity for 189, es stat. e3a. e37 e48, ess, es4. ess, esa, as a hearing, though this notice may be W Ce & possMhtMe w i
cmended. sec. 234, a sist.1244. as amended published afterlesuanca d the.
different kind of aecident from any accident previously evaluated; er p 1 142 USA 2133,2134,2201. 22 2. mass, sasa, amendment if the Conunission -
2239,22a2h ms. act. 202, saa as Stat.13s2.
determines that no significant hazards (3) Involve a significant reduction in a i
1244.124a. as amended (42 UAC sa41, se42' consideraHons are involved.%a margin of safety.
36'*k ""I'** **** ***'0" Commission will use the standards in ne views of Chairman g
=
1N
.'*2e6 f"
$50.92 to determirle whether a Palladino and Commissioners Ahearne,
}
eo 2
C Sections so.sa, sost and so.82 also leened'.
significant hazards consideratica is,
Gilinsky and Asselstine foDow.
under Pub. L 97-415,96 Stat. 3073.142 UAC.
Presented by an amendment to an pated at Washington. DC this 4th day of 2239). Section Ba78 also lassed under sec..
operating license for a fadlity of the '
April, tees..
,,.,,.a Y
~'
e
- e v.
- ., a. _
_,. ~_ ;,
q A
.s
Foe the Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon.
During the past severs! years, the StaN has do and do not involve a signiScant hasards
- g*, 4 g been guided in reaching in Bndings wi t consideration In the Snal version, these SecmaryfbrMenissiam respect Wno sfani$ cant hasarda examples have been downgraded to the annalderation" by staN criteria and examples preamble of the rule where they wm be of Gairman FaBedino's Additional VI'swo of amendments likely to involve, and not httle ce no legal couequence and where, as a In my opinion the'enmmission'a decision likely to involve, signi$ cant hazards practical matter, they will be inacusaible to considerations, nese criteria and examples anyone but the NRC historian.%1s on ruracking represents its best technical have been promulgated within the StaN and aminishes b vaius of b rule so much that judgment at this time on the generic no-have proven useful to the StaN.no I can no longer approve it.
signiScant-hazards question. Nt !s, the Commission beheves it would be useful to N earuer version of the rule placed enmmission cannot say that rerecking, as a consider incorporating these criteria into the amendments authorizing subetantial spent general matter, would or would not involve a Commission's reguistions for use in fuel pool expansions in the signiScent significant hazards consideration. ne determining whether a p oposed amendment hazards consideration category.he technical considerations of reracking to an operating license or to a construction Commission should have retained this proposals can vary afsniScantly from one to permit of any production or stilization facility categorization which is consistent with the anobr.
involves no significant hazado terms of the rule. Moreover, the Commission It was this latter fact, as weD as the consideration?
abould not have ignored the strong pubhc and 4
statements made in the Congress on With respect to b criticis n that the Congmssional views which have been criteria am unclear, we have not received rerecking, that cansed me to vote for b staN expressed on this point, most recently by much assistance in developing clearer criteria Senators Simpson, Hart, and Mitchell I am in to study the technical basis for judgments despite having obtained two rounds of agreement with Commissioner Asselstine's about the hazards mnsiderations presented comment over b last seven years. Foe.
analysis of b legislative record underlying by particular reracking appbcations-axample, in the comments on the proposed this provision.
I also believe that we may have cleared up rule mentioned above. NRDC and UCS one of the Congressional concerns about simply argued; "The NRC should promulgate Additional Views of r=mfaataaa Anselstine rerecking by stating that it is not our intent to a rule holding that prior notice and I strongly disagree with the Commission make a no-signi$ cant-hazards-consideration opportunity for hearing should be provided ma}ority's decision to permit the use of the finding for rerecking based on unproven for construction permit and operating
$houy amendment" authority contained in kehnole beanses amendments in all cases except section 12 of Publ e IJw 97-415, b NRC-those involving no significant previously-Authorization Act for Becal years 1982 and Additional e-m-te of e-maaalaaa' unreviewed safety issue."'In addition, the 19s3, for license amendmenta foe the Ahearne debate has often becorne confused b7 ruracking of a spent fuel pool nere have been several c$nplaints that differing assumptions and philosophies that
.no Commission majority's interim fwal the criteria for determinine when an are not usually clearly identifled. For rule would change b Commisalon's amendment involves significant hazards example. 6 NRDC/UCS impbcation of a longstanding and consistent pohey of
- t*
" "'" "' 8'8I*f8'IF considerations are unclear or dif$ cult to because of an implicit assumption that the requiring that any requested hearing on a license amendment for the rerecking of a apply. For example, in the current notice the criteria are intended to require a merits type spent fuel pool be completed prior to granting Commission notes that a commenter on the review. in fact, what the staff has always -
proposed rule stated the standards are, done, and what I believe we had in mind, '
the license amendment. Although the
" unclear and use!en in that they imply a was to make a preliminary judgment, Comminion has considered and approved a level of detailed review of amendment Basic =Uy, we have done the best we can. I large number of spent fuel pool reracking applications far beyond what the staff would be willing to address any specific amendments in the past,it has never used the no significant hazards consideration normaDy performa "' However, these alternatives. However, after dealing with this criticQms must be considered in context.
for a number of years I believe we must provisions in section 180 a. of the Atomic In May 1978 e petition for rulemaking was move ahead with what we have, Energy Act of 1954 as a basis for approving the amendment before the completion of a '
filed which requested that criteria be Commisslooer GUInsky's Separate Views on requested hearing.
specified for determining when an the Interim Mnal Rule Regarding Starwf meds It is clear to me from b legislative history amendment involved no significant harards for Determining Whether IJcense of section 12 of Public law 97-415 that the considerations.'ne petition was published Amendments tavolve no Significant Hazards Congress did not intend that the authority for comment in 197tL* Re Commission Considerations (Amendments to 10 CHI Part granted by section 12 should be used to received few comments, primar0y eupporting 80) approve reracking amendrnents prior to the or opposing criteria which had been proposed Apr0 4,1983.
completion of any requested hearing. De in b petition. ne discussion focused on Standing by th I
the standards
"'***"'I""'
underlying philosophical /legalissues rather which are set fo h in t e u!e are so general I'*"
than specific alternative criteria-that they offer no real guidance,to the NRC
[nment and I
blic W rka ne report of ne rulemaking ther. lay dormant for staff. In a prior version of the rute, the several ye.rs In late 1979 the Commission Commission included, in the rule itself, some that Committee on the bul(Senate Report 97-addressed the matter and agreed to issue a very useful examples of which amendments 113) makes it abundantly clear that the proposed rule for public comment.no Committee did not intend the Sholly oroposed rule was published March 1980.* As
'Matacen amendment to be used by b Commission to approve reracking amendments in advance of the Commission explained in that notica:
it i se eens secons to be as the com letion of a requested hearing.
'nis refers to " Comments by the Narmet
"[t) tf the probability of occurrence or the Mo the mpd d tne Confennce Resources Defense Counco and the Union of naequences of an accident or malfunction of Committee on the bill did not repeat this Concerned Scientists on Proposed amendments to equipment Important to safety pmytously evaluated admonition, there is no evidence to indicate e in the safety anahsts mport may be increased or contrary view by the House-Senate conferees 2,an,
g
,,pg,
[tilif a possibility for an accident or malfunction of on the bill or by the two House Committees a diffemnt type than any evaluated previously la that considered the legislatforL g
'ne petition was fued May 7,11r's by Mr. Robert the f
ty e
in is Moreover,I believe that the use of the Imrenstein on behalf of Boston Edison Company-technical specmcanon is redud.the ShoUy amendment authority to approve Florida power and t4ht Company, and towa Power Company.
