ML20155C201
Text
.
1 o ' O((qsm ue,9 s \\'
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY C'OMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 r,
- $ n y
-(
March 29, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
, Chairman Palladino commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine k
Herzel H. E. Plaine, General Counsel FROM:
/
SUBJECT:
SHOLLY REGULATIONS - SECY-83-16B (ENCLOSURE 3)
'At last Friday's Commission meeting we made two substantive comments regarding the rulemaking notices in SECY-83-16B.
It was requested that we summarize the comments.in writing, which relate to the treatment of (1) amendments having irreversible effects, and (2) NRDC's comment on the proposad rule.
We do so below and attach to this paper revisions to :ht Sholly regulations jointly developed by this office and ELD wnich partially answer OGC's
(
concerns.
(1)
Irreversible Amendments The Sholly legislative history is very clear that, while
" irreversibility" is not the equivalent of "significant hazards consideration", the Commission is to be especially careful in examining amendments with irreversible consequences under the "no significant hazards considerati'o6" statutory criterion.
Two examples' of such " irreversible" amendments are offered in the legislative history -- an amendment authorizing operation with less than the full complement of safety systems operable, and an amendment authorizing an increase in allowable radioactive effluents from normal operation.
Joint Explanatory Statement of conferees at 32, 38; Cong. Rec. S 13506, S 13292 (Oct. 1, 1982),
H 8823, 8825 (Dec. 21, 1982).
The proposed response to this concern is set forth in the rule preamble at page 24.
The two examples cited in the legislative history are included in the preamble's listing of amendments likely to involve a significant hazards consideration.
However, it is not at all clear how the effluent increase example fits within the rule itself, which is controlling over the examples and which, as drafted, does not appear to contemplate that any effluent increase could ever fail the "no significant hazards consideration test".
[
Contacts:
Martin G. Malsch, OGC, 41465 Michael B. Blume, OGC, 41493 gO41 402 060327 2 45FH20491 PDR
7-b(
2 i
(2)
NRDC Comment
(
N.
NRDC filed opposing comments on the proposed rule in 1980.
It
' argued that the ' proposed rule impermissibly intertwined.the determination of "no significant hazards consideration" with the ultimate decision on the merits of the amendment itself -- the "no undue risk" finding.
NRDC argued in support of this view that despite the commission's ostensible intent to use the three proposed criteria regarding probabilities and consequences of accidents, types of accidents, and margins of safety, NRC safety evaluations do not contain any useful information on the probabilities or consequences of particular accident sequences, do not categorize " types" of~ accidents, and do not specify
" margins of safety."
Because NRC reviewers would have no meaningful information on which to make conclusions based on
.these criteria, NRDC argued, the criteria were meaningless and would lead NRC reviewers to conclude simply that if an amendment was safe, then-it presented no significant hazards consideration.
The comment is equally applicable to the draft final rule since the text of the proposed and draft final rule are nearly the same.
Moreover, Congress agreed with the essential premise of the NRDC comment -- that the no significant hazards consideration statutory criterion should not be confused with the no undue risk standard for the merits of the amendment.
E.
., S. Rep. No.97-113 at 15; Joint Explanatory Statement o onferees at 37.
e, However, the notice of rulemaking does not respond to this NRDC comment.
NRC has an obligation to respond to comments of this sort.
Part of the response can be found in the legislative history which, on the Senate side, includes the following colloquy discussing the NRC's proposed rules:
Mr. DOMENICI....... Indeed, prior to the court decision NRC had already p,roposed regulations to which I have referred.
NRC's s'pproach is a tough one which ap;' ears responsible [ sic) to the expressed int'ention of the conference report that its standards should to the extent practicable draw a distinction between those
'i amendments which do or do not involve a "significant hazards" determination.
Accordingly, I would like the l
gentleman's assurance that nothing in the bill or conference report is intended to relax or in any way l
restrict the stringent standards which NRC has in the past and now proposes to continue to apply in making such determinations.
r
. Mr. Simpson.
You have my assurance.
My friend from i
New Mexico is indeed correct.
l Cong. Rec. S 15315 (Dec. 16, 1982).
See also H.R. Rep. No.
97-22, Part 2 at 26; 5. Rep. No. 97-lTT at TE.
(
Nowever, ultimately NRC must use its own technical judgment in analyzing and responding to the comment.
i I
J
(
3
,q o
As noted.above, we have, discussed both of these concerns with
-[
staff, reaching full agreement on the first problem (see s
Enclosure at 24-28,38), and partial agreement on the second (see Enclosure at 17-18).
Our partial agreement on the second problem can be seen from a review of the revisions to the "Sholly rule" preamble (at 17-18), where an argument similar to that set out above, which relies on Congress' awareness and apparent endorsement of the, proposed standard to respond'to the NRDC comment, has been added.
However, the staff could not agree with us that a technical justification for the 50.92.(no significant hazards consideration) criteria in response to the NRDC comments was both possible and necessary.
We realize that it may'be late at this point to put such a statement into the interim final rule.
Hence, we recommend that the Commission request the staff to draft a technical response to the NRDC comment within a week so that the commission will have time to evaluate it for use in the preamble to the eventual final rule.
We make this recommendation in light of severe judicial criticism in several recent review proceedings for.doing a poor job in drafting technical and policy justifications for rulemaking decisions.
If we leave the Sholly rule in its present form, it could inspire similar criticism.
Attachment Revision to SECY-83-16B, cc:
OPE SECY ELD s
6 e
s a
N
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f411SS10ft
/
1 %.I V
10 CFR Part*50 A
Standards for Determining Whether License Amendments Involve tio Significant liazards Considerations AGEtiCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Interim fir 31 rule.
SUtttARY: Pursuant to Public. Law 97-415, NRC is amending its regulations to specify standards for determining whether requested amendments to operating licenses for certain nuclear power reactors and testing facilities involve no significant hazards considerations. These standards will help NRC in its l
evaluations of these requests. Research reactors are not covered _. y llowever, the Comission is reviewing the extent to which and the way such,y i
standards should be applled to research reactors EFFECTIVE DATE:
The Comission specifically requests comments on this interim final rule by
- Concents received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to concents received on or before this date.
