ML20198C178
| ML20198C178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PROC-981231, NUDOCS 9812210341 | |
| Download: ML20198C178 (47) | |
Text
.. .- - - . .- - - - .. ... - _ . .. - . - - - . -_-
y
/
2 United States ,
1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Guide for Processing License l Amendments 4
f I
D '\\
i i
f e
- c}
i, t
F h
Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4 p, p @" )
i R$0ldENEcieni6eEi955 e
210142 9812210341 981231 a PDR DEG NRRA
- PDR ,
Contents Acronyms....................................................................... iv 1.0 In troducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . 4 -.................................. . .................. 1.1 1.2 Process Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 2.0 Work Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-2.1 Obtain TAC Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.2 Review Application for Completeness and Acceptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.3 Search for Precedent Licensing Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.4 De velop Work Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.4.1 Scope of Revie w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.4.2 Resources to be Used in the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 2.4.3 Schedule of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.4.4 Schedule Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13 2.5 Work Request Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13 3.0 Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1
- 3.1 Normal (30-Day) Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.2 Emergency Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3.3 Exigent (15-Day) Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.4 Exigent Local Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Guide for Processing License Amendments Page i t.
- ' 'W 4 '
J d.
4.0 S afety Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 1
4.1 Evaluation Planning and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 1
4.1.1 PM Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 4.1 4.1.2 Technical Staff Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 4.2 4.1.3 Contractor Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 4.2 Use of Precedent Safety Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 t
4.j $[ E $75Hdfd$$ C W E % $ $ @ d 3 M M E ydE 3 E {3 R{fdsj
\
) J, swa . f g+ { .F KM yy ,
in latory Co.-
4(.4;Regu),94yWuf' T.p(%fy.g7,g]g '-m17., '( M a' +M.y , KTV E
th;yd {,yyyggL'fj'&.M.0whmads}F.h[Mk(gMdifal'f P gof '3'3L4.x 4.4 Safety Evaluation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... ........... . 4.4 4.4.1 Introduct i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 4.4.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... 4.4 4.4.3 Eval uati on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5
, 4.4.4Other............................................................ 4.5 1
} 5.0 Review and Concurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 5.1 6.0 Amendment Preparation and Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 l
.f Attachment 1 - Work Request Form and Instmetions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 i
i
. Attachment 2 - Safety Evaluation Form and Content Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2 1 1
4 Attachment 3 - Amendment Routing Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 3-1 Pageii Guide for Processing License Amendments
\
Figures 1 Work Process Flow for License Amendment Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 2 License Amendment Work Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 3 PM's Guidance for Amendment Package Review and Concurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 4 Planning Strategy Guidance for Levels of Application-Precedent Similarity and Review Technical Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 ;
1 l
l l
Tables j 1
1 1 Guidance for Estimating Application Review Hours of Effort ......................... 2.9 2 Routine and Maximum Amendment Completion Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.12 l
1 i
i Guide for Processing License Amendments Page iii
. . . ~ . .
Acronyms ADM~ Office of Administration ADT Associate Director for Technical Assessment CBLA Cost Beneficial Licensing Action CFR- Code of Federal Regulations S 55 5 5 E5 5 5 N 5 tilRE bisiERsFEdriitsi"EiKdisil DRP Division of Reactor Projects EA - Environmental Assessment FR Federal Register LA Licensing Assistant LAN local area network NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation N"C E Nodco.- Rceae. Regniemii S.Rj E.. loa.ei; NSHC no significant hazards consideration NSHCD no significant hazards consideration determination O&A Oath and Affirmation OGC Office of the General Counsel OL- Office Letter PD Project Director or Project Directorate Pageiv- Guide for Processing License Amendments
POLR L;ccnac Rcnc..! m;d Co.ov.m~..;.1 Rc..
P.e; sci 0;iccieteic PDR public document room E $5tidWu5sIMi!iiMFfKd[
PM Project Manager
.PMSO Pim.imig,P.vgcen.,m.d M.nerumn; S yyu t 0.m.cl.
RAI - request for additional information E
^
fi$iE[ni M il M M
=r 3, .i .._i.c .o...~..; of ::c .._c ,~. ...m._c SB Safety evaluation SECY Office of the Secretary of the Commission SPSB Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch SRP Standard Review Plan SRP/TRS Standard Review Plan / Text Retrieval System
.STS. Sundard Technical Specifications TAC te chnical assignment control TB- Technical Branch
-TS Technical Specifications TSB Technical Specifications Branch UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report WISP Workload Information and Scheduling Program Guide for Processing License Amendments Pagev i
I,
1.0 Introduction This guide provides staff in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Nuclear Reac-tor Regulation (NRR) with a basic framework for processing license amendment applications *. The guide is for use by Project Directors (PDs), Project Managers (PMs), Licensing Assistants (LAs), and their management; as well as Technical Branch (TB) staff and management. This guide provides a general description of the process that is expected to be followed. However, it is recognized that amendments are reviewed and issued under various conditions that require flexibility in the planning and execution of application reviews. This guide is intended to allow that necessary measure of flexibility.
1.1 Objectives The objective of this guide is to help NRR enhance its efficiency in responding to the needs of both the licensees and the public. Specific objectives include the following:
ensure the public health and safety are maintained reduce inconsistency in processing oflicense amendments
.* improve inthrnallahd'exterrial communications.
- increase technical consistency for similar licensing actions e
reduce delays in the issuance of license amendments [i@MNIdd?did tEjEdifinTeillIdfriifEd
$$siMiddlitioEtEIefinifyislIIIMfy66iidj@!NONiedhidi
$5 M} lid [tEd$AII$dif9AlkISFElijs]@iidhIAidi provide NRR staff with an improved framework for processing license amendment applications.
1.2 Process Overview The approval or denial of license amendment applications is part of a continuous process of managing issues related to nuclear power facilities. The review oflicense amendment applications is one of the primary mechanisms for regulating changes in the licensee's operation of their facility. Project Managers, IIdEniddisritiE63 tid and licensees should be in regular contact to discuss NRC's ongoing reviews and other regulatory matters requiring NRC review and approval. Freq'uhdt ahlekly (1) Other some guidance in this document may be relevant to the processing of conversions to the improved Standard Technical Specifications and for the renewal of operating licenses in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54, separate processes end staff guidance govern the disposition of these types oflicensing actions.