NRDC/UCS did not propose an alternate pracking ammdmuts befom the completion definidon to be used with their proposal It is of any required hearing goes far beyond the
'a1 FR 340os Quae 1413rsk toteresung to note the substantial similartty to the justification offered by the Commissign when s s FR 20401 (Mudi E 1980k sigmScant hazards considerance test it requested the Sholly amendment,in e
J' 9
A
1 Tederal Register / Vol. 48. No. 67 / Wednesday. April 6,~ 1983 / Rules and Regula.
14873~
~
=
?
uesting the enactment of the ShoDy hendment. the Commission described in amendments involve no s!gnificant
- expeditiously promulgate regulations on hazards considerations. (2) to specify
. Items ) and (c) above.NRC is also some detail the situations in which it foresaw the need for this authority lThe Commission criteria for dispensing with such prior publis separately in the Federal ie em hasized the need for a large number of notice and reasonable opportunity for Register interim final regulations on item public comment in eme ency situations. (a) above.
s 8
d ca onein and (3) to fumish proce ures for
%ese regulations are issued, as Baal i
an hcenses for nuclear powerplants consultation on any such determinations though in interim form, and comments
'{t er e each ear through such activities as with the State in which the facility will be considered on them. Hey will d
t
,,rvehng of the plant The Commission involved is located. %ese procedures become effective 30 days after e gued that the need to hold a bearing on will normally provide the public and the each of these changes. if one is requested.
States with prior notice of NRC's publication in the Federal Register. -
wo JJ be burdensome to the Commission and Accordingly, interested persons who could darupt the operation of a numbe of determinations involving no significant ' w!sh to comment are encouraged to do h
hazards considerations and with an m'is ion askedYe Coa to instate Opportunity to comment on its actions.
so at the earliest possible time, but not 6
later than 30 days after publication, to I
i the authority that the Commission had DATs: Effective date: May 6,1963.De permit the fullest consideration of their ad escrased in similar situations since 1962. A Commission invites comments on this views.
[
rerecking amendment is substantia!!F interim final rule by May 6.1983. '
p ddferent frorn the situations described by the Comments received after this date will Badgrasad [.
a Commission in requesting the Sholly %
be considered if it is practical to do so.
A. AffectedIeg/s/otion. Regulations
["
amendinent. because the need for rers but assurance of consideratics cannot cadhocedurse
[oeae a ti h I m cation be given except as to comments to the plant and because of the significance received on or before this date.
When the Atomic Energy Act of1964 0
C (Act) was adopted in 1954.1t contained setached to reracking by State and local AOoREssts: Written comments should no provision which required a public i
afficials and by the public-ruiaUy. I believe that there are strong be sent to the Secretary of the -
hearing on issuance of a construction pubbe policy reasons for conunuing the Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory permit or operating license for a nuclear j-I Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555
- [*Q'[,'jI M,*PI',
power reactor in the absenca of a f
p
.7, Attention: Docketing and Service before approving the amendment. These Branch. Coples of comments received on reqtttet from an interested person. la j
1957, the Act wa' amended to renuire s
i public pohey reasons include the strong the amendments as well as on the interest and concem on the part of State and Regulatory Analysis proposed in that mandatory hearings be held Defore i
local gos emments and the public regarding connection with the amendments maF issuance of both a construction permit F
be examined in the Commission's Public and an operatinglicense for power rerecking proposals and the extent to which roceedmg with reracking in advance of the Document Room at 1717 H Street. NW, reactors and certain other facilities. ~
g j
y*
gYg" C$',1 ryideration Washington, D.C.
Public law 85-256 (71 Stat. 578)
T amending section18Ba.of the Act.
,,,,egin, pi,,,
pon runTHen tNFORMATION CONTACTt a * %e 1957 amendments to the Act were
}
For these reasons as a matter of IIcy. I Romas F. Dorian. Esq., Office of the would not permit the use of the Sho y Executive Legal Director. U.S. Nuclear interpreted by the Commission as amendment authority to approve reracking Regulatory Commission. Washington.
requiring a " mandatory hearing before I'
Issuance of amendments to construction cmendments prior to the completion of any D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-a690.
permits and operating licenses.See, e,g, requested hearing. I would therefore have SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATl0sc Heating Before the Subcommittee on t
r1 tb 1 od ve Introduction '
~
as a poticy matter, the completion of any requested hearing on a spent fuelpool Public Law 97-415. signed on January Energy, 87th Cong, 2d, Sess. (April 17 rersching amendment before Commission 4.1983, among other things, directs NRC 1962), at (L) Partially in response to the 2
approvalof the amendment.
to promulgate regulations which administrative rigidity and cumbersome
[u procedures which this interpretation tra on saan md ++aa ass I establish (a) standards for determining forced upon the Commission (see Joint j
sumo caos rinoms whether an amendment to an operating Committee on Atomic Energy Staff license involves no significant. hazards Study. " Improving the AEC Regulatory 10 CFR Parta 2 and 50 consideration, (b) criteria for providing Process". March 1961, pp. 49-60) section or,in emergency situations, dispensing 189a. of the Act was amended in 1962 to Notice and State Consuttation with prior notice and public comment on eliminate the requirement for a any such determination, and(c) ntNcy: Nuclear Regulatory procedures for consulting on such a mandatory public hearing except upon Commission.
determination with the State in which the application for a construction permi'.
~ !
Action: Interim final rule' the fa cility involved is located. See for a power os testing facility. As stated e
Conf. Rep. No.97-884. 97th Cong.,2d in the report of the Joint Committee on
[
SUMuAny: Pursuant to Pu'b!!c Law 97-Sess. (1982).%e legislation also Atomic Energy which recommended _the l
authorizes NRC to lasue and make amendments:,
8 415. NRC is amending its regulations (1) - immediately effective an amendment to Mngly, this sectim wm eliminau h
- to provide procedures under which normally it would give prior notice of -
a license. upon a determination that the requirements for a mandatory hearing, except upon the application for a construction permit cpportunity for a hearing on amendment involves no significant for a power or testing facility. Under this applications it receives to amend hazards consideration (eyen though plan the issuance of amendments to such cperating licenses for nuclear power NRC has before it a request for a construction permits, and the issuance of j
reactors and testing facilities (research hearing by an Interested person) and in operating licenses and amendments to such reactors are not covered) and prior advance of the holding and com letion constmetin pennits. and the issuance of notice and reasonable opportunity far,
of any required hearing. %!s r emaking
['
pubhc comment on proposed and request for comments responds to go, determinations about whether these the statutory directive that NRC day public notice and an offer of bearing. In J
b absence of a requaat foe a heartas, l;
g t
-~~
_i..m
- - - r,m 9
,g.