- /
30 days following publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. This footnote will be deleted af ter the Conmission has acted.
(
.~.
,s 4
e
,2 -
ADDRESSE6.A Written comments should be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission, Washington, D. C. 20555, A':tention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of the documents discussed in this notice and of the connents received on the proposed rule and interim final rules may.be examined in the Cont.!ssion's Public Document
' Room at 1717 H Street, N.W, Washington, D. C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian Esq., Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, o
D.C. 20555. Telephone:
(301)492-8690.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INTRODUCTION
~
Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, NRC must promulgate, within 90 days of enactment, regulations which establish (a) standards for detemining whether an amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards considerations. (b) criteria for providing or, in emergency situations, for dispensing with prior notice and reasonable opportunity for public connent on any such detemination, and (c) procedures for consultation on any such determination with the State in which the facility involved is located.
Proposed regulations to specify standards for determining whether amendments to operating licenses or construction permits for facilities licensed under il 50.21(b) or 50.22 (including testing facilities) involve no significant e
L
r-e
..3 hazards considerations (item (a) above) were published for comment in the FEDERAL REGISTER by the Commission on March 28,1980(45FR20491). Cince the Comission rarely issues amendments to construction permits and has never issued a construction permit amendment involving a significant hazards consideration, it has decided not apply these standards to amendments to construction permits and to handle these case-by-case. This is in keeping with the legislation which applies only to; operating license amendments.
Additionally, these standards will not now be applied to research reactors.
The Comission is currently reviewing whether and how it should apply these or similar standards to research reactors.
In sum, the interim final rule will amend Part 50 of the Commission's regulations to establish standards for determining whether an amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration.
The rule takes account not only of the new legislation but also the,
public, coments, received on the proposed rule.
For the sake of clarity, I
affected prior legislation as well as the Commission's regulatiens and practice are discussed as background informatic1.
Simultaneously with the promulgation of these' standards in i 50.92, the Comissioni-as-required-by-the-new-legisla44en, is publishing an interim final rule which contains criteria for providing or, in emergency situations, for dispensing with prior notice and reasonable opportunity for and public' coment on a determination about whether an amendment to an operating licenseinvolvesasignificanthazardsconsideration(ites(b)above).
This rule also specifies procedures for consultati'on on any such a O
r.
, fy l-(:
-.4 -
~.
determination with the State in which the facility involved is located (item (c)above). The rule appears separately in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
f i
4 These regulations are issued as final, though in interim form, and comments will be considered on them. They will become effective 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL' REGISTER. Accordingly, interested persor:
l who wish to comment are encouraged to do so at the earliest possible time,
\\
but not later than'30 days after publication, to permit the fullest 1
consideration of their views.
BACKGROUND A..
Affected Lecidation. Regulations and Proceiures When the Atomic Energy Act of 19,54 (Act) was adopted in 1954, it
,(
contained no provision which required a public hearing on issuance of a.
construction permit or operating license for a nuclear power reactor in the absence of a request from an interested person.
In 1957, the Act p
was amended to require that mandatory hearings be neld before issuacce of both a construction permit and an operating license for power rea; tors and certain other facilities. Public Law 85-256 (71 Stat. 576) amending i 189a. of the Act.
The 1957 amendments to the Act were interpreted by the Comnission as requiring a " mandatory hearing" before issuance of amendments to construction permits and operating licenses.
(See, n, Hearing Before the Subcosmittee 'on Legislation, Joint Connittee on Atomic Energy, 87th
{
Cong., 2d. Sess. (April 17,1962),p.6.) Partially in response to the administrative rigidity and cumbersome procedures ivhich this O
v e
.8 -
(
N request a hearing could do so, but a request for a hearing did not, by itself, suspend the effectiveness of the amendment. Thus, both the notice and hearing, if one were requested, have occurred after the amendment was issued It is aise very important to bear in mind that there is no intrinsic safety
{
l significance to the "no significant hazards consideration" standard.
Mhether or not an action requires prior notice, no license and no amendment may be issued unless the Comission concludes that it provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered and that the action will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. See, e.g.,550.57(a). Also, whether or not an amendment entails prior notice, i.
'i no amendment to any license may be issued unless it conforms to all applicable Comission safety standards. Thus, the "no significant hazards consideration" standard has been a procedural standard only.
governing whether public notice of a proposed action must be provided, before the action is taken by the Comission.
In short, the "no l
significant hazards consideration" standard has been a notice standard l
and has had no substantive safety significance, other than that attributable to the process of prior notice to the public and reasonable opportunity for a hearing.
B.
The Sholly Decision and the New Legislation The Commission's' practice of not providing an opportunity for a prior j'
hearing cn a license amendment not involving significant hazards considerations was held to be improper in Sholly v'. NRC, 651 F.2d 780
= - - - - -
P
.N 9-(
(1980), rehearing denied, 651 F.2d 792 (1980), cert. granted 101 S.Ct.
3004(1981)(Sho11y).
In that case the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that, under section 189a. of the Act.
NRC must hold a prior hearing before an amendment to an operating license for a nuclear power plant can become effective, if there has been a request for hearing (or cn expression or interest in the subject matter of the proposed amendment which is sufficient to constitute a request for i
ahearing). A prior hearing, said the Court, is required even when NRC
[
has made a finding that a proposed amendment involves no significant p
hazards consideration and has determined to dispense with prior notice
{
in the FEDERAL REGISTER. At the request of the Comission and the Depart-ment of Justice, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals' l
[
'(
interpretation of section 189a. of the Act. The Supreme Court has not
~
yet-astederemanded the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to resensider-4t-in-14ght-ef-the-legislatten, vacate it if it is moot and, k
if it is not, to reconsider its decision in light of the new legislation.
I r..
The Court of Appeals' decision did not involve and has no eff,ect upon the Comission's authority to order immediately effective amendments, without
=
prior notice or hearing, when the public health, safety, or interest so requires. See, Administrative Procedure Act, t 9(b), 5 U.S.C. I 558(c),
{
section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act, and 10 C.F.R. 59 2.202(f) and 2.204.