Guide for Processing License Amendments Page1.1 N
GERMiiM64QQE li@EikifjEdsh'Qj$faiyNEM
~
Rii66Li@liclitib&d The PM's role in the license amendment process is to manage the NRC's review of the application, either by performing the review or overseeing the review performed by other NRC staff. The PM ensures that these guidelines associated with Office Letter (OL) 803, " Technical Specifications Review Procedures"
[
and the principles of good regulation are adhered to throughout the process. I%i6Et'M IIndicE15SicE~stiffsijoEi[@[fo7reMM8Nk'UEIcis'tEMM Sh50Eing'.AIfiie'rf6 Mise ~ph$dThe process employed for amendment request applications can be characterized by the subprocesses in Figure 1:
a work planning a public notification and comment resolution -
= evaluation of proposed amendment a document conclusion in safety evaluation
= amendment preparation a review and concurrence
= amendment issuance.
Each of these subprocesses is described in more detail in the following chapters. Chapter 2.0 discusses the work planning process, Chapter 3.0 discusses the public notification process, Chapter 4.0 discusses the safety evaluation (SE) process, Chapter 5.0 discusses the review and concurrence process, and Chapter 6.0 discusses the amendment preparation and issuance process.
NRR staffinvolved in processing license amendments should identify any possible improvements to this guidance and submit suggestions to their management or the contacts listed for OL 803.
Page 1.2 Guide for Processing License Amendments
1 i
Amendment Application
, V 1 r l
$- ' M M "O initial Envi # P gg 4 Consideration i
1 r 1 r l
Safety ,
Public Evaluaton
, Comment Resolution i
1 r Amendment Preparat'on h
. Review and concurrence 1 r Public Notircauon of lasuance 1 r Amendment Figure 1. Work Process Flow for I.icense Amendment Requests Guide for Processing License Amendments Page1.3
V 2.0 Work Planning Planning the processing of an amendment application is a critical step in ensuring that the work is com-pleted in a timely and effective manner. As in most planning activities, the basic questions to be addressed are Who?, What?, and When? His section describes a series of five steps that should be addressed by PMs in developing an amendment review work plan.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the five steps in planning to process an amendment application. Rese steps are:
- 1. Obtair, a technical assignment control (TAC) number through the workload information and schedul-ing program (WISP). His provides 2 means of billing the licensee and tracking the work.
- 2. Yy"hicTill[EritillIM review the application to ensure that it contains all required informatic.n.
$ggss{$by v f. 56%jifthlUnit@WEofW"6"
~ '
~
EdinicAl }/M If the application is not complete or acceptable, the PM should initiate attempts to resolve the problem (s). If the issues cannot be resolved, the PM should notify the licensee regarding amendment application deficiencies or the possible withdrawal of the application. The staff can also issue a notice of denial ifdTafliEAdIdiltRM,i[E lASEeE M ddnT M $ ildl/SOfdliid.
- 3. Afte determining that an lication is complete &J &ayaucKM75IMMhUiti ptaffgeview3[flut _.. .. , identify, assess, and review information about precedents set by similar licensing actions.
- 4. Review the arsendment and related information in sufficient detail to develop a work plan that defines the scope, W resources, and schedule of the remaining work. l
- 5. If TB review is requested, prepare a work request form to achieve and document a mutually agreed-upon work plan. The PM should ensure that key elements of the work plan are captured in the WISP
. system.
The remainder of this chapter provides guidance concerning the performance of each of these five plan-ning activities. Figure 2 also includes a step related to performing the required environmental assessment of the proposed license amendment. Additional information related to the staff's responsibilities for environmental assessments is contained in OL 906.
2.1 Obtain TAC Number
'l Technical Assignment Control numbers are used to categorize work and determine fee recovery. The -
Division ofInspection and Support Programs (DISP) within NRR routinely issues guidance for obtaining TAC numbers. Procedures and responsibilities for obtaining TAC numbers through l
Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 2.1
T 1.
Obtain TAC Number 1 r 2.
Review Application 1 r Complete No No Retum to go, Resolved Licensee Yes It' Yes EA Required PrNre g-
% : J 1 r 3.
Search for Procedents 4.
Develop Work Plan 1r 5.
Update Amendment Tracidng Form Figure 2. License Amendment Work Planning Process WISP are detailed in the "NRR Office Workload Procedures Manual" attached to OL 303 (Oe/m 1992). When obtaining the TAC number, the PM establishes the priorityIAFs'EfiEdiileToi h~vT5kf5f of the amendment application (see Section 2.4.3).
Page 3.2 Guide for Processing License Amendments
- . - .= . _ = _ . _ - .- - - _ - . _ - . .- . _ _ - - . _
2.2 Review Application for Completeness and Acceptability After the PM requests a TAC number and typicallyMithinde" e ETdil5%$YedIptif the apjlicitio6, th.e task of
- ~ reviewing the amendment a..n.-. , ,. . ~ - - . application
, for, ,complete
_ , _ ness
.n. m should n begin n. with help,,,
from,. an LA.
Th,e.PM,may involve th,e tech,mcal branches,in th,is imtsal review of the appbcation b_ased on,its tech,nical p.s v:
pompidIlh The minimal requirements for applications are described in 10 CFR 50.30,50.90,50.91, 50.92 and 51.22. $3olibNihg"guiddiich higlishis~iinh5r'f@fitsdie'5ilidisTthIt'ihEidYon6E Ebs 5 Mi iEdilijdlIEresnihg' fiftES$IUillEEEsefinhe$dnisnt'applicationiIfiEpiniddiM.y proch,sShe.-
u ..~. . ~.4,,,
..,.m.. . . - ,
._. guidance.is not im mterpretation or.substitutelgp w
m . al requirements'of. 511IN.m.y
. -~
If.vn ioJegulations,Lnor d=oes the gu,idance.itself mnm n. ,
w nn. .an n,n
- na lute.reqmrementekmney constituteelements an abso..t . .
m'an conformmg MEITi plIditids i includ5 thbse list'ed beldW:
oath and affirmation (O&A) m., w a n. . . .. , .. .m n ,
= .,
ilesen,p, tion.of the ame v .. .ndment (in,cludmmg discussions on the.c,o,wnn.-mn.w .ntent of the currentlicense c iiAiij
$h'dilibif of.iedhnical spe' ihe'atidnMe propsi5d m_ . ~ . . -
h,.0Ra t relates to plant ~ equipment and/or o_per%.atmg procedmuresawli5tl n w,n n
. mm _ . - ,
EhanfETaidi,,vhEM
,a temporary or
.. w .
..~.~ - - . mnn permanent change,n and t e,ffect of the change'on the purpose of,thw
. , he. s.n. . m speci e technica Iv n :.fication or licEn's e EEndition' Involved') .
licensee'.s safety analysis / justification for proposed change M55iiddiT5(idEn current v.nn . -v.licensmg
~
. - . ~ w ,.
biisis.- :that is pertinent to the change:(m.gm-
-- . e.ggcodes3ta . ,
v.
segula, tory. guides, or ida,r6Eun.
ilt's5dild REvifN'PJ56]SRP) sedtiolis)EThd"sinfetkaE$1/MAM5iYuhi${sMctsididMiuEs'ted s'tEQld$I$ chid $[tE61inicN'informatidn'Niisdffi2i'e'stletAilVEIAiSt$dTNAT$lfffid"mIaiician'
~
ME Msessmerit t rejardin$ t$ acceptAb'ilityof[th*dlhidhdiiIalMM6f7Egidiat6ry!