--- ------. v.-- ~.,
~~;
'$'ederal R@er I Vol. 48, No.'ey / Wednesday, April 6,1983 / Rules and Reguhtlons 24874 Seemance of an ansedmont to a construcosa ' the holdtag of a pubBc hearing and en Appeals for the Dietde't of Columbia -
appucation la made for an operating llosase Orcuit ruled that, under section 1ssa. of permit, or lauance of an operating Bcanse, or an amendment to an operating Ucense, would or for as amendment to a construcuan permit the Act NRC must hold a pdor hearing '
er ting Bcense.the Commiselon may befom an amendment to an mHng be possible without formal proceedings, bet on the public record. It wiD also be possible hearing after at least 30 days notice license for a nuclear power p tcan for the Commission to dispense wita the 30-and publication once la the Federal R become effective,if taere has been a '
day notice requirement where the applicatica er.In the abeence of a request thmfor -
prenants no signincant hasards considerados. any person whose latmst may be asected, - -toquut jnterestin the subject matter of the His criterian is presently being applied by may lesas an operating Banse er en 5
the Commisalon under the terms or AEC amendment to a constructica persait se proposed amendment which 8s sufficient R
etions soJ0. House Report No. itse,,.
opereting license without a hearing, upoo 30 to constitute a request for a hearing). A prior hearing, said the Court, is required 87 Cong,3d. Sees, p. 8._
days notice and publication ones in the even when NRC has made a Anding that Hus, according to the 1962 F,oderal R n,,,
de sg IBean a propowd amendment involves no amendnients, a mandatory public consideration is prnented by an app!! cation significant hazards consideration and hearing would nolonger be required for an amendment to a construction permit or has detennined to dispense with price before issuance of an amendment to a operating ta:enae. it may disposise with sock notice in the Federal Register. At the construction permit or operating license notim and pubbcation and easy lasse the request of the Commission and the
==aad="
. and a thirty-day prior public notice Department of justice, the Supreme would be required only if the ne Commlulon's precuce with Court agreed to review the Court of amendment involved a "s cant agard to license amendments involving Appeals' interpretation of section 180a.
hazards consideration " In sum, section no significant hazards consideration 189a. of the Act, now provides that.
(unless, as a matter of discretion, prior.. of the Act. He Supreme Court 4
~ mmanded the case to the Court of uponthirty-days noticepublishedinthe nouce wu ginn) we hem b Appeals with instructions to vacate it if Federal Register, the *runmtssion may amendment and then pubush in the it is moot and, ifit is not, to reconsideri r
Ism En opunting Ucenu, w an Federal Register a " notice ofissuance" inlight of the new legislation.
amendment to an operating license, or See i 2.306. In such a case, interested
%e Court of Appeals' decision did '
an amendment to a construction permit, members of the public who wished to not involve and has no effect upon the for a facility licensed under sections ims object to the amendment andrequest a Commision's authority to order or104b.of the Act,or for a testing Hearing could do so, but a request for a immediately effective amendments.
facility licensed under section 104c.'g is hearing did not,by itself, suspend the without prior notice or hearing, when without a public hearing if no hearin effectiveness of the amendment.Hus, requested by anyinterested person.
both the notice and he if one war, the public health, safety, or interest so nquires.See. Administrative Procedars Section 189a. also permits the requested, occurred after
~.-
c Commission to dispense with sudi.
amendment was issued.
Act, section 9(b),5 U.S.C. 55a(c), sectior,
em is a Idle mg tobearin 2( i d ad d
p ca wi re th is of an amendinent to a construcHon significant ha2a consideration" standard.
Court did not alter existing law with' l
permit or an amendment to an operating Whether or not an action requires pr6er.'
regard to the Commission's pleading.
11 cense upon a determination by the
' notica no license and no ameadmaat may be requirings, which are designed to enab' Commission that the amendment issued unless the commission concludes that the Commission to determine whether i involves no significanthazards it provides reasonable assurance that the person requesting a hearing is. In fact, consideration. %ese provisions have pubuc health and safety wit!not lie an " interested person" within the endangered and that the action will not be been incorporated into il 2.106,2.108, inimical to b canmon defense and security - meaning of section189a.--that is whether the person has demonstrated.
50.58(a) and (b) and 50.91 of the or to the beslth and safety of the pubhc.See, standing and identified one or more.
t Commission's regulations-es, 3 so. site). Also, whether or not sa issues to be litigated. See. BPIv. Ates:
%e regulatfons provide for ydor amendment entalla ptior notics, no notice of a " proposed action" on an amendment to any license may be lasued EnerNy Conurdss/on, 502 F.2d 424,428 determinationis made that there is a Commission safety standards.nus, the "no.
(D.C. Cir.1974), where the Court statet j application for an amendment when a unless it conforms to all appDesble that,"Under its procedural regulations '
significant hazards consideration" standard is not unreasonable for the Commissic i significant huards consideration and has ban a procedural standard only.
to require that the prospective provide an opportunity for laterested "
governing whetherpublic notice of a Mem M e b M M,;
members of the public to request a P Posed ac6on must be pmvided,befom &e request for a hearing.
See iI 2.105(*)(3) and 50.91.
action is taken by the Comminalon. In short, hearing'f a requestedlicense Hence,i the "no significant hazards consideration" However, the Commission believed l amendment is found to involve a.
standard has been a notice standard and has that legislation was needed to ch s
I significant hazards consideration, the had no substantive safety 0-nmm other the result reached by the Court !
amendment would not be issued until than that attributable to the esa of prior because of the implications of the after any required hearing is completed notice to the public to the and mquimment that the CommisaIon grar or after expiration of the notice period.
rusonahte opportunity a beartng.
be In addition 150.5a(b) further explains B. The ShollyDec/slon andthe New $ nt a v no significant hazards consideration.The the Commf== ton's hearing and notice at/on c'nmmtaston,s practice of not Caminion believu M since most i procedures, as follows:
requestedlicense amendmentsinvolv I
{roviding an opportunity for a priorearing on a license amen no significant hazards consideration a
%e bn=tsesion wM hold a hearing afta, e
l at least 30 days notice and pubHeation once la the FederalItegister on each appucation involving significant hazards "ch
- '" tine in ""ture, h*aring* '"dis for a construction permit for a production er considerations was held to be improper amendments could result in stiDzation facHity which is of a type in Sholly v.NRC 6512 F.2d 780 (1980), '. or delay in the o rations of nuclear ;
described in I so.21(b) or 5 50.22 or which la' rehearing denied,651 F.2d 792 (1980)-
powerplants an couldimpou 2 testingf
.When a construction permit cert.
fed 101 S.Ct. 3004 (1981)
"8"I". tory burdens upon h and the habun fonoch a fadHty foBowing (Sho In that case the U.S. Court of f,b
)
. 4 3
'.'f
'. ~..
s l.
p-
.p I
L'
~~
~
_l
J i
Feder;l Register / Vol. 48. N5. 87 / Wedneediy.' AprU 8,1983 / Rules cnd Regulation's
-14875
- 1 l
nuclear industry that are not related to amendment made by embeection (a), to leses pubbe comment on a proposed determlaation d
significant safety matters. Subsequently, and to make immediately efective any that a license amendment involves no a j
on March 11,1981, the Commisalon amendment to an operetmg Ucense shan take' signiBcant hazards considmtion reflects the.
1 l
submitted proposed legislation to effect upon ee pmmulgauon by the confuus' intent that, whmm precucable.
Co as (introduced as S. 912) that commission of.the regulations required la the commission should publieh prior notice.
j such r -
ef. and provide for prior pubbe --=' an.
wo expressly authorize it to issue a license amendment before holding a Hus, as noted above, the legis!'ation' p
ruina hearing requested by an interested authorizes NRC to issue and make
.]