Similarly, the Court did not alter existing law with regard to the y
Comission's pleading requirements, which are designed to enable the f
Comission to determine whether a person requesting a hearing is, in fact.
an " interested person" within the meaning of section 189a. -- that is,
}
h
-.umme i e
r
~ ~
., s-(,
\\
whether the person has demonstrated standing and identified one or more issues to be litigated. See, BPI v. Atomic Energy Comission 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C. Cir.1974), where the Court stated that, "Under its procedural regulations it is not unreasonable for the Comission to require that the prospective intervenor first specify the basis for his request for a hearing."
However, the Comission believed that legislation was needed to change the result reached by'the Court in Sholly because of the implications of the requirement that the Comission grant a requested hearing before it could issue a license amendment involving no significant hazards consideration.
The Comission believes that, since most requested license amendments involving no significant hazards consideration are routine in nature, prior
(
hearings on such amendments could result in unwarranted disruption or delay in the operations of nuclear power plants and could impose regulatory burdens
'upon it and the nuclear industry that are not related to significant safety matters. Subsequently, on March 11, 1981, the Comission submitted proposed legislation to Congress (introduced as S.912) that would expressly authorize it to issue a license amendment before holding a hearing requested by an interested person, when it has made a determination that no significant hazards consideration is involved in the ainendment.
After the House and Senate conferees considered two similar bills, H.R.2330 and S.1207, they agreed on a unified version (see Conf. Rep. No.97-884, 97thCong.2d.Sess.(1982))andpassedPublicLaw97-415.
Specifically, section 12(a) of that law amends section 189a. of the Act by adding the 1'
._-...m y
- -, -,- ----+ -.-
.s, 7
following with respect to license amendments involving no significant hazards consideration:
(2)(A) The Comission may issue. and make 'imediately effective any amendment to an operating license, upon a detemination' by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Comunission of a request for a hearing from any person.
Such amendment may be issued and made imediately effective in advance of the holding and -
completion of any required hearing.. In determining under this section whether such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
the Comission shall consult with the State in which the facility involved is located.
In all other respects such amendment shall meet the requirements of this Act.
(B) The Comission shall periodically (but not less frequently l
than once every thirty days) publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, as provided in subparagraph (A).
Each such notice shall include all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, since the date of publication of the last such periodic notice. Such notice shall, with respect to each amendment or proposed amendment (1) identify the facility involved; and (ii) provide a brief description of such amendment..Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to delay the effective date of any.
f
, \\'
(C) The Commission shall, during the ninety-day period amendment.
following the effective date of this paragraph, promulgate regulations establishing (i) standards for deterinining whether any amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration; (ii) criteria for providing or, in emergency situations, dispensing with prior notice and reasonable opportunity for public coment on any such determination, which criteria shall take into account the exigency of the need for the amendment involved; and (iii) procedures for consultation on any such deterinination with the State in which the facility involved is located."
Section 12(b) of that law specifies that:
t (b) The authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under the provisions of the amendment made by subsection (a), to issue and to make imediately effective any amendment to an operating license shall take effect upon the promulgation by the Comission of the regulations required in such provisions.
Thus, as noted above, the legislation authorizes NRC to issue and make immediately effective an amendment to an operating license upon a deterinination that the amendment involves no significant hazards
.s 9
-._,,,,,e
,v.
...ee
-,.w~~,,.r.r
---,e n--,---,-.,
f
-.._.m.m V
(
\\"
consideration, even though NRC has before it a request for a hearing from an interested person.
At the same time, however, the legislative history makes it clear that Congress expects NRC to exercise its authority only in the case of amendments not involving significant safety questions.
The Conference Report states:
The conference agreement maintains the requirement of the current section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act that a hearing on the license amendmenf be held upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected. The agreement simply authorizes the Comission, in those cases where the amendment involved poses no significant hazards consideration, to issue the license amendment and allow it to take effect before this hearing is held or completed. The conferees intend that the Commission will use this authority carefully, applying it only to those license amendments which pose no significant hazards consideration.
Id. at p. 37.
d In this regard, the Senate stretsed:
its strong desire to preserve for the public a meaningful right to participate in decisions regarding the commercial use of nuclear power. Thus, the provision does not dispense with the requirement
- for a hearing, and the NRC, if requested [by an interested person],
must conduct a hearing after the license amendment takes effect.
S,. Rep. No.97-113, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 14(1981).
It should be also noted, in light of the previous discussion about the coupling of the decision on the merits of an amendment with the decision about when to notice the amendment, that Section 12 of Public Law 97-415, by providing for prior public notice and coment, in effect uncouples the determination about prior versus post notice from the determination about whether to issue an amendment.
In sum, the Commission is promulgating as an interim final rule the
, proposed standards in i 50.92 for determining whether an amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards ' consideration. and it
= -..-
y, m
,_.y..
r.
^
r-
. (
V is publishing separately an interim final rule to establish (a) procedures for' noticing operating license amendment requests for an opportunity for a
. hearing (b) criteria for providing 'or, in emergenc'y situations,. dispensing with prior notice and reasonable opportunity for public coment on any proposed determination on no significant hazards consideration, and (c) procedures for consulting with the requisite State on any such detemination.
INTERIM FINAL RULE ON STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER AN AMENOMENT TO AN OPERATING LICENSE INVOLVES NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS 1
AND EXAMPLES OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED LIKELY OR NUT LIKELY TO INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT HAZARD 5 CONSIDERATIONS A.
Petition and Proposed Rule j
The Comission's interim final rule on standards for detemining whether an amendment involves no significant hazards consideration completes,its actions on the notice of proposed rulemaking (discussed above), which was issued in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM 50-17) submitted by letter to the Secretary of the' Comission on May 7,1976, Mr. Robert Lowenstein.
For the reasons discussed below, the petition is denied. However, the Comission is promulgating standards, as intended by the. petitioner, though not the standards petitioned for.