Niilu@i
^
i e E,ill~yhw calmeelsbnn v,,6tEd?the'l os used, ~w rst' cddn of p5bliiheinitliSidiMfitMitM,8,uld$U6fifnT meludm.n . c w. nn n.unnag the. key mput parameters.useda,n.mgMe[the sGpj p m
propo,s.
e d jiliihiiMiielthcdision.'aldsh6uld eitli8
-- sjaie%heth'drihim.w.disIS'diksninililifrilli6is
- w,wnwn .
ha ieyiously used an the methods have been p..reviously.revievyed and. approved by the.
av,n.~d.whether y,,..,
staffd
= no significant hazards consideration determination (50.9 (s)N55)
=
requested review schedule and/or implementation period
= appropriate technical specification (TS) pages
= environmental assessment (51.22)
= copy to appropriate state
- if thc aq& .5 psai of thc Standsid Tcchnice! Sgcifications (STS) and thc liccn5cc is cou,miing to 110. STS, thc I'M siionid dcic.unnc if the licenscc's m ucst can osit for thc Guide for Ptocessing License Amendments Page 2.3 '
converston-If a licensee's amendment application does not include one or more of the above requirements, the PM should contact the licensee and arrange for the information to be submitted. I}53drEtSEs'EEfrdum' ita'nEeO Ildiddi$iIEdidfMUiAaw did thquEsi dI5iy)c"ofrecISM5diMiIfAEE$isall[adreed tiphE HiiiHrRiiussesaoes nicBriest ife 3dici2AfsisithfMijEifi&liiids.fiissnaidsent siis i
- siUidhilddipliiation Nnstlidia9d.651EiiIsilldidijdWif8fdiiiSiilin$fniliilliddddAEllIdA
~
~
[fi(Iiiiifff[5EstNeIfi6 ding'bitidsiiff lhidd on'tfidI@Nf6IeflitEdlEp55Esed?$1stigEs),I din [A I%Riii Issbrinii a new applicati6Mit(theWisitifWiiE@dfG@isd)"aiitih poiis intiief MOM The PM should also perform a preliminary assessment to determine the subject and scope of the licensee's proposed amendment. This assessment is necessary for the subsequent steps in this guide and should also provide an initial position regarding the reasonableness of the proposed changes and the ade- l quacy of the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD). If, based upon this l review, the staff finds the licensee's NSHCD to be inadequate, the PM may either prepare a staff determination for publication in the Federal Register or may request that the licensee supplement the l
original submittal. If a proposed change does not satisfy the criteria for publication of a proposed NSHCD, an individual notice allowing an opportunity for a prior hearing must be published (see Section 3.0).
The PM should determine if the licensee's submittal includes any proprietary information. The PM is responsible for the review of the material requested to be withheld from the public in order to ensure that the information satisfies the criteria of 10 CFR~ 2.790. Project Managers may j5fAdditlodaihiddine
~
i k$diiiniddrEpi$dtaffiiiforniatidd id 6ffiWIM,'Td6 eda $M7ai}Il[Ad55 ~1uesti n
~
Mf Ndiihidr$1nfEfrmitidd,$5dd'inafald get assistance in making this determination from LAs, TB staff, and OGC.
2.3 Search for Precedent Licensing Actions l
Searching for, identifying, and using precedents in the review process maximizes staff efficiency,
~
I$idinENiiEdiEd io'iss08AEqUdstsloE53diifonEOitidiiiTaiidd and ensures consistency of licensing actions. Precedent licensing actions are those with a similar proposed change and regulatory basis for I the SE. The search for a precedent should continue until NRR staff are satisfied that either 1) they have j identified one or more appropriate precedents or 2) that no appropriate precedents exist. Project Managers have the primary responsibility for conducting a precedent search but can be assisted by TB staff familiar with specific technical areas. The following mechanisms may be employed in conducting a precedent search. Staff should consult with their colleagues or managers to obtain training or guidance if they are unfamiliar with the use of any of these mechanisms.
Licensees - Licensees and their contractors have developed systems to identify precedent amend-J ments and often share information related to requests and the staff's evaluation. Some licensees I include such information in the submittal while others will provide the information informally fol- l I
l Pcge 2.4 Guide for Processing License Amendments i i
1
M lowing a request by the PM.
Staff Input - Discussion with other PMs and TB staff is frequently useful in identifying precedents.
If necessary, PMs should consult the Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch (PGEB) about environmental issues (see OL 906).
Staff Guidance - Guidance issued by lead PMs and TB staff may include model safety evaluations for some classes of amendments. Examples include the guidance related to the relocation of TS requirements to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and generic letters that provide line item improvements.
wwwwmm n. ew m .
InternalhRCHom.s.epage.(lin-pyy mi.mgr/ gov ttp://nrr10.nrc. projects /g,:ysersrch.htm nn m)R/D,us s,oftware apph, cat, ion
$3
~~~ n 6N,s$lY. M$irch' f, oWaf$[:_dOAIOAtiSE.a
. . . , . = w#sdid6
~%n:d.It.kAmbndm.ers,'requesU,!
~ .
r . . . ~.
Safetp Evaluatioris dating from 1990,to th? ,_ . ._ mg entered into the s,.et of seafchable safet,y; EYadiitibas$ The Siu,,JaiJ Riiiw rlai,/Tui Riti, cia l:,atiiii (SRPlTRS) (ZY:NDEX) v., ;l,i L,cal Aiia Niin u,L (lAN) - Tl,;i avfin u,i uryucasiari cu,, l,i -sed iv siu, el,fv, safit, c,ul-ui v,,, e:atiJ ev ;l,e a-l, Jai (i) vfil,6 u,,,ciid,,,ciii i cq,. ai. Tl,e Nuclw, Reueiva Residuiia,, Safei, :,ul-atia,i (NRRSE) i,,Ju evutuu s y, e ,,va>l, issuiJ iafei, ,u:~utioiis. Cilu, ,eli,au; anuie,,al, sucli as iig Jatiaaa, s eguluto,3 ga Jia, und senei.c connu i.icationi, cuu l,efu-ud l,, ycifoinai,is a ai,u lui^
siaicl, vu ;l,e JLL iuda (n l,i, c - is il,c iiiv,; ,6 cia; cal,,iJu, ,,-uaie, -ydate, e.g., 25 lALL iiulu i,icl,.Jei ,uuii,,al urdateJ ;lu u-sl, ;l,ij',a; quaine vfl2 5). [SEGfierdrly I997ircilEc~aEd
~
EIth'iloEi[aihd netwoili hhitN$7e[SE55Edll.55N'A'}lkhiloh, 1 p NUDOCS - This software application can be used to search for amendments similar to the one being processed. The NRC records can be searched, including searches that select records by specifying document types, sucn as licenses and amendments (TLLOLL) or safety evaluations (TRSER), and then narrowing the population using key words or phrases.