- confuees undmund b krm emergency person, when it has made a immediately effective an amendment to struauona" to encompan only bee rare l
determination that no significant an operating license upon a -
casu in which immediam acuos is esosemary U
hazards consideretion is involved in b determination that the amend==nt to pment h shutdown er desting of as at <
amendment.
involves no significant hazards operating commercial mctor... m,
r After the House and Senate conferees consideration, even though NRC has '
Commluton's ngulations should lasm that considered two similar bills. H.R. 2330 before it a request for a hearing from an the " Emergency situations" exception under.
p' and S.1207. they agreed on a unified interested person. At the same time..
section 12 of the confmace asument wilt version (see Conf. Rep. No.97-884. 97th however, the legislative history makes it. not 8pply if the Bcensee has faued to apply
,j Cong. 2d. Sess. (1982)J and passed Pub.
clear that Congress expects NRC to Q*"*orda.
b hid '
b L 97-414. Specifically, section 12(a) of exercise its authority only in the case of not be able to take advantage of the thatlaw amends section189a.of the Act amendments not involving significant emergency itself.To prevent abuses of this.
by adding the following with respect to safety questions. The Conference Report provision, the conferees expect the license amendments involving no statae'
.Commluton te independently aseees 6e.
significant hazards considerations:
W confmace agrwment maintains the Ucensu's nuona for faum to Sie as
((
C80 u!!!dently in advance of the ll y
'd
[2)(A) b Commission may issue ang requinment of the curnnt section tapa.of the um r ng thef ty make immediately eIIective any amendment Atomic Energy Act that a hearing on the g
,7 7
to an operating licene, upon a determination licene amendment be held upon the request by the Commluion that such amendment -
of any person whose interest may be -
I involves no significant hazards consideration, affected.b agreement simply en bortnes C.Nollcefor Ath#c Comment and)br-notwithstandig the pendency before h the Commission, in those cans where the ggg,y Commlufon of a request for a hearing from amendment involved poses no significant J
any person. Such amendment may be issued hazards consideration, to issue the liunse.
De Commission has decided to adopt g
and made immediately effective in advance amendment and eBow i to take effect befom the aqtice procedures and criteria J
of the holding and completion of any required this hearing to held or enspleted.&...
contemplated by the legislation with hearing. In determining under this secuco conferees intend that the Comminion win respect to determinations about no
]
whether such amendment involves no use this authority carefully, applying it only significant hazards consideration. In
[
significant hazards consideration the.
to those license amendments which pose no addition it has decided to combine the Commfuton shall consult with the State in '
significant hazards consideration. Id. at 37.
. notices for public comment on no
?
e t
ed an in this regard, the Senate stressed:
significant hazards considerations with
(
e respe ts e c endme
__g the nquirements of this Act.
Its strong duire to preserve for the public a the notices for opportunity for a hessing.
(B) b Commission shall periodica!!y (but meaningful right to participate in dedstons -
themby, normally providing both prior f
not less frequently than once every thirty
' regarding the commerdal use of nuclear.
notice of opportunity for a hearing and r
days) publish notice of any amendments power. hs, the provision does not dispense Prior notice for public comment of issued, or proposed to be inued, as provided with the requirement for a heartr.g. and the requests it receives to amend operating 1.
In subparagraph (A). Each such notice shall NRC. If requested [by an interested pefson),
licenses of facilities described in I
include all amendments tuned or proposed must conduct a hearing after the license i 50.21(b) or I 50.22 or of testing
[
.e to be issued since the date of publication of amendment takes effect. See S. Rep. No. 97-facilities.
the last such periodic notica. Such notics its. 97th Cong, tot Sess., at 14 (19e34.'
With respect to opportunity for a g
shall, with respect to each amendment or 8 Public notice provision w'as hearing, the Commission would amend
[
proposed amendment (lj identify the fadlity ex[o!alned by the Conference Report as l 2.105 to specify that it could normally.
involved; and (ii) provide a brief description fo ws:
of such amendment.Nothing in this Issue in the Federal Register at least subsection shall be construed to delay the h conferees note that the purpose of monthly a list of" notice of proposed p
effective date of any amendment.
requiring prior notim and an opportunity for actions" on requests for amenaments le (C)b Commfuton shall. during the pub!!c comment before a license amendment operating licenses.%ese monthly ninety day period following the e!!ect ye dets may take effect, as provided in subsection notices would provide an opportunity to f
of this paragraph.promu: gate regulations (2)(C)(ii) for all but emergency pituations,is request a hearing within thirty days.%e establishing (I) standards for determining to allow at least a minimum level of dtizen CommisstU""Uuld alI'tain the whether any amendment to an opersting input into the threshold question of whether license involves no significant hazards the proposed license amendment involves CPtion oflasuing individual notices, as it l
consideration: (U) criteria for providing or. in significant health or safety issues. Wh!!e this seea fit.If the Commission does not emergency situations, dispensing with prior subsection of the conference agreement receive any request for a hearing on an g
notice and reasonable opportunity for public preserves for the Commission substantial amendment within the notice period,it i
comment on any such determination, which flexibility to tailor the notice and comment would take the proposed action when it L
afterie shall take into account the exigency procedares to the exigency of the need for the has completed its review and made the
. of the need for the amendment involved; and license amendment, h conferees expect th*
necessary findings. If it receives such a (111) procedures for consultation on any such content, placement and Hmine of the notice to request,it would act under a new
=
determination with the State in which the be reasonably calculated to allow residents i 50 91* which d88cribes th8 Proceduros facility involved is laceted.
of the area surrounding the faculty an and criteria the Commission would use y
ed tormulste and etion 12(b) of that law specifies get opporju to act on applications for amendments h requirement in subsection 2(C)(ii) that to Operating licenses involving no (b)b authority of the Nuclear Regulatory the Commluton promulgate criteria for significant hazards considerations. (De Commission. under the provisions of the providing or dispensing with prior notice and interim final rule on " Standards for n
s
~
-s r
...~
.~
l
.~
~
..y o
^
^
~ 14875 x.
~
Federal Regleter / Vol '48, No. er 'l' Wednesday, ^ pig e,1983 / Rules 'and Regul tions DeterminingWhetherIJcense '
teendasent requests received for*which where it has' determined that no -
AmendmentsInvolve No Signtilcant the Commission is publishing notice significant hasards consideration is Hazards Considerations," published under i1106,it would also provide a involved.no Commiselon wishes to separatelyin the Federal Register, reasonable opportunity for public state in this ressed that any question redes!gnated the present i 50.91 as comment by hting & andall about its staff's determinations on the i 50.91) amendment requests received since the issoe of significant versus no significant Toimplement the main theme of the last such monthly notice, and,like an hazards consideration that may be legislation, undernew I sosi the individualnotice s providing a brief.
description of the(am)endment and of the reind in any hearing on the am Commission would combine a notice of willnot stay the efective date of the opportunity for a hearing with a notice no significant hazar)ds considerationfacility involved.(b noting the for public comment on any proposed
%e Commission beBeves that the determination on no significant hazards determination (c)solicitingpublic procedure just described would be !ts considerstion. Additionally, new I 50.91 comment on the determination, and (d) ' neual way of hand!!nglicense would permit the Commission to make providing for a 30. day comment period.
amendments,because moet of these do an amendment immediately effective in While it is swal blic comment,- not involve emergencyorexigent advance of the holding and completion the Commission w proceed with the situations and do not entall a
~
of any required hearing where it has safety analysla. In this context, the determination that efznificant hasarde determined that no significant hazards Commission wishes to note that, though consideration is invoIved. nese three consideration is involved.Hus, 5 50691 the substance of the public comments situations and other unusual ones could would build upon amended i 2.105, could be litigated in a hearing, when one arise though..,
providing detalls for the system of is held, neither it nor its Boards will Retuming to the initialreceipt of an Federal Register notices. For instance, entertain heary requests on its actions application,if the Commission receives exceptions would be made for with respect to mese comments.it an amendment request and then
~
emergency situations, where no prior believes that & la in keeping with the determines that a significant hazards notices (for opportunity for a hearing
. legislation which states that public consideration is involved,it would and forpublic comment)might be comment cannot delay the effective date handle this request in the same wayit issued, assuming no significant hazards of an amendment.
does now,by issuing anindividual considerations are involved. In sum, this Alter the public comment period, the, notice of proposed action and providing i
system would add a " notice for ptiblic Commission would review the an opportunity for a hearing under I
comment"under 150X1 to the present anmments, consider the safety analysis, l 2.105.no only changeinits present I
system of" notice of proposed action" and reochits final dedston on the under i 2.105 and " notice ofissuance"-
procedure would be that it could notify l
amendment r'equest. Ifit decides that no the public of the final disposition of the under i 2.108. Under this new system.
significant hankrds consideration is amendment by notingits issuanceer the Commhsfon would require an,
involved, it would publish an individual denial in the monthly Federal Register 1
spplicant requesting an amendment to
" notice ofissuance" under i 2.106 or notice instead ofin an individual notice.
i 'I its opersting license (1) to provide its publish the notice ofissuance in its Another possibility might be that the
?
appraisal on the issue of a cant system of monthly Federal Register Commission receives an amendment j,/ }
hazards, using the stan in i 50.22 4
notices, and thus close the public record., request and finds an emergency
}t*
and the examples dhcussed in the Note that the Commission would not y
separate Federal Register notice, and make and publish a final determination - ' situation, where failure 19 oct in a timely e
way would resultin derating se (2),ifitinvolves the emergency or on no significant hazards consideration shutdown of a nuclear power plant.In
- ~
exigency provisions, to address the because such a determination is needed
& case, also discussed laterin.