(PRM-50-17 was published for comment in the FEDERAL REGISTER on June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24006)). The staff's recommiendations on this petition are in SECY-79-660 (December 13,1979).
The r;otice of proposed l
rulemaking was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on March 28, 1980 (45 FR 20491). The staff's recommendations on the interim final rule are in SECY-81-366, 81-366A, 83-16,83-16A and 83-168.
(These documents are available for examination in the Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, 5
N.W. Washington,D.C.)
o 9
e
-ee
,e-
.r a
w.---
-- __..-----,-i m,
,------.,y-.-w-,-,
,,---vertre e -
-t.m-v+wme--
-+m--
-rt--
- n
~l s
14 -
q Q"
The petitioner requested that 10 C.F.R. Part 50 of the Commission's regulations be amended with respect to the procedures for issuance of amendments to 1
operating licenses for production and utilization facilities.) The petitioner's proposed amendments to the regulations would have required that the staff take into consideration (in detemining whether a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration) whether operation of the plant under the proposed ticense amendment would (1) substantially increase the consequences of a ' major credible reactor accident or (2) decrease the margins of safety substantially below those previously evaluated for the plant and below those approved for existing licenses.
Further, the petitior er proposed that, if the staff reaches a negative conclusion about bot 3 of these standards, the proposed amendment must be considered y
- l not to involve: a significant hazards consideration.
~
-In issuing the proposed rule, the Comission sought to improve the licensing process by specifying in the regulations standards on the meaning of no significant hazards consideration. These standards would t
have applied to amendments to operating licenses, as requested by the petition for rulemaking, and also to construction pemits, to whatever extent considered appropriate.1. As mentioned before, the Commission now believes that these standards s culd not be applied to amendments to construction pemits, not only because construction pemits do not normally involve a significant hazards consideration but also because such' amendments are very rare; the proposed rule has been modified accordingly.
Additelonally,;the Cosmiysion is reviewing the extent to which and the way
-.(
standards shculd be apqlied to research reactors. The Commission will handle e
. ~. - -
p is -
.{
s case-by-case any amendments requested for construction pemits or for research reactors with respect to the issue of significant hazards considerations.
In the statement of considerations which accompanied the proposed rule, the Comission explained that it did not agree with the petitioner's proposed standards because of the limitation to " major credible reactor accidents" and the failure, to include accidents of a type different from those previously evaluated.
During the past several years the Comission's staff has been guided, in reaching its deteminations with respect to no significant hazards consideration, by standards very similar to those now described in
./
~
(
this interim final rule as well as by examples of amendments likely to involve, and not likely to involve, significant hazards considerations.
These have proven useful to the staff, and the Comission employed them in developing the proposed rule. The notice of proposed rulemaking contained standards proposed by the Comission to be incorporated into Part 50, and the statement of considerations contained examples of amendments to an operating license that are considered likely and not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration.
The examples were samples of precedents with which the staff was familiar; they were representative of certain kinds of circumstances; however, they did not cover the entire range of possibilities; nor did they cover every facet of a particular situation. Therefore, they had to be used together with standards to-be-applied-where-the-examples-were-not-definitive in deteminig
(
whether or not a proposed araendmentinvolved significant hazards considerations. #
h O
e 4
n
.,m___
.,_.m
w w
l
+
jc
- }6 -
, -f.
\\
De three standards proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking were whether the license amendment would: (1)involveasignificantincreasein I
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated,'(2) t create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated
- previously, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Before responding to the specific comments on the proposed rule, it should I
be noted again that it was structured so that the three standards would have l
been used to decide not only whether the Cossiission would publish prior notice l
of an amendment request (as opposed to notice after the amendment was issued) f I
but also to decide whether to grant an opportunity for hearing before issuance 4
of the amendment (as opposed to granting the opportunity after issuance). As explained before, the standards were not meant to be used to make the ultimate decision about whether to issue an amendment -- that final decision is a public health and safety judgment on the merits, not to be confused with the I
decisions on notice and reasonable opportunity for a hearing.
l I
As-a result of the legislation, under the final rule the three standards would no longer be used to make a deteminatior about whether or not to 5
issue prior notice of an amendment request. A.s fully described in the t
separate FEDEPAL REGISTER notice mentioned before, the Coinnission has fomulated separate notice and State consultation procedures that will l
provide in all (except emergency and some exigent) situations prior notice of amendment requests. The standards and the examples will usually be limited to a proposed detemination and, when a hearing request is received.
to a final determination about whether or not significant hazards 4
i
{
m,, _.
.. a
.....r.--.a.-
~ _. a
~
e.
V' '
considerations are involved in connection with an amendment and, therefore, whether or not to offer an opportunity for a hearing before an amendment is issued.
The decision about whether or not to is' sue an amendment is meant to remain one that, as a separate matter. is based on public health and safety.
B.
Comments on the Proposed Rule 1.
General i
-Nine persons submitted comments on the petition for rulemaking and nine persons submitted comments on the proposed amendments.
The comments on the petition are in SECY-79-660. The connents on the proposed rule are in SECY file PR-2, 50 (45 FR 20491). A summary of the connents and initially-proposed responses to the comments are in SECY-81-366, available for examination at the Commission's Public Document Room.
In light of the legislation, the T.
Commission has decided to make its approach more precise (as described below) and has, therefore, revised its response to the connents. The new response is found in SECY-83-16A and 83-16B.
One of the connenters stated that all three standards are unclear and useless in that they imply a level of detailed review of amendment applications far beyond what the staff normally performs.
It is the Commission's considered judgment that the standards have been and will continue to be useful in making the necessary reviews. Moreover, the Connission believes t
that the standards when used together with the examples will enable it t'o make the requisite decisions.
In this regard, it should be noted that Congress was more than aware of the Connission's standards and proposed C
their expeditious promulgation.
For example, Senate Report 97-113, cited above, stated:
I J
e l
z.
-}8-f.