WISP - This software application can by used to identify precedent licensing actions with com-parable titles. To perform the search, select " Global Reporting" and choose Ordian P, " Search Task Title". The search allows searching for words or combinations of words used in TAC titles.
Standard Technical Specifications (STSs)- A comparison of the amendment request with appro-priate sections of the corresponding improved STS may result in the identification of current policy pertinent to the amendment request being processed. If the licensee is proposing a change that is modeled after the STS, the expanded bases sections of the STS will often contain discussion that will aid in preparing a safety evaluation.
Federal Register Notices - The biweekly collection of proposed and issued amendment notices in the Federal Register can be scanned to search for similar amendment requests.
In general, preference should be given to the most recent precedents identified. Additional considerations for the use of precedents is provided in Section 4.2. Discussions with the appropriate TB(s) may help determine the appropriate precedent to use for a specific amendment review.
Guide for Processing Licens'e Amendments Page 2.5
If one or more appropriate precedents are identified, the PM should note if an Environmental Assessment (EA) was necessary for the amendment or if the precedents referenced a categorical exclusion. If no precedent exists the PM should determine if an EA is necessary. Actions that are categorically excluded are identified in 10 CFR 51.22. Additional guidance related to environmental assessments is provided in OL 906.
2.4 Develop Work Plan Following the preliminary assessment and search for precedent actions, the necessary information should be available to develop a detailed plan for processing the amendment application. His plan is intended to define the scope idifdEft@of the review, resources needed for the review, and the schedule for completion of the review.
It the IH is going to prepare the safety evaluation, TB staff would be consulted regarding this plan. If TB staff will be preparing the safety evaluation, orif there are substantial hours of technical staff time involved, the TB staff should be involved in preparing the work plan. The level of interaction between the PM and TB staff is, generally, determined on the basis of 1) the similarity between the application and precedent licensi.g actions and 2) the risk significance of the amendment request and/or[jj the technical complexity of the required review.
'Ihe. similarity between an application and precedent can, for the current purposes, be categorized into three levels:
No or Low Similarity - There is either no precedent to apply, or major modification to the piecedent license amendment would be required for use for the application under consideration.
Medium Similarity - The review of the application could apply a precedent with limited technical modifications.
High Similarity - The review of the application could directly apply a precedent without technical modifications.
The technical complexity of a required review can also be categorized into three levels:
Low Complexity - includes changes to position titles in the TS administrative controls section and simple changes to setpoints or other TS details.
l I
Medium Complexity - includes extensions of allowed outage times or surveillance test intervals, alternate action statements, reload related changes, or cther changes which do not involve major changes or review of established NRC policies. I I
High Complexity - includes power rerates, significant restructuring of TS, changes that introduce l Page 2.6 Guide for Processing License Amendments
significantly different analytical methodologies, and changes that are related to revising established NRC policies.
Considifa'tiddUlNilEiIsigliM$$id7ddi'sdikil5Eorpor'atedin o'tliE55$I5hir5dnIdfT8 oT(pTi657pM Erdissini~of liEdnNMiiiiihfisitMlMS36iidhof,tlis purp6se oftids*5'ffidicitk$id3IdlBiM]
in aidanner'simildrId I5560ldislI4iMeW@)@MabdvehIniddirhi,"tkideliEfell]M EaEj6dds nddel5tEMeV6$6WhiilEMSGEI6Efidt'dsdiies ddfhidi~idhi$irio7si561 (NEEDisN51af5id[6inId59fsMHiWrSafeifi5dMilisis,(ddeaW3iniG9NDF"'M i duldadEd,EriidplEEiestdiMMTiifMMEProdishesV fd5hIEafWa~plWt9 lO'sV5fidifiliAEdif6/50diihd6i$
13 %51RilairSignifiEis22
-..,c., -
-a m Medium J,.ow_to Mo,de,falieisk, R Significance
,,.n-. r ,
t,hgli, Substantial R,isk S,igmfic,,nce a
Figure 3 provides a summary of the planning strategy that is generally applicable for alternative levels of these combined factors. This figure illustrates that three general strategies should be adopted, as summa-rized below.
PM Develops Work Plan and Informs Technical Staff - When precedents can be readily applied and t"lieYsif sigfifiEirIde and technical complexity is relatively low, the PM should prepare a plan I and proceed with the review. Technical staff should be informed (informal communication such as E-mail is acceptable) of the PM's intent. The PM should identify the precedent being utilized to ensure that the TB understands the approach and acceptance criteria. The TB may suggest altemate precedents or identify key issues that need to be addressed in the SE.
l l
PM Drafts Work Plan for Discussion with Technical Staff - When the PM intends to perform the '
review and has a general understanding of how to proceed, but requires some input from a TB to develop the plan, the PM should draft an initial plan and obtain an informal review of the plan by the TB. When TB review is being requested, a work request can be prepared and submitted to the TB without significant prior discussions. Details regarding the scopeIanTdhidilSf tliE5y[O, resources, and schedule can be negotiated in the context of completing the work request form.
Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 2.7
~ . . ~ _ _ . - - . ..
s hnica Sim!Iarity Between Application and Precedent Low Medium High tow .
. ii!% g y TechnicalStaff j PM Draft Work '
Plan for Discussion Medium wisiTechnical Staff ..
m ::::
^1lj MMhnical High Staff Meetto .
Dran Work Plan.-
Figure 3. PM's Guidance for Amendment Package Review and Concurrence PM and Technical Staff Meet to Draft Work Plan - When precedents are not readily applied and
$[t[MSM andM technical complexity is relatively high, the PM should prepare an information package for technical staff and, if msomj, convene a meeting to review issues and draft a review plan prior to submitting work request forms. IE hiiiig"lIMM Ed55 A85EllslMT6EmiIiiiEyWIisEf6Noisinine55Ehi?M"t$
EyMie"c5NhidMSI$3idgiiill[Y[T$Ni$jE fofdiiMNd}
Regardless of the strategy used to draft an amendment request work plan, the scope EislWpill, resources, and schedule must be defined. When there are TB resources involved in the preparation of the SE, the designated supervisor will review the workplan and must concur with the estimates of scope EdM,
~ ~
resources, and schedule $IAIMth7edkTiM5EEdiidtedfdi'calidShiEiTt9[dRa5Iid35555 nwm request.