,, i; features on which the Commission must only if a hearing request is received and connection with State consultation,it ll make its findings. (Both points will be the Commission decides to make the may proceed to issue the license t
discussed later.)
amendment immediately effective and amendment,ifit determines, among 4
When the Commission receives the to provide a hearing after issuance othat things, that no'significant hazards amendment request, as described below, rather than before.
considerstion is involved.In &
it would first decide whether there is an ifit receives a hearing request during circumstance, the Commission might not emergency or an exigency. If there is no the comment period and the necessarily be able to provide forprior emergency,it would then make a Commission has decided that no notice for opportunity for a hearing or
' preliminary decision. called a " proposed significant hazards c~nsideration is for prior notice for public comment and determination "about whether the involved,it would prepare a " final might therefore use its present
}
amendment involves no significant determination" cn that issue, make the procedure, publishing an individual hazards consideration-normally, &
requisite safety and public health notice of!ssuance under 12.10s (which would be done before completion of the fin ~
s, and proceed to lasue the.
provides an opportunity for a hearing safety analysis (also caHed safety amen nt.%e hearing request would after the amendment is issued.)
evaluation). In % determination,it be treated the same way as in previous Additionally, the Commission's monthly t
might accept the applicant's appraisalin Commission practice, that is,by Federal Register notice system would whole orin part or it might reject the applicant's appraisal but, nonetheless, providing any requisite hearing after the note the Commission's action on the reach the same conclusion. -
amendment has been issued. As amendment request and. thereby, explained bdore, the legislation permits provide an opportunity for public At & stage,if the Commission e
the Commlr, ton to make an amendment comment. In connection with emergency decides tha' no signiEcant hazards immediately effective. notwithstanding requests, the Commission expects its ~
t considere tioi is involved, it could issue the pendency before it of a request for a licensees to apply forlicense an individua' Federal Register notice or hearing from any person (even one thst amendments in a timely fashion. It will I
IIst & ameuiment in its monthly publication in the Federal Register %is. meets the provisions for intarvention la decline to dispense with notice artd i 2.714), in advance of the holding and comment on the no significant hazards i
monthly publication would not only IIst completion of any required hearing,'
consideration determination,ifit
}!
i, v
5 d
~
~
.c c
.b...=..--
, =.... _. - ;
j g,
Federal Register / Vol 43, No try / Wednesday, Aprft 6,1983 / Rufes and Regulations '
'sery7 j
)
t
=
determines that the applicant has failed puMic of the Boensee's amendament R shouht also be noted that &ese j
n to make a timely application for the request. in these instances, the procedures only spply to lla==
A'
. cmendment in order to create the Commf==fon will provide the pubhc a applicatians.ne Commission may, %
cmergency and to take advantage of the reasonable opportunity to comment en under axisting Il 2.202(f) and g sos,
~
emergency provision.Whenever a the proposed no significant hasards make a determination that the pubba r
threatened closure or derating is determination.To ensare that the heahh, safety, or interut requires it to Ij Invelved. the Commission expects the comments are received on thma, the order an==-ad=-at without prior cpplicant to explain to it why tWs rhmI==too may also set up in sad a notice for poMic co-mw er r,- -
"1 a
cmergency situation has occurred and situation a toll-free hotline, allowing the opportunity for a bearing. In tido eased
}
why the applicant could not avoid it the puMic to telephone their nnemants to the Commission would foBowits Commission wl!! assess the applicant's NRC on the amendment regneet h present procedure and pubBah an G
a reasons for fa!!ure to file an app!! cation should be noted that this method of
. Individualnotia ofIsenance in the
- j suffidently In advance of that event.
prior notics for pubuc comment wiD be Federal Register and provide fuese is i
StID another possib!!!!y might be that in addition to the routine notice of the opportunity for a hearing on the order.
/*
the Commtamfon receives an amendment amendment in the monthly Fedesel
%1s new system would change only request and fmda an exigency, that is, a Register czmpilation ce to any Se Commlub's noncksprocum R
..E 5
situation other than an emergency individual notice of hearing that mey be where swift action is necessary.ne published;it will not affect the thne would not alter the Commission's 1
legislation, quoted above, states that the available to exercise one's oppm; Q hearing practices. De Commtantos hae 5[
'N Commission should establish critaria to request a bewing, though it may attempted to provide noticing which "take into account the exigency provide that opporten!ty only after the procedures that are administratively cf the need for the amendment."ne amendment has been Issued, when the simpk, involve Seleut cost, dew M
Conference Report, quoted above, points Commission has determined that no entad undue delay, and aBow a
- s cut that "the conference agreement s!gnificent hazards consideration le
- renonaW opportunity forpubbe 1.
preserves for the Commission involved.
comment nevnedess, eey are gehe substantial flexibility to tailor the motica ne Commission wf!! nse these burdensome andInvolve significant
.Y d
cnd comment procedures to the -
procedures sparingly and wants to mak* ruource impacts and timing ddaysfoe the th=tadon and for h=
cxigrney of the need for the license sure that its licensees.wfIl not taka amendment ** and that "the conferees advantage of these pM=ws.
-regnesting amendments.11r=ma===
'0 cxpect the content, pistwment and Derefore, it wGl use criteria. somewhat wodd be aW k redoos &ese ddays, N1 timing of the notice to be reasonaWy similar to the ones it wfD use with under tb4 pro procedures, by
~
3 provfdine to e Comadssba emir calculated to allow residents of the area respect to emergency oftuations, to surrounding the fadlity an adequate decide whether it will shorten the apprataala on se Issue of nienth '
0 re:soned comments., ate and submit comment period and change the type of hazards nas might Mao bices wm
[' M-l opportunity to formul b,
'I ' *d notice normaDy provided. Consequently, to make the moticing procedures simpise and to assure that the - - t Jty for ne Commission beHeves that in connection with requests ind' nting public comment k noMDd.De f Ad 3
e extraordinary situations may arise, an exigency, the Commission expects its short of an emergency, where a bcensee licensees to apply for !! cense Comm!nh h eerekre partiedely cnd the Commission must act quickly amendments in a timely fashion. It wS!
inteiested in comments addressing the
]'1 cad where time does not permit the not chance Its normal notice and public workability ofits proposed noticing Commission to publish a Federal comment practices where it determinas Procedures.