A
... the Comittee notes that the Comission has already issued for >ublic coment rules including standards for deterinining whet ter an amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
tee Comittee belietes that the comission should be able to build upon this past effort. and it expects the Coannission to act expeditiously in promulgating the required standards within the time specified in section 301 Li.e., within 90 days after enactment].
Id. at 15.
Similarly, the House noted:
The comittee amendment provides the Commission with the authority to issue and make immediately effective amendments to licenses prior to the conduct or completion of any hearing required by section 189(a) when it determines that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. However.the authority of the Commission to do so is discretionary, and does not negate the requirement imposed by the 5 holly decision that such a hearing, upon request, be subsequently held. Moreover, the Comittee's action is in light of the fact that the Comission has already issued for public-comment rules including standards for determining whether an amendment involves no significant
/
hazards considerations. The Consnission also has a long line of
(
case-by-case precedents under which it has established criteria
. for such determinations....
H.R. Rep. No. 97-22 (Part 2) 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 26 (1981) (Emphasis added).
A number of comenters recommended, in regard to the second criterion in the proposed rule, that a threshold level for accident consequences (for example, the limits in 10 C.F.P. Part 100) be established to eliminate insignificant types of accidents from being given prior notice. This comment was not accepted. Setting a threshold level for accident consequences could eliminate a group of amendments with respect to accidents which have not been previously evaluated or which, if previously evaluated, may turn out after further evaluation to have more severe consequences than previously evaluated.
i It is possible, for example, that there may be a class of license i
amendments sought by a licensee which, while designed to improve or 1
~ _ - _ _ _, -. _ - _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. _
... - -. _ ~.
.z, increase safety muy, on balance, involve a significant hazards consider-ation because they result in operation of a reactor with a reduced safety margin due to other factors or problems (i.e., the' net effect is a reduction in safety of some significance). Such amendments typically are also proposed by a licensee.as an interim or final resolution of some significant safety issue that was not raised or resolved before issuance of the operating license.- and, based on an evaluation of the new safety issue, they may result in a reduction of a safety margin believed to have been present when the license was issued.
In this instance, the presence of the new safety issue in the review of the proposed amendment, at least arguably, could prevent a finding of no significant hazards consideration, even though the issue would ultimately be satisfactorily resolved by the issuance ~of the amendment.
Accordingly, the Connission added to the list of examples considered likely to involve a significant hazards consideration a new example (vii).
~
When the legislation described before was betng considered, the Senate Committee on Environment and Pubile Works commented upon the Connission's proposed rule before it reported S.1207.
It stated:
The Connittee recognizes that reasonable persons may differ on whether a license amendment involves a significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the Connittee expects the Connission to develop and promulgate standards that, to the maxinum extent practicable, draw a clear distinction between license amendments that involve a significant hazards consideration and those that involve no significant hazards consideration. The Connitttee anticipates, for example, that consistent with prior practice, the Connission's standards would not.pennit a "no significant hazards l
consideration" detennination for license amendments to permit reracking of spent fuel pools.
Id., at p. 15.
i.'
The Connission agrees with the Connittee "that reasonable persons may differ on whether a license amendment involves a significant hazards consideration" e
w
r
. A' and it has tried "to develop and promulgate standards that, to the maximum extent practicable, draw a clear distinction between license amendments that involve a significant hazards consideration and those that involve no significant hazards consideration." The Connission believes that the standards coupled with the examples help draw as clear a distinction as practicable.
Therefore, It has decided not to include the examples in the text of the rule in addition to the originsi standards, but, rather, to keep them as guidelines under the standards for the use of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The Connission wishes licensees to note that when they consider lice e amendments outside the examples, falling-within-the-examples-of-amendments li kely-to -i nv olv e-s i gn 4 fi sa nt-ha,m a rds -se n s i de ra tions-e r-net-falli ng-wi thi n-a ny
'(.
of-the-examples-but-only-within-the-standards, the Connission may need additional time for its detennination on no significant hazards considerations; far-astian-en-amendments-of-this-typet thus, they should factor this information into their schedules for developing and implementing such changes to facility dasign and operation.
The interim final rule thus goes a long way toward meeting the intent of the legislation.
In this regard, the Conference Report stated:
The conferees also expect the Comission, in promulgating the regulations required by the new subsection (2)(C)(1) of section 189a.
of the Atomic Energy Act, to establish standards that to the extent practicable draw a clear distinction between license amendments that involve a significant hazards consideration and those amendments that involve no such consideration.
These standards should not require the'NRC staff to prejudge the merits of the issues raised by a proposed license amendment. Rather, they should only require the staff to identify those issues and determine whether they C
involve significant health, safety or environmental considerations.
These standards should be capable of being ap' plied with ease and
~
i certainty, and should ensure that the NRC staff does not resolve
7
=... -. _... - -
_ _ ~.
~
O O
doubtful or borderline cases with a finding of no significant hazards consideration. Conf. Rep. No.97-884. 97th Cong., 2d Sess.
at 37 (1982).
This-statement-should-be-read-in-14ght-of-the-prev 4eus-discussien, It should be noted that tt.e Comission has attempted to draft standards that are as useful and as clear as possible, and it has tried to formulate exarrples that will help in the application of the standards. These final standards are the product of a long deliberative process. As will be recalled, standards were submitted by a petition for rulemaking'in 1976 for the Comission's consideration. The standards and examples 4n-this-inter?m-final rWie are as Clear and Certain as the Comission can make them -- and, to repeat the Conference Report, "should ensure that the NRC staff does not resolve doubtful or borderline cases with a finding of no significant hazards consider-(
\\
ation." 'The Comission welcomes suggestions from the public to make them clearer and more precise, recognizing, in the Senate Comittee's words, "that reasonable persons may differ on whether a license amendment involves a sig-nificant hazards consideration."