PMs should give special attention to those reviews that involve multiple TB or PM reviewers. The wcrk plans for such amendment requests need to ensure that the scope and schedule for each reviewer is well defined and understood. Multiple work requests may be necessary for such reviews. Each work request should clearly define the work plan for the associated TB and include a listing of other tbs that will provide input or be asked to concur. Disagreements, if not resolved by the PM and technical staff, will Page 2.8 Guide for Processing License Amendments
be elevated to NRR management. Following are discussions of these three components of the plan.
2.4.1 Scope NMlof Review The technical review of the amendment application will, in most cases, represent the bulk of the tech-nical effort that will be expended in processing an amendment. The appropriate Standard Review Plan (SRP) sectio;< and the licensee's "
UFSAR and' other docketed correspondence that form the licensing basis for the facility %ENiillMehlitiMikfsignificanch 6f'tliEEcEEssE7ApEt) should be used as guidance in determining the scopefaddANii of the review. Thus, careful identification of what will be addressed in this review is central to effective planning. A complete statement of scope EEddi$should either identify the following or include identification of these items as part of the review:
e the regulatory basis for the amendment request e the plant specific licensing bases including regulatory requirements and commitments upon which the subject technical specifications were originally developed e the design, operating, and maintenance related safety concerns that will be addressed by the review e any previous licensing amendments that will serve as a model in conducting the review e all appropriate TB reviews required e the data or information required to conduct the evaluation.
n., em wwm em, w -,z m-te, the:m,m. rehithpeg; . _mmf _ --+3 theAmendme. o ~nt request (very low.nsl vim-w s ..
i,ow,to mmminoderate; kiM NMNcInbe)."
,, . . . . . - . - - . - -_ - - - - . ; - . . . - - . -, _ - - - - - - i _ .;
.,_. tug 525 i: /gIVI L LFA AA gIELIUGUA&4JLEb A RJEL ELEBEIJD53 A3 gIE L17 345bst RI 3 G A I sb 5 3%A4 4 W53 4, La sh Absu LUba5ssabul AbYAb77b5 J RIVL8 3U i . _ _ _ . . . . __ - . _ . - _
r mt _ _._.i_.. _ _ _ _ _ i_ i_ _m .. _ c ., wr _ .. _n _e _..itm _
lab bb5 3 E5558b TV Asbl5 Aba V5 55VE G A b V 5b vv LIA L3 5b GEEE5J JI3 &J 58bbubu LU DLRg/gILIE L LAEb J 14. 55 DV, L53b 4 E LIUGUAIEJLIb c_r .
- _ _ _ _ ..n _. ,enens _a _ .4 i_ _ . _ a ;_; _ _ _ . _ _ _ . i_ . .nnen _ _ , . . ;_ . _ _. ..
b764 %.LJ 4"lJJbJJ555b55L M E RIEb55 (JA J AJ) JLIVuats Lab 4534 5 55LALLA 434 LIIb vv tI4 5L gIEEe A3. 4 53b h.75 J U VTAEE L357b tA 5 5 5b a 5 L AL3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . i -...t _ ,__ ien _ _ . . _ nrs v._ .r .
nnen _. _ . ;_....i_._r.. .
TT._ 554 G bkIE 5 b@g7475 AL5b55bb LV E5 5b JbELE A M ,53VLLU LE3b E &#.
ABIg/UL 4 A LIBER J A d5.7 A3 A55s aLbu vv 4Ls3 6a 5 E5
, __;n .- ..- , -- , e e w,5 va-~ Lasb mou .. vi mb m .4 m 5 5mb., ,w _
4 n _
..b b&.hw
- A w:memora#-m ndum.to the,sta ff;from:GMaoldian,' Director, n;ny .nn -n n.- w non Division;ofA~yatem64stfe,thm an d AnaI.
ysts: DSSA), w(- 'datediOctober 30,11998mnww.danceTorithe gproylws; gun rdd5 de fin,E.c ed asifativlicensM. ina_fl0$l8AddrEIMif$rndlidensin[ahtiiMffriAN$f$$N!
m .
- ,. ~ _ . , -
ac't ion th,at dses quantitative or analitative nsF_==_===_===A, . d...
en'or.,ee hnu._nig g gwn eggggg .g gmyg gy ymn lasGif6 sin 6MildeniinFsEtl6siffifiluissMidfii2AGidstrsl6 .n m-~ nev MdinBsGIIhidsrimitisiGiiisisE~Reviewof:R_m.
nclu iy_
- gomdigg; des a,,ssignment m
mdm ah 7
w igh p
.ymm,nontyfor; isk-m
...s, , r itw:of,n,sk-mfor staff;rev.
icensmygonshin m
me
~ .
.,_rm m d l,lcensmg,ac,,tions as,weH_as,.th,e r
Lge. guidance
. fonne mn w - , - , ,. n a. c - n entiof myolvem..nnjhe,Protabil,stic7 i Safety Assessment:B+ ranch-(SP58) .n,m matheirevne .ak.5n.fsthe:ve. wwapphcations.
_~,u,- .. , .. . . . - -, .. , - , -.
P,iojectrManagerst.,orhTB)s_taff?maysals{os.m_nsult:SPSB? staff co
, ,m- .
m _. . ., r .o_ . s e pigmficanc.s. e.and,ho,w that assessment ...~ ois bemg used to de,velop..the staff,'s. work,r phn~; j Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 2.9
In some cases, the technical staff may provide informal guidance and responses to information needs by the PM in lieu of providing a formal SE. Such informal information or assistance from TB staff would not preclude the need for concurrence by that TB on the final amendment package (see Chapter 5).
2.4.2 Resources to be Used in the Review The primary resource expended in the review process is the time of the PM, technical staff, and contractor staff. To ensure the efficient and timely use of this resource, initial estimates of staff respon-sibilities and hours to be expended are required. 5d7nESI6fh$$7 fig @dsidMidMI5s$dAhIth5
@jiTMEM55MiiNEji%idrniided 5/jh5?aidiEsiliy%@SjiE0 ins 3hEiic~l55Eal MT6"E6dnjesa$d the risk $$friiNiEa5EegthOQE$$ies6(i[$[SieIjkdE Misi@fM*iiMhlklioursExpendsdM Staff Responsibilities Primary responsibility for preparation of an SE will be assigned to a PM or to technical staff. The PM would normally conduct the review and prepare the SE for those requests that are relatively low in technical complexity, relatively low in risk-sigr.ificance, and have relatively high similarity to precedent licensing actions (upper-right segment in Figure 3 matrix). Technical staff would normally lead the review and evaluation preparation for those requests that are-both relatively high in technical complexity, relatively high in risk-significance, and have relatively low similarity to precedent licensing actions (lower-left segment in Figure 3 matrix). The assignment of responsibility for the remaining types of applications (center segment in Figure 3 matrix) will typically result from discussions between the PM and technical staff. The PM should ensure that all relevant tbs, that may have some technical responsibility for the content of an amendment application, be involved in the review. The PM is also responsible for preparing an EA if needed.