Ml g
Register notice soliciting public that the licensee has falled to u'se its F!nsUy.wie rupect to amadment 73 comment or to provide 30 days best efforts to make a timely applicehon requests received before the lateria f
crdinarily allowed for puh!!c cement.
for the amendm nt in order to meate the Baal rde taku eGect, de Commissho For instance, such a circumstance may exigency and to take advantage of the proposes to kup its present procedurea Pq crise where a licensee, while shutdown exigency provis!an.Whenever a and not provide notice for public 3'
for a short time, wishes to add some licensee wants to use this provision.it comment on amendments requested on A.
component clearly more reliable than will have to explain to the t'ammt ton which the Commission has not acted.
cne presently insta!!ed or wishes to use the reason for the exigency and why the before the effective date of the Interim.
f.I o diffrrent method of testing some licensee carmot evoldit; the Anal rule.
j system and that method is clearly better Commission will assees the licensee's M '# 0 " " M "'
F th.n one provided for in its Techntent reasons for failure to file an application As noted above, Pubile Law 117-415.
i Specifications. In either case, the sufficiently in advance ofits proposed requires the Commission to consult with
! ['
j licensee may have to request en action or for its inability to taka the the State in which the facility involved
[ ?].
cmendment, and,if the Comm!ssw action at some later time.
Is located and to promulgate regulatiana e
determines, among other things, that no Another different circumstance may which prescribe procedures for auch
{
y significant hazards consideration la also present itself to the Commt da.
consultatia:2 on a determination that as.
I, 4 involved.it may wish to grant the Forinstance,it could receive an amendment to an operatinglicanae 3a f
request before the licensee starts the amendment request with respect to involves no migalbat hazards I
Phat up and the opportunity to improve which it finds that itis in the puhuc consideration. De Conference Report,.
y@y tha phnt la lost.-
interest to offer an opp ui Jty for a cited earlier, stated that the confereen 4
in circumstances vocb as the twojoet prior hearing. In this case, it would use expect that the procedures for State 5
described, the Commission may use -
its resentIndividualnotice[md.w consultation would inchia the following p
media other than the Federal Register.
an notify the public about t e final de nata:
f:t example, alocal newspaper disposition of the amendment in a notice (t)%e State would be motified afa I
published near the licensee's facGity, ofissuance or dentalin its monthly licensee's reque.t for an en adm a --
4 h]
widely read by the resirlents in the area. Federal Regis.ter notice.instead ofin an I
[2] ne State would be advised of te su,,ouamg ee raeuiy. ar-m ee midud no a.
- se sa m tsea
-.tr.,s 4
M
/ -
.x.
m a
+...
~.
-. m ~ w..
1 y s
.: - La
- R m
.__u.___._______--_.---:==--
~~;;,
-~~=
,~T
- 14873, Federal Register / Vol 48. No. er / Wednesday. AprG e,1983 / Ruhs and Re'guhtlons "
h)& NRC's proposed determinellen on' whether the license amendment involves as the State oficial designated to consult " Regulatory Analysis
. ~ n M-alanificant hazarde conalderation woeld be withit together with a m1uest to that discuand with the State and the NRC's pwoon k contact &e '.nn-ws-gg he Commission has prepare'd a' ".
r be explained to the State: -
. g,m a any disagmement or conce Regulatory Analysis on these
'~
reasons for making that determ! nation would about its posed determination.Ifit amendments. assessing the costs and (4)h NRC would listen to and consider does not ear from the State in a timely benefits and resource impacts. It may be any comuments provided by the State official manner. It will consider that the State examined at the address indicated designated to consult with the NRQ and has no laterest in its determination--4a
,g, (6)N NRC would make a good faith this regard, the Commission intends to Cueralnotice ofpropped q-attempt to consult with the State prior to.
make available to the designated State. rulema is not retuimd for &ls.
8"uing the licanu amendment.
offidals a list of its Project Managere lakrim mle because &e At the same time, however, the.
. and other personnel whomit has amendmats by their natum concem,.
procedures for State consultation would designated to consult with these rules of agucy procedure and practice..,
not:
offidals-but, nevertheless, before it Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Issues the-amendment. It will tel h Energy Act of1954 as amended, the terbast!
the appropriate State official forkone Energy Reorganization Act of1974, as,.,
f C (2) Cive the State a right to a headng oe the.
Purpose of consultadon, amended. and sections 552 and 553 of NRC determination before the amendment In an emergency situation, the
, 'I1tle 5 of the United States Code, notice _
becomes effective:
Commission would do its best to consult is hereby given that the following (3) Give the State the right to Instet upon a with the State, before it makes a final amendments to10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 postponement of the NRC determination or 8"uance of the amadant or determination about no significant am published as a document subject to
' re hazards consideration, by simply codifiestion.
for setting and enforcing radiological health official before it issues an amendrnant.
gj,g ogg
.j].,
to el respons ility telephoning the appropriate State and safety requirements for nuclear power -
note two points in connection with the Finally, the Commission wishes to JOCPNAnst2 plants.
Administrative practice and In requidng the NRC to exerdse good faith legislative history. First, though the in consulting with a State in determwins Cbmmission intends to give careful procdure. AnUtrust. "-- ' "
" terial.Cla sifiedinf ti de heco taprwided
. ant sa de c e a cori erees recognise that a very limited y
aff ctg Environmental protecti uclear f
number of truly exceptionalcases may arise ques 11on ofno significant huads materials. Nuclear power plants, and when the NRC despite its good faith efforts.
consideration, the State comments are reactors. Penalty, Sex disedmination. -
cannot contact a responsible State official for advisory to the Commission; the Source material.Special nuclear
.I c
purposes of prior consultation. Inability to Commission remains responsible for material. Waste treatment and disposal.
consult with a reponsible State official making the final administrative deciolon ~ 20CFRAarfN fo!!owing good faith attempts should not. 1 on the question.Second. State
- T..
ucense amendment favolving no significant consultation does not alter present Antitnist Classifiedinformation.Ftre prevent the NRC from making effective a
,l..!
provisions oflaw that reserve to the W
Comm!asIon exdus!ve responsIb!Hty fg Nuclear po'wer p7 ants and hazards consideration,if the NRC deems it necewary to avoid the shut-down or detsting 8 y w w pla d atse, Penalty. Radiation protection. Reactor
, and fety ents f ucle el ng cdteda.Reponing mquimments.
,}"y Powerplants.
g
,y PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR specific. Accordingly,it proposes to Paperwork Reductica Act Statement DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS adopt the elements described in the His rule contains a new reporting
- 1. %e authority citation for Part I t's Conference Report quoted above in requirement which the OfBee of revised to read as followsi those cases whereit makes a proposed determination on no significant hazards Management and Budget approved Authodty: Sees. set.1st. es Best. ses, es3.
under OMB No. 3150-0011 for the as amended (42 USC. 2201. 2231): sec.1st. as consideration.Normally, the State Commission's use through April 30.1988, amended. Pub. L 87-e15. 7e Stat. 400 (12 consultation procedures would work as follows. To make the State consultation Regulatory MexiWHty Cerd5cados UAC 2242): we. act, se Stat.1242, as amended (42 USC Seet):s UAC ass.
process simpler and speedier, the in accordance with the Regulatory (Sec. Liot also tuued undw wee. 63. e2.