With respect to the Conference Comittee's statement, quoted above, that the " standards should not require the NRC staff to prejudge the merits of the issues raised by a proposed license amendment," as will be recalled, it has been the Comission's general practice to couple the determination about prior versus post notice with the determination about issuanee-of-an amendmentt provision of a prior hearing versus a hearing after issuance of the amendment; thus, occasionally, the issue of prior versus post notice l
was seen by some as including (neluded-with a judgment on the merits about o_f, issuance of an amendment.
in-the-same-sentextr Consequently, one comenter f
.. - = =- := = a -
w 2-(
'n suggested that application of the criteria with respect to prior notice in many instances will necessarily require the resolution of substantial factual questions which largely overlap the issues which bear on the merits of the license amendment. The implication of the comment was that the Commission
. at the prior notice stage could lock itself into a decision on the merits.
Conversely, the coseenter stated that the staff, in using the no significant
~ hazards consideration startdards, was reluctant to.give prior notice of amendments-because its determination about the notice might be viewed as constituting a negative connotation on the merits.
In any event, the legislation has made these consnents moot by requiring separation of the criteria used,for providing or dispensing with public t
~ '
notice and cossnent on no significant hazards consideration determinations
~
from the standards used to make a determination about no significant
-hazards consideration.
Under the legislation, the Consnission's criteria for public notice and comment would not be the same as its standards on the determination about no significant hazards consideration.
In fact, theCommissionwillnormallyprovidepriornotice(forpubliccommentand for an opportunity for a hearing) for each operating license amendment request.
therebyr-normally-uneeupling-44s-determinattens-about-prier-versus post-nettee-from-4ts-determinations-about-4ssuanse-of-the-amendment, (The Connission's criteria on public notice and comment are discussed in the separate FEDERAL REGISTER notice noted before.) Additionally, the Commiss' ion believes that use of these standards and examples will help it reach sound decisions about the issues of significant versus no significant hazards considerations and that their use would not prejudge the merits of a decision.
9
-+a
,n w---
w-
,n,,wm,,,,
,-----,---,--,-,-m,
,_------.---w----r--_..--
..__m._.m-l
.r.
[
- 23.-
about-heiding-as-opposed-to-not-heiding-a-prier-hearing-en-a-requested amendment, It holds this belief because the standards and the examples are merely screening devices for a decision about whether to hold a hearing before_
(
as opposed to after en amendment is issued and cannot be said to pre, judge the Connission's final decision,to issue or deny the amendment request. As explained above, that decision is a separate one, based on separate public health and safety findings,
[ N# f / M AdW P 2.
Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools ReturningtotheSenateCommiteeReportnotedafovewithrespecttothe issue of a reracking of a spent \\ fuel pool, the dommission has been providing or a prior he! ring on amendment requests prior notice and an opportunity
~
, (.
involving this issue.
The Connis ion has not been prepared to'say, though
~
that, as a technical matter, a rer cking sh uld necessarily be treated as involving a significant hazards con \\ideratIon.
The Congress has addressed this subject. As shown by_ the legis ati e history of Public Law 97-415, i
+
Section 12a, the Congress was aware he Connission's practice in these i
. cases and wanted it to continue.
(Th report on the Senate side has been t
-quoted above; the discussion in the se is found at 127 Cong. Record H8156,Nov.5,1981.)
In light of this legislative history, th Connission has decided that it would put its previous practice o a morek formal footing. Therefore, as L
a matter of policy, it will inc1 de rerac inn in i 2.105 of the rule, and, thereby, continue to provi both pri r notice and an opportunity
[
]
t f,a prio, hearing.
i l
I
[
2 Additionally, it should be noted that under section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, an interested party may request a " hybrid" hearing rather than a formal adjudicatory hearing in connection with reracking, and may participate in such a hearing, if one is held.
The Commission will publish in the near future a FEDERAL REGISTER notice describing this type of hearing with respect to expansions of spent fuel storage capacity and other matters concerning spent fuel.
e G
O 6
- Mv O
e S
S I
(
l Addit enally, it should be noted that under section 134 of the Nuclear Waste 2, an interested party may/
Policy Act
,e request a " hybrid" hearing rather than-a-formal-adjudisate arin in~ connection with reracking, and may participate in,such a hearingpif o held. The Comission will publish
/
in the near future a FEDE.RAL REGISTER notice descr Sing-thi of hearing with respect to expans' ions of spent fuel storage capacity and other matters concerning spent fuel.
3.
Amendments Involving Irreversible Consequences The Conference Report stated:
The conferees intend that in determining whether a proposed license amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Comission should be es'pecially sensitive to the issue posed by license amendments that have irreversible consequences (such as those permitting an increase in the amount of effluents or radia-tion emitted from a facility or allowing a facility to operate for a period of time without full safety 3rotections).
In those cases, issuing the order in advance of a learing would, as a practical matter, foreclose the public's right to have its views considered.
In addition, the licensing board would often be unable to order any substantial relief as a result of an after-the-fact hearing. Accordingly, the conferees intend the Comission be sensitive to those license amendments which involve such irreversible consequences.
(Emphasisadded) Id. at 37-38.
This statement was explained in a colloquy between Senators Simpson and Domenici, as follows:
Mr. DOMENICI.
In the statement of managers, I direct attention to a paragraph in section 12, the so-called Sho11y provision, wherein it is stated that in applying the authority which that provision grants the NRC should be especially sensitive to the issue posed by license amendments that have irreversible consequences."
Is that paragraph in general, or specifically, the words " irreversible consequences" intended to impose restrictions on the Cosmission's use of that authority beyond the provisions of the statutory language? Can the Senator clarify that, please?
,c-
.=.
25 -
Mr. SIMPSON.
I shall.
It is not the intention of the managers that the paragraph in general, nor the words " irreversible
' consequences," provide any restriction on the Commission's use of that authority beyond the statutory provision in section 189a.
Under that provision, the only determination which the Connission must make is that its action does not involve a significant~
hazard.
In that context, " irreversibility" is only one of the many considerations which we would expect the Commission to consider.
It is the determin; tion of haz'ard which is important, not whether the action is irreversible. Clearly, there are many irruversible actions which would not pose a hazard. Thus where the Commission determines that no significant hazard is involved, no further consideration need be.given to the irreversibility of that action.
L Mr. DOMENICI.
I thank the Senator for the clarification.
That is consistent with nt readings of the language...