The use of contractors is determined by the technical staff based on (1) technical expertise required to perform the scope of review, (2) availability of NRR technical staff to support the required review in a timely manner, and (3) availability of funds to support contractor review efforts.
Staff Hours It is often difficult to estimate the number of staff hours required to perform a review; however, developing a reasonable estimate is critical to the development of a quality work plan. When devel-oping an estimate, the PM and TB (chief or designee) should consider the scope of the review and l estimate the time required for any distinct subparts, based upon personal experience or other available sources. Best estimates of the number of hours for each NRR staff should be developed. If i these estimates are going to be significantly exceeded during execution of the plan, Unelhr6biem EEnid6EW[b56gNEtIthe iphre AtEindijeined revised estimates should be developed 1
itge 2.10 Guide for Processing License Amendments
and agreed upon. Foi i .cs, coscs n L;ch inc PM eid TO c-met ogicc ou ic.. sed cei.meio eid schcdolms,iLc y.ublcm should L. geniyilj Lieu 3hiie iLc ervave"ei nieaus -=vai-Project Managers may also use WISP to estimate required staff resources (refer to the WISP manual). Project Managers also can develop estimates of staff resource requirements for reviews using informal estimates based on personal experience about resource requirements from previous staff reviews for tasks of similar technical complexity.
Table I provides some general guidance for estimating the hours of effort that will be required to complete a review. This table uses the same complexity and similarity matrix used in Figure 3.
Hour ranges in Table I are for general guidance only. However, if other bases for developing hour estimates are Table 1.n'en [n,,,not available,
_r...
effort to,unprove a particular the,.r.m_.,,
- mcorpora tion'of, riskhour sni.id,estimate w_ _ should w
m[gets processes; attd thefall staffwithin
..~.n..
sh,ould the guideli T
1 base'd siG
@$53,nliialijN,idgeinestT5sito[thEsco%
sig&&. ance
.m m.
,, of the.,s_pecific apph._, cation.df the_appbcation m
add, ..to7depthf6fM,l_5@Mdit as e serdow m
no ns significances
- m. a
~
ISMEvWs,hEridWiE555t'eidlisilish'5Mikhsi61&lithT6f55.3
,,m . _.
ifs 5fiditiirE6.E.findimize thi s.taffJeyaew.o[.-_d changes _with very_ low _or n.o nsi[s._d.
propose .
iga icatmlo <d Table 1. Guidance for Estimating Application Review Hours of Effort Similarity Between Application and Precedent Technical Complexity ,
and/or l Risk Significance No or Low Medium High l
Low 10 - 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 10 - 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 10 - 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> Medium 40 - 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> 40 - 8n hours 20 - 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> High >l20 hours >80 hours >60 hours 2.4.3 Schedule of Review A. enebly firm date for completion of the amendment application review and preparation of the SE, consistent with the factors on the following pages, is essential to a complete work plan.
As in the preceding components of the work plan, scheduling can either be developed by the PM, drafted l by the PM for discussions with the technical staff, or developed jointly through PM and technical staff consultation. Factors to be considered in the schedule determination are:
1
= safety significance and agency priorities l l
EUfoerdin[AEtion Tiineline' i Goals s Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 2.11
- q
d'30
e
- licensee needs and desires, including implementation date 4
= application priority f
j . review resource requirements and availability i
e contractor resource requirements and availability.
- Licensee Needs and Desires The licensee should communicate (formally or informally) a desired issuance date and include a I
, proposed implementation period in their amendment application. The PM incorporates the requested implementation period in the amendment (e.g.. the amendment is effective immediately and will be implemented within 30 days). This provides the licensee time to incorporate the amendment into the )
- controlled copies of the TSs and licenses and provides an acceptable period to implement procedural ;
j or hardware changes. If possible, the schedule established by the PM should satisfy the realistic l
- needs of the licensee. 'Ihe priority system includes some consideration of licensee needs but may not a
1 adequately address this factor. If the licensee has submitted multiple amendment requests, the PM should discuss the review priorities with the licensee. The licensee can help establish the review l priorities by determining cost savings, outage plans, and other factors. Efforts to meet the licensee's
- requests are aimed at minimizing the regulatory impact of the review process. If the licensee's requested date cannot be met due to staff resource limitations, the PM should discuss the issue with j
- the hcensee. j j '
b, .,mn heionlnme,linesiGoali i
- N, --,y;&f25"ETREBF,,.n5EE y w c ,,7 BtJ5%MMoYiEli@iiGs', ., , y y "W/RMgg{ljE o .. .MM.NR?MS ?OEIEliEIMistiid
)*ggggiiiijyssgudiFBiiiSHWIy7 T 4 P G i$iB M B E M Ksfd(siiK~anijsd M BMl86fdiiissiessGiiniGiindisfilaiiGilmsimitiTiERYiiMEE:r&BiUEssiifor:tiG AWIWalMe~itiiGisW!fsErfiiMdM21%Esteils!
- i i iGf4NNEEI42ii@I@E7ofMEFdedEiliESEiE'E
! Wissnif#ifiERO'JjWT&siniWisiciidWni&Mi ini,Ayear .
u,m_;
ints;2years r.m:
m.s 3;y_ ears
. . _ , - ~ . .
1 Pla,ch__ ear;1999 480 ) y29E
_% 1003
- . nn., . -
n%
Fiscal, Year 32000 295,.- J00A :
lidi.MM i'
,n. .. 7 . . . -
.nn .. ,
I,nla,ddi, tion to.;the,ltim, elm .. ,,,NRRLh,as;_perf~rmance::
essigoalst o mea. _sures'forith(n.umb'ln , ,,.oe iofdicensmg i
l Page 2.12 Guide for Processing License Amendments 2
a 1
, ,n~ c . ~- nn,.,n, en n w I
n tions/comple~ed ac t and the,;, ope mg:acttons urmg givcitoudget cyc A nitliough ihes,mperforma n nn
. , n . + ,n_myentory.ofi.ncens nc ua,-nnorm,,,,dw.n.
w..., les.~xw n j nce measureaayipptjbe. njn,u.nd.kwdam ta ectoran; yelopmentto ...mn f:a:w-.:k pia wn;forfasspecifi,c a' didndment request, ths3tiffili$ildMiinsisN51MIEdi&xiidshcE6f'thsiejdaifA$1397issi idhi%nd 'to"managEmin{dir3$tfoEfi65NilAIMidEEEEN5~idEidue r tS cdnc' hiEff$r't'alsi$t5 NihiIeM, r, -
ohls:[The'stN,flsh&ddIi(EM6EdilliiMitM}i$fddNi.t_Iiilit68[estAblisikdibd<iril5$51EeT856
.m m w .c.,-se ,-
piclu<de, 1 efficiency;gamst(S
,%J.y, w y,h 9wdicistaffg,#
gg
.. ~
~ resources f allotted ; periccmpleted mww ..
licensmg action,).