Commisslon would require an app?icant requesting an amendment to send a
~
Flexibility Act of1980,8 U.S.C.005(b).
es, et.103,1oe,1os, as Stat. sao e32, m3. sas, the Commission certifies that this rule-s3e. 937. 938, as amended (42 Uit :sira, copy ofits appralsal on the question of does not have a significant economic m2. m3. 2111,2233,2tn tus): see. In g. no significant hazards to the State in impact on a substantial number of small et 1 m a3 t.
t$s which the facility involved is located.
entities.This rule affects only the y
g
).
se C
, (%e NRC is compiling a list of State -
licensing and operation of nuclear as72). Sections 2.102, 2103. 2.104.11os. 2.721 officials who have been designated to powerplants and testing facihties.%e also tesued under secs.102,103. toe, tos tea.
tee,e8 Stat.936.937.93e.964.965as consult with it on amendment requests companies that own these plants do not amended (42 USC 2 32.~2133. 2134,2138 involving no significant hazards fall within the scope of the definition of 2233. 2239). section 2.205 also luued under considerstions; it intends to make th!s
small antities** set forth in the Pub. L 97-425. De Stat. 2073 (42 UAC 2230) list available to all its licensees with Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Sections 12m-2.20s also issued under mes.
e
' facilities covered by I 50.21(b) or i 50.22 BusInese Size Standards set out la 1es. 234, es Stat. 955, as Stat. 444, ae amended or with testing facilities.)d send its-regulations issued by the Small Business f
",*'ge.
20s t tade
%e Commission woul Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. Since j,
t Federal Register notice, or other nottoe these ccmpanies are dominant in their inued under sec. t02. Pub. L 91-290. 83 Stat.
la case of exigent circumstances, service areas, this rule does not fall a53, ee amended (42 U.S.C 4332). Sectices containing its proposed determination to within the purview of the Act, 2.700s 1719 also issued under 8 USC 554.
sections 2.754.17eow 1770 also tuned under 5,
3.-
1 cn
-. in 3.
_ h _m.ww,atm ne - e - m rA&E"'W""N'"'"""""""~"~--
kNE$b.
5 b N k5iM M'W M1$@b; v>
- d &.'
_[
~~
~
Federal Register / Vol.'48, No.157 f Wednesday / April 6,1983 / ' Rules and Regulations 14s79 1
US C 557. Sections 2390 also lesued mader 80.102 also fesued mader see. See, es UAC. r issuance, even if adverse pubbe -' " -
comments h' ave been received and eessi sec.103. 68 Stat 936. as amended (42 UAC 965 (42 UAC 223ek) r-2133] and 5 UAC 552. Sectkms 2.800 and
. For the purposee of sec.223,as Stat. sea,as if an interested person he' 2Es also issued under 5 UAC 553Ma'*=
amended (42 UAC 22731. II So,10(al (bk provisions forlatervention d forb
~'-
r,em a!so issved under 5 UAC 853 and occ.
and (c) 80.44,50 46,80.48. 50.54, and Saso(a)
I 2J14 has nld a mquwt for a hear 5 Q, Pub.1.85-256,71 Stat. 579, as amended.
are leaued under sec.181b, et Stat. sea 6 as hen===fasim need hold any m#md (c USC 2039). Appendix A ateo issued amended (42 UAC 2201(b!L iI so.10(b) and ander sec. Sw Pub. L 91-600, et Stat.1473 (42.
(c! and 50.54 are Issned under sec.1811. es hearing only afterit lasues an
' /
USC 2135) m Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(13 and ablendment, unless it determines &at a i.
- 2. In i 2.105 paragraphs (a)(4) through II 50.5 Met so.se(bh sm 5031. 8032, and-significant hasards consideration is -
(.
-u 3038 are lesoed under sec. telo, se Stat. scoL
- hvolved, p
(s)(8) are redesignated as paragrapha as amoded (42 USC 2301(4).
(5) Where the Comminion finda that '
(s)(5) through (a)(9). e new paragraph (s)(4)is added, and redesignated
- 4. A new I 50.91is added to Part 50 to an emergeo :y situation exists, la &at paragraph (a)(6) is revised, as foDows:
read as fo!!aws:
failure to act in a timely way would '-
?
result in ders or sholdown of a M
- "*""*8'"'
~
reclear powehant. It may issue a -
(s)***
license amendment involving no
^I 52.105 statice of proposed acusa.
I 50.89 tactice for pubuc comsment; State ne Com.nission willuse the.
significant hasarde consideration ljcense for a facility liansed under following procedures on an appBcatin without pdor notice and opportunity for
)_
(4) An amendment to an operating l 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or for a testing received after May 6.1983 requesting an a hearing or for public comment. b ses as follows:
amendment to an operating hcense for a a drcumstance, the Commission wiB act i
=
facility,he Commission determinam -
[i)!!t facility licensed under i 50.21(b) or..
. publish a notice of proposed i
ssder i 50.58 that the amendment l 50.22 or for a testing facility:
determination on no significant hazards I'
involves no significant hazards (a)Noticeforpublic comment.-(1) At considerstion, but will publish a notics F -
consideration, though it will provide the time a licusee nquests an.
ofissuance imder i 2.106, providing for -
N notice of opportunity for a hearing.
amendment,it must provide to the..
opportunity for a hearing and for public I
pursuant to this section, it may make b Commission its analysla, neing the comment afterissuance.no b -
a:nendment immediately effective and standards in i 50.92, about the issue of Commisdon expcts its Ecensus b
[]
grant a bearing thereafter; or no significant hazards consideration.
app! forlicense amendments b a '
.+
n (ii)lf the Commission determina, (2) n'e Commission may publish in.
5f. 3 n
ashim. M dah under i 50,58 and i 50.91 that an the Federal Register under i 2.105 either disp with & hw a emergency or exigent situs + ion edsts an Individual no ce of proposy action the determination of no significant i
as to which it m es a ymm gg,,,gg,gg g g
and that the amendment involves no determination that oc signWant that the li ee has failed to make c 1 -
significant hazards considerations,it hazards consideration la involved, or, at will provide notice of opportunity for a timely app tion for the amendment b 4_
hearing pursuant to i 2.106 (if a hearing least mee every 30 days, a monthly order to strate the emergency and to is requested.It will be held after 0fp]
take advantage of the emergency D
a w
!a ad
~ tovision.Whenever a threatened
- d issuance of the amendment)
p closum or denung is inwived, a
]
since the last such monthly notica. For Ucensu mqunung an smudment must j
(6) An amendment to a Br=nma enh amendment proposed to be lasned.
exP ain why this emergency situation l
i specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this either notice will(i) contain the staffa -
section, or an amendment to a occurred and why it could not avoid this
[ '
proposed dekrmbaum,m&r A construction authorization granted in skMada h I 50.92, Wrovide a Maf situ,etion, and the Commission wfD -
p; assess the hcensee's reasons for faDure
} '
roceedings on an application for such a description cf the amendment and of the
' nse, when such amendment would facility involved. (iii) solicit pahhc to file an application sufficientlyin authonze actions which may commenu on b propoed advana of that event.
significantly affect the health and safety determination, and (iv) provide for a 30 (e) Where t'he Commission finds that
- j. i sf thepublic;or day comment period. Normally, tha exigent circumstances exist, in that a i ]
licensee and the Commission most act l
amendment will not be granted until after this comment period expires.
quickly and that time < foes not permit I
PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF (3) The Commission may inform the the CommIss!on ta publish a Federal -
i 3
PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATON public about the final disposition of an Register notice aDowing 30 days far F -
FAC m Es amendment request where it has made a prior public comment. It wilk
~
} -
}mblic in the ana== w==,orm the '
(i) Use localmedia to inf
{ r 3.The authority citation for Part 50 la pnposed determination os no raised to read as foI!aws:
significant hazeeds consideration either ua by issuing an individual notice of ucensee's facility of the licensee's 3[
NC',3$2,M'2,g,a21a3 issuance under i 2.106 or by pub!Ishing amendment request and ofits ymyo d P;
2 2
amended. sec. 234. s3 Stat.1244, as amended such a notice in its monthly system of determination as described in paragraph i -
(42 US C 2133,2134, 2201. 2232. 2233. 223s.