134 Cong.
Rec. (Part II) S.13056 (laily ed. Oct.1,1982).
The statement was further explained in a colloquy between Senators Mitchell and Hart, as follows:
Mr. MITCHELL. The portion of the statement of managers discussing section 12 of the report, the so-called Sho11y.
provision, stresses that in determining whether a proposed amendment to a facility operating license involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commisison "should be especially sensitive... to license amendments that have irreversible consequences."
Is my understanding correct that the statement j
means the Connission should take special care in evaluating, for possible hazardous considerations, amendments that involve irreversible consequences?
Mr. HART. The Senator's understanding is correct. As you know, this provision seeks to overrule the holding of the U.S.
Court of Appeals fcr the District of Columbia in Sho11y 'against Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
That case involved the venting of idioactive krypton gas from the damaged Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor -- an irreversible action.
As in this case, once the Connission has approved a license amendment, and it has gone into effect, it could prove impossible to correct any oversights of fact or errors of judgment.
Therefore, the Connission has an obligation, when assessing the health or safety implications of an amendment having irreversible consequences, to insure that only those amendments that clearly raise no significant-hazards issues will take effect prior to a public hearing.
Id. (Part III) at S.13292.
e
,.....-m..
,..,,,-.,,-_-_---..me_..,.
._,.,_.,.yv.r
.,r_-
-~.-,..-,..,_,,-,,m
- In light of the Conference Report and colloquies quoted above, the Comission wishes to note that it will make sure "that-only those amendments that clearly raise no significant hazards issues will take effect prior to a public
[
s hearing."
It will do this by providing in 5 50.92 of the rule that it will review proposed amendments with a view as to whether they involve irreversible consequences; if one does (by, for example, permitting a significant increase in the amount of effluents or radiation emitted by a nuclear power plant), the Comission may treat it as involving significant hazards considerations.
In this regard, 4t-has-deelded-te-add-the-twe examples-deser4 bed-in-the-Genferenee-Repert-te-4ts-list-ef-examples, in-5-59,92(a),--Aseerdingly,-a-mew-example-(viii)-has-been-added-te-the 14st-ef-examples-in-5-59,92(a)-and example (iii) has-been-revised-te makes clear thati-as-a-matter-ef-pWbl4e-peliey, an amendment which involves sush-4rrevers4ble-eensequences-as-fin-example-(v444-a-signifieant-4nerease in-the-ameunt-ef-effluents-er-radiatien-a-faeility-emits-er-as-(4n-revised example-{444}}-allewing allows a plant to operate at full power during which one or more safety systems are not operable would be treated in the same way as the other examples cons 1dered likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. Eaeh-amendment-request-falling-within-these-twe-examples / ' w4ll-be-examined-ea refully-by-the-Gemissien-4n-light-ef-the-appliean tis - I speeff4e-e4FeWmstaneese i Finally, it is once again important to note that the examples in-5-59,92(b)(1) and-(b)(2) do not cover all possible examples and may not be representative of all possible preblems and concerns. As-preblems-are-reselved-and-as As new information is developed, the Comission will refine these examples and
r: L - -add new examples, in keeping with the standards in 6 50.92 of the interim final rule -- and, if necessary, it will tighten the standards themselves. .The Commission has lef t the proposed rule intact to the extent that the rule states standards with respect to the meaning of "no significant hazards L ' consideration." The standards in the interim final rule (new-5-50,92(e}} are substantially identical to those in the proposed rule, though the attendant language in new % 50.92 as well as in 5 50.58 has been revised (1) to make the determination easier to use and understand.3-(2}-te-4neerperate-the-examples -(formerly-4n-the-preamble-ef-the-prepesed-ruleh-4nte-the-rule-(E-59,92(b)(1) and-(b}(2}}-4n-erder-te-better-earry-eut-the-4ntent-ef-the-legisla44en,-(3} and-te-ensure-eens4steney-between-the-interim-final-rule-and-the-preposed-rule, To supplement.the standards that are being incorporated into the Commission's regulations, the examples will be incorporated into the procedures of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, a copy of which will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room. EXAMPLES OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED LIKELY TO INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS ARE LISTED BELOW Unless the specific circumstances of a license amendment request, when measured against the standards in % 50.92, lead to a contrary conclusion, then, pursuant to the procedures in 5 50.91, a proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under 6 50.21(b) or 5 50.22 or for a testing facility will likely be found to involve
g significant hazards considerations, if operation of the facility in accordance with the prc00 sed amendment involves one or more of the following: (1) A significant relaxation of the criteria used to establish safety limits. (ii). A significant relaxation of the bases for limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation. (iii) A significant relaxation in limiting conditions for operation not accompanied by compensatory changes, conditions, or actions that maintain a commensurate level of safety (such as allowing a plant to operate at full power during a period in which one or more safety systems are not operable). (iv) Renewal of an operating license, S s . (v) For a nuclear power plant, an increase in' authorized maximum core power level. (vi) A change to technical a.pecifications or other NRC approval involving a significant unreviewed safety question. (vii) A change in plant operat on designed to improve safety but which, due to other factors, in fact allows plant operation with safety margins ef-seme significantly reduced from those believed to have been present when the license was issued. (v444}--Revaeking-ef-a-spent-fuel-sterage-peel, l (v444}--permitting-a-significant-4nerease-in-the-ameent-ef-effluents er-radiatien-emitted-by-a-nwelear-peWer-plan %, != l-i I l
m- -..=; - - -- .=- m _ m. r-29 - EXAMPLES OF AMEN 0MENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED NOT LIKELY TO INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS ARE LISTED BELOW Unless the specific circumstances of a license emendment request, when measured against the standards in i 50.92. lead to a contrary conclusion then, pursuant to the procedures in i 50.91 a proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or for ,a testing facility will likely be found to involve no significant hazards i considerations, if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involves only one or more of the following: I i (1) A purely administrative change to technical specifications: l for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature. f (ii) A change that constitutes an additional limitation. t restriction, or control not presently included in the technical I specifications: for example, a more stringent surveillance requirement. l -(iii) For a nuclear power reactor, a change resulting from a .I nuclear reactor core reloading, if no fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the technical specifications and regulations are not significantly changed, and that NRC has previously found such methods acceptab'le. ~ O e .ew w,-am-,,v--,., ,,,,c --,e,-,wme--,w aw-- --*---,r--,w-- a,_e-p.----,e,------m_s,w
F , (iv) A relief granted upon demonstration of acceptable operation from an operating restriction that was imposed because acceptable operation was not yet demonstrated. This assumes that the operating restriction and the criteria to be applied to a request for relief have been established in a prior review and that a ii r d the criteria krL 4 6.' fuker.'I~ h - ~ ^ " % (., '. T .-:d;..y JM,'/,'q t.- (v) Upon satisfactory completion of construction in connection with an operating facility, a relief granted from an operating restriction that was imposed because the construction was not yet completed satis-factorily. This is intended to involve only restrictions where it is peronamily ~ y ;.-'f4 bf' '+s O whether construction has been completed sa'.is-factorily. (vi) A change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan: for example, a change resulting from the application of a small refinement of a previously used calculational model or design method. (vii) A change to make a license conform to changes in the regulations, where the license chang.1 results in very minor changes to facility operations clearly in keeping with the regulations. (viii) A thange to a license to reflect a minor adjustment in ownership sha:'es among co-owners already shown in the license.