Application Priority The current scheme used for assigning ~ NRRview priorit was presented in a June 6,1993 memo-re.mm.w,ies r .-
randum from the NRR Director",. W)iimlej.-berprtonties!std;liapp n.~ lyt th~e com.pl . nwn.-
s ition v eac
- tunes for;m,h
~
fr5idifcitegory; musiM15ilifidEdfddiA$st31iMAEridiEE8Etl6Ulisheline'ssioil61$.NdieToki
^
@nidin FY00 of 95kEfl'i@sinENtidiiiMjEthiMidiini[9dna~nd'1'0095 AordplithilMittii5 I hlye35)l Several key points and examples are summarized below.
Priority 1: High Priority - Immediate action usually required; review completion date must be l met; firm commitment of resources required. Priority I efforts involve the following:
a
] - highly risk-significant safety concerns that require firm commitment of resources
- actions needed to prevent or require plant shutdown, allow restart, orprevent significant i derate
.)
- issues for which immediate action is needed for compliance with statutory requit:ments, or q Commission or Executive Director's Office directives.
= Priority 2: High Priority Near-Term - Short-term actions, minor changes to review completion date can be negotiated. Priority 2 efforts involve the following:
4
- significant safety issues that do not rise to the level ofimmediate action but require near-term staff evaluation a
4 - activities needed to support continued safe plant operation, reload analyses, or evaluation of necessary modifications or enhancements.
, ,. .._._ ,_.,y y ,. m _, y _ ,,. , _ . ,
ERisk informed licen,sm,,a,ctionsi.,
_ g ,,Ad,m,mstrati,,ve see i Letter 98.-09) i a Priority 3: Low Priority - Longer-term actions, review completion date is flexiblehutStil Qinfied to support tlidilltids*gIald. Priority 3 efforts involve the following: I 1
(2) Although the NRR priority system includes Priority 4 items, the staff no longer routinely classifies items as Priority 4. For the I purpose of this Office Letter, Priority 4 items should be treated the same as Priority 3 items.
Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 2.13
J Cost Beneficial Licensing Actions (CBLAs) are the highest priority for this category. CBLAs
- are not included in the June 1993 priority system memorandum. Background information, including the criteria for CBLAs, are defined in Administrative Letter 95-02 4
- issues of moderate to low safety significance that do not direc'ly impact plant safety
- requests for technical specification amendments required for economic advantage (e.g., changes in core and equipment operating limits, limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements, deletion of equipment that is no longer used, administrative TS changes).
n__,_ . a. w, _u__, r,___ n_ n_, .i v. _ i__. ___ i__ ;_r a ____._i_ .i _ _ .
3 5 5UE 5 tg
'T. E twsssa 5 5E55 %.W55 57% 5.rwat a E L%E ~ 45w3 55J LAEa% wm4 Uw h5w&w&&wu V4 w 3VJw%5 FT ALE AVUE r .n . re i_ _ _
.._.r .. . .. .. , _ . r .. _ .i e- _._
s ua uswa otana a s v sw . gw.5., usauwo savs unwwuy afuyasu.se yaaan omwsy, puvuw anu svanu nnesvay
. _ _ i _.__i____r . __ r..____s n - . 2 .cr .- .. ._i .i__ r_u-ankABEa vv5uttw5aL&Yv4J EVTY 3pawnJ Osgang55%=Hwwf. A 5 3V1 Al) "Y w& 5 VE LD AH V UA Tw HIw EVIEV.533g.
_,___n. i_ _ _ r _ . e_ _
.r e, i____. - rm _ . s., . _ _ _ __e_. _v.. .
- wua"5'3 'V 8'5"8J "" 8u88 '5 * *'i" ' '"*8 853 \'
- 5 * * * ""3'
'V"* 5 8v" 3/ "" 6 "
- 3V87 '" 8 5V"*8 '
4
'Ihis guide provides the routine and maximum completion times for amendments, based on their pri-ority (Table 2). These are slightly shorter completion times than historically achieved prior to the issuance of this guidance. Tow we.i;y;c;.eu iom.. ;;; L cm.uy- wd youvd; call, ;il,wm.wni;.wode mid m., occcs m, adjoau.co;.
n ;;; L u dw.5,,%l[0ibliM5fidithEIifEel[41s"N5sifo"f3.E wm Perfonnance; measures (beginningim&-,[ Wear)2000MAsithestaffitransitions tosth-"cirevised ilniindi$dalifdiiifIrti6giiA@itYaLM6 fed!thfaldriMippi6jiin[AM6515idbGisid('ij Eti4Wiicesiaji&i66sWi^iiilymimMRiEiWiinlEiG6El For those amendments for which a highly similar precedent exists, PMs should make every effort to issue the amendments well belew the routine completion time actions without a precedent that have relatively m._ low levels
- m. m ffriskisig,nific,ance;m.and/or o,,,s given technical in Table complexity, PMs can use these routiae completion times as reasonable goals. Other factors may determine that an earlier goal is appropriate or that a schedule slightly longer than the routine is acceptable. However, every reasonable effort should be made to 1) support average NRR completion times that correspond to the routine values and 2) not to exceed the maximum completion times.
m m.m- _ , . ~ . , . ,- - w ,, . y ,_,V., T.,he mem,orandum.of Octob_er#,19,984,, ue _ tic,a$,am,_. lWCol_li_ns_, supplemented the m_e
- n. -
- c. , ..
w _n n .n. .n pio d, gepopi.fic_ipudance;f~or
,Ju,ne acti+on,s3
~.