Federal Register notices. In either event, (a)(2)of this section -
- r
[ _
2239. 22a2h secs. 201. 202. 20s, sa Stat.1242, it will not make and publish a final (II) Provide for a reasonable 1m 124a. as amended (42 USC 5641. 5842, determination on no significant hazards opportunity for the public to comment.
f 564ck unless otherwise noted.
consideration, unless it receives a.'
using its best efforts to make available S
sp 10. 92 Stat. 29:1 (42 USC. sast). Sections requeet.
to the pubhc whatever me'ana of (Sec. 301 also tasued under Pub. L 95-601 request for a hearing on that amendment communication it can for the pubhc to' '
3 (4) Where the f'ammfasion makes a respond quickly;,
2 1
4 5.98 Sta Section 5018 atso issued under sec.122. es-final determination that no significant (lii) Pub!!sh a notice of issuance andar I
C Stat. s39 (4.1 U3 C 2152) Sections 50 80-50.41 hazards consideration is involved and I 2.106 providO : an opportunity for a
_v s!so issued under sec.184. Se Stat 954, as that the amendment should be issued, hearing and for public comment after,
amuded (42 USC 2234k Sections 80.100-the amendment will be effective upon l Issuance,ifit determines that the E
5,
,.5;f...
.;Y
- ~
i.*
,,s.
h i
7....-..
p.. -.
s 14880-
' Federal Register / Vol 48, No. ey / Wednesday. AprG 6,1983 / Rules and Regulations f
amendment involves no signiBeant (1)To voto the a-ni in 's
- 3. Aplanotfas ofwlsions.
~'
r Jtaguladon. Regulation E contains hazards consideration.
proposed determination:
(iv) Require an explanation from the (2)To a he on the determination certain provisions that describe the licensee about the reason fer the before the amen t becomes relationsh!p between the rules governing exigency and why the licensee cannot effective: or
.. ' electronic fund transfers and Regulation avoid it, and use its normal public notice (3)Toinsist upon a postponement of Z (Truth in landing). nese provisiona.
and comment procedures in paragraph the detunination or upon issuance of coverissuance of access devloes, (a)(2) of this section where it determines the amendment; I 205.5(c)(tXii) and 205.s(c)(2MI):
that the licensee has failed to use its (4)Nor do these procedures alter liability for unauthorized transfers, - -
best efforts to male a timely application present provisions oflaw that reserve to 3 205.6(d)(1)(1): documentat' ion of.
for the amendment in order to create the the Commission exclusive responsibility transfers, i 205.9(b)(3); and procedures exigency and to take advantage of this for setting and enforcing radiological for resolving errors, t 205.11(1).De procedure.
bealth and safety requirements for changes set forth below relate to the (b) State consultation.-(t) At the nuclear power plants-updating of Regulation Z sectional time a licensee requests an amendment.
Deted at washington, D.C. this 4th day of references.Dese changes are needed it must notify the State in which its Apro, sees. -
because Regulation Z sections were facili is located ofits request by for the Nuclear Regulatory r'a -whia
' redesignated when the Board revised provi to that State a copy ofits s
I).chinr.
Regulation Z, pursuant to the Truth in application and its analysis about no SecrosaryArthe Casudssion.
Ianding Simplification and Reform Act.
significant hazards consideration and of1980.
p,
,,% m,,,,
indicate on the application that it has Comunenfary. %Is is the first periodic a-done so. (ne Commission will make update to the Official Staff Commentary on Regulation E, which was pub!Ished in available to the licensee the name of the September 1981(46 Mt 46876). Rose appropriate State official designated to.
FEDERA1.RESERVESYSTEM l,
changes were proposed for comment on receive such amendments.)
, State ofits proposed determination -
12 QFR Part 205 February 2,1983 (48 FR 40$7).Some of (2)Ds Commisslon will advise the the revisions to the commentary relate g"*8' j
to amendments to the regulation about no significant hazards e
consideration normally by sending it a Ehetronic Furid Transfus; Technical Published on October 12,1982(47I R copy of the Federal Register notice.
Amendments and Update to Official 44706).Other changes respond to 3
(3)%e Commission will make Staff Commentary various questions that have arisen available to the State oscial designated concerning Regulation E since the
' to consult with it about its proposed AGENCY: Board of Covernors of the..'
commentary was originally pubilshed.
determination the names qf the Project Federal Reserve Systense Questions that are being added between Manager or other NRC personnelit
. ACTIOst Final rule and omcial staff existing questions are designated ".5"-
designated to consult with the State.no interpretation.
for example, question 2-5.5 belongs after
'M Commission will consider any
, question 2 3.
comments of that State official.Ifit does suusw.no Board is adopting It is contemplated that future updates not hear from the State in a timely technical amendments to Regulation E. to the commentary willbe published manner,it will consider that the State
. (Electronic Fund Transfers) to conform annually, unless circumstances dictate has no interest in its determidation; certain provisions that refer to -
more frequent revision.ne staff nonetheless, before it issues the Regulation Z (Truth ih landing). nese expects to publish the next proposal in amendment it will telephone that ofBcial changes reflect redesignated sections in November 1963 for a 60 day comment for the purpose of consultation.
revised Regulation Z. n!s notice also neriod, and to issue a final version in the (4)De Commission will make a good contains changes to the omcfal staff 11rst quarter of1984.
faith attempt to consult with the State commentary, which applies and i
inte rets the requ!(ements of IJet of Subjectsin12 CFR Part 208 before it issues a license amendment R
anon E.
involving no significant hazards Banks, banking. Consumer protection, consideration. If, however, it does not amCTTVE DATE:Aprill,1983.
Electronic fund transfers. Federal have time to use its normal consultation P0n runTkER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Reserve System.
procedures because of an emergency.
John C. Wood or Jesse B. nikins, Senior
- 3. 7' ext ofregulatoryterlslons.
l situation,it will ettempt to telephone the Attomeys, or Gerald P.Hurst. Staff Pursuant to the authority grantedin appropriate Strte official. Inability to Attorney, Division of Consumer and Section 904 of the Electronic Fund.
consult with a ersponsible State cmcial Community Affairs, Board of Governors Transfer Act (15 U.S.C.1893 et seq.), the fo!!owing good faith attempts will not of the Federal Reserve System.
Board amends Regulation E 12 CFR Part prevent the Commisolun from making Washington, D.C. 20551, at (202) 452-effective a license amendment involving 2412 or (202) 452-3867.
205, by revising il 205.5(c)(1)(ll).
205.5(c)(2)(1), 205.6(d)(1)(l), 205.9(b)(3),
no significant hazards consideration, if sumzMcNTAny NroRMATIcet and 205.11(l) to refer to the revised j
the Commission deems it necessary to 1.Genem1. %e Electronic Fund sections of Regulation Z, to read as -
avcid a shutdown or derating.
Transfer Act (15 U.S.C.1893 et seq.)
follows:
(5) After the Commission issues the '
governs any transfer of funds that is requested amendment,it will send a electronically initiated and that debits l 205.5 leeuence of accese devlosa.
copy ofits final determination to the,
or credits a consumer's accouat.His State.
statute is implemented by the Board's (c)lle/ation to 7hith la Lendlag (1) f.
(c) Caveats about State consultoilon.
Regulation E (12 Cnt Part 205).De De State consultation procedures in Board's staff has also issued an omcial (11) Addition to an accepted credit paragraph (b) of this section do not give commentary that interprets tbs card, as defined in 12 Cnt 226.12(a)(2),
g the State a right:
regulation (EFT-2).
footnote 21(Regulation Z) of the.
j
.i L
- ~
- yi
,,L ? ( { ^..
~
[
.i
) - - -,
..-. -nasus,ingevy r +sws.arie swamurrsrurwes gr;.'zmmeurs.gry5 gym