y t .( x ~ Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule contains no new or amended requirements for record keeping, reporting, plans or procedures, applications or any other type of information collection. Regulatory Flexibility Certiff cation In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Consission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants and testing facilities. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 'k or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 C.F.R. Part 121. Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this rule does not fall within the purview of the Act Regulatory Analysis The Connission has prepared a regulatory analysis on these amendments, assessing the costs and benefits and resource impacts. It may be examined at the address indicated above. P'ursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974, as amended, and Sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, notice,is hereby given that the following amend-e 9 9
( 4 g .-J, 35 - PART 50 -- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 4. The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 103, 104,-161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42U.S.C.2133,2134,2201,,*232,2233,2236,2239,2282); secs.201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, asamended(42U.S.C.5841,5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted. 'Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, see 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sections 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. \\' 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 and 50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100 50.102 also issued under sec. 186, 68 U.S.C. 955 (42 U.S.C 2236). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), il 50.10(a), (b), and (c), 50.44,50.46,50.48,50.54,and50.80(a)are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); il 50.10(b) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, asamended(42U.S.C.2201(1));andil50.55(e),50.59(b),50.70,50.71, 50.72, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42U.S.C.2201(o)). D -, ~..,. -m .r,_,,_...,._.,
s n., '. s \\ i - 36.- l 5. In i 50.58, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: 550.58 Hearings and report of the Advisory Commiittee on Reactor Safeguards. (b) The Consiission wjl1 hold a hearing after at least 30-days' notice and publication once in the FEDERAL REGISTER on each application for a construction permit for a production or utilization facility which is of a type described in 550.21(b) or 550.22 of this part, or which is a testing facility. When a construction permit has been issued for such a facility following the holding of a public hearing and an application is ( ~ made for an operating license or for an amendment to a construction j permit or operating license, the Conuifssion may hold a hearing after at least 30-days' notice and publication once in the FEDERAL REGISTER, or, l in the absence of a rec,uest therefor by any person whose interest may be affected, may issue an operating license or an amendment to a construction permit or operating license without a hearing, upon 30-days', notice and publication once in the FEDERAL REGISTER of its' intent to do so. If the Commission finds, in an emergency situation, as defined in 5 50.91, that no l significant hazards consideration is presented by an application for an amendment to a-senstewstion-permit-er-te an operating license, it may dispense w'ith public such notice and publication and comunent and may issue the amendment. If the Commission finds that exigent circumstances exist, as described in 5 50.91, it may reduce the period provided for public notice and comunent. Both in an emergency situation and in the case of exigent
,... s . <... t - [ circumstances, the Comission will provide 30 days notice of opportunity for a hearing, though this notice may be published after issuance of the amendment if the Celenission determines that no significant hazards considerations are involved. The Comission will use the standards in l 5 50.92 to detemine whether a significant hazards consideration is 1 presented by an amendment to an operating license for a facility of the type described in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22, or which is a testing facility, f, and may make the a'mendment imediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideratibn is involved. ') 6. Section 50.91 is redesignated as i 50.92 and revised to read as follows: i 50.92 Issuance of amendment. 1 (a) In determining whether an amendment to a license or construction pemit will be issued to the applicant, the Commission will be guided by the consider-ations which govern the issuance of initial licenses or construction permits to the extent applicable and appropriate. If the application involves the material alteration of a licensed facility, a construction permit will be issued prior to the issuance of the amendment to the license. If the amendment involves a significant haza'rds consideration, the Comission will give notice of its proposed action pursuant to i 2.105 of this chapter before acting thereon. 4 [.. 4- -A a t gna g, sq-g t -7 3engM "".ar* _._.__r2-L_t-h-----"
f ,. ?. e ~ t i,,.., . x a M-l s.n. The notice will be issued as soo9 as hjecticable after the application has $, l' been docketed. ,. s.- The Comission will be particulirl' sensitive'to a license amenenent (b) y y,. request that involves irreverdible consequeirces (such as one that, for example, pemits a significant increase in the amount of' effluents or ' radiation emitted by a nuclear Iower plantL rd = t.e.:.m... n t f::: a= is 4+ ' ;:'c;;;,:,./ r;. - - Whde;tS 1 _ .i @ The Comission may make-a final determination, pursuant to the procedures in i 50.91, that a proposed amendment to an operating license 3 for a facility licensed under i 50.21(b)~or i 50.22 or for a testing 1 facility involves no significan~ti haznrds considerations, if opera' tion of ![ the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: t,t (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident l-from any accident previously evaluated; or u (3) Involv'e a significant reduction in a margin of safety. li 9 Dated at Washington, D.C. this-day of _ 1983. r f ~. For'the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. . 5amuel J. Chilk ( Secretary for the Commission 4 T. -}}