6,,,71993,t(Mu,rle,p,ne. n nn Wit,hm the pnc,,a,tyrframewa,fk m.. ,,) by,@ro,yd,TtiiNf(ded;,by,the
- m. av w n revious guid,ancernskgstformedmanlicensmg p,,,. r n...nr w. e wnw.e w . n w.
n acti.ons shall be;g.v
, assigne or d:asfn.n"ityAnBwd.,be;
. n n n.wn mm,n ww ast previous;gmdance,;m wpuld, assign n.na;w#rio,ntym wmOjdue;to safet y.sigmficanc,e.~or,the need for imme onty ele)ation is mtend to.high e hcensmg action that uses n k assessm,,diate:actionaThis pn.n.,m. . .emM,.n.o nm thnnn.mc - - , n.- nw ww ,w
, n,- ,
s ent as ts from am~ong the raut;nwmnme hcensmg action @m Guidance related to classification of license amendment requests as CBLAs is provided in Administrative Letter 95-02. If a licensee requests that a proposed amendment be treated as a CBLA, the PM should review the amendment to ensure that the criteria defined in the administrative Page 2.14 Guide for Processing License Amendments
. =_ ~ . .. ._. . . - . - - _ - _
letter have been satisfied. If the amendment meets the criteria, the PM should appropriately classify the request as a CBLA in the WISP system and ensure that the review is expedited in accordance with that classification. . 4 Tnble 2. Routine and Maximum Amendment Completion Times Routine Cornpletion Maximum Completion Time Amendment Priority Time (Months) (Months) 1 3 6 2 6 8 3 9 12 4 W H 1 i Resource Requirements and Availability l A major factor to be considered in developing a schedule is resource availability. For PM reviews, PMs need to assess their own availability and the availability of other PMs idJn rupci J;. wive e:cs ei J;us.eus. If licensee needs, priority, resource demands, and PM availability cannot be recon-ciled, the PM should discuss the matter with the PD to determine if another PM can assist. If resources are not available within the project directorate, the PD can consult other Division of Reac- ] tor Projects (DRP) managers to determine if resources are available. The DRP may also consult the appropriate TB on the availability of staff to perfonn the review in the time period requested. Both , PMs and the designated TB supervisors must track staff commitments and availability to ensure that the work plan schedules are maintained. In addition to the resources required to perform the l technical review and prepare the SE, PMs need to consider the other aspects of amendment i processing. The resource requirements, availability and schedule impact associated with administrative staff, LAs, and the concurrence process need to be included in the planning and j scheduling activities. When DRP and TB personnel are negotiating details of a work plan, the relationships between i resource requirements, scopea"idIilT$th of review, requested product, and schedule should be l considered. For example, it may be possible to meet a desired schedule by revising the requested l support from the technical staff. By changing the requested product from a completed SE to I informal support, DRP may be able to complete the SE and thereby limit the resource impact on the
'"it. The TB would continue to ensure technical adequacy via the concurrence process.
2.4.4 Schedcle Revisions l For reviews being performed by a TB, changes in the safety evaluation completion date or estimated ] staff hours need to be negotiated between the PM and TB designee. Requests for additional information ; (RAls) should be prepared such that a licensee can respond and the initially agreed upon schedule can be Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 2.15
1 1 maintained. However, the timeliness of a licensee to respond to RAIs may occasionally impact the , schedule and require a revised ' expected to: exceed,sh,Epg, schedule be developed. Should there be a disag
.. .- m,m e ~ . , . . . . . ..
ananimun0 completion.m times:in Table:2,,
. . the issue s,hould bemn
- elevated to the next ,
\
level of management for resolution. Followm... mg the resolutio , f _.n.-n o 1 proposed.sch_eddle;.chabges,gw,nn;; agreements i betwEid5512MEM[ScRddsid bejdEumentsdIin NisElidEhNIiEilifdM 2.5 Work Request Form i 1
'Ihe NRR Work Request Form, presented in Attachment 1, is used to coordinate the planning of amendment reviews performed by TB personnel. Project Managers are responsible for initiating the work request whenever the amendment work planning determines that TB review is appropriate. Project Managers submit work requests to appropriate tbs with sections completed providing background i
changes,toaa
.-c
,en,,, .m ptaytonIs_lyi=~~*ad f,, or,k,,; request m,,,,. ,,,n,-... . , v . .c.n n . . , ,
as formi agreements tt a ; a Eoul'dbeldNhMit5d[dbOEd$drequesIforni Additional details regarding completing a work l request form are provided in Attachment 1. 1 e Page 2.16 Guide for Processing License Amendments
3.0 Public Notification The public notification process is the primary mechanism for the NRC to meet its goal regarding open-ness to the public. The staff's need to determine whether an amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration and to seek public comment and provide an opportunity for a hearing regarding the proposed amendment is defined in 10 CFR 50.91 and other regulations. Additional guidance regarding the determination of no significant hazards considerations can be found in the Federal Register publica-tion of the final rule and supplementary information (51 FR 7751). The no significant hazards consid-eration standard is a procedural criterion that governs whether an opportunity for a prior hearing must be provided before action is taken by the NRC, and whether prior notice for public comment may be dis-pensed with in emergency situations or shortened in exigent circumstances *. For those amendments that do not satisfy the criteria for a no significant hazards consideration, an individual notice in the Federal Register will solicit public comment and announce the opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of the amendment. These amendments .vould not meet the categorical exclusion criteria from 10 CFR 51.22 and require an EA. The majority of amendment requests are found to satisfy the no significant hazards consideration criteria and can therefore be handled in the routine fashion. The regulations specify that the normal course of business is to provide a 30-day comment period following publication of a description of the proposed amendment, along with its associated proposed NSHCD. If the staff determines that the request involves no significant hazards consideration, the regulations allow for issuance of the amendment with less than a 30-day comment period. A brief summary of the various public notification alternatives is provided below. Licensing Assistants maintain standard formats and the most recent guidance related to the l notification process. 1 3.1 Normal (30-day) Public Notification The normal process is to publish a notice in a biweekly collection of notices in the Federal Register. The l deadline for collection of the notices for a given biweekly publication is approximaie!y two weeks prior < to the publication date. This time combined with the 30-day comment period results in an effective minimum period of between six to eight weeks from the date of submittal to the end of the comment period. The LAs have the notices on the R drive on the LAN. They are updated by one person. The file names are listed and defined on the secretaries' distribution list. The LAs can also provide the documents needed. If the required schedule for issuance of an amendment will not accomm.odate the normal biweekly pub-lication of the notice, an individual notice can be published in the Federal Register. Licensing Assistants have the standard notice format and contacts in the Rules Review and Directive Branch (ADM) to (3) Although it may be legally permissible to issue an amendment for which a hearing has been requested, provided that the staff prepares a final no significant hazards determination, NRR Office Director concurrence and Commission notification is required if the staff plans to do so (see Section 5). I I Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 3.1 l 1 I
- _ ~- -
- ~ ,
-i accomplish this task. Publication of an individual notice can be accomplished in three to four working days depending on the time of day that the notice is submitted to the Rules Review and Directive Branch; J
an individual notice will therefore support issuance of an amendment approximately five weeks after the amendment request is submitted. Project Managen are expected to prepare the notice as soon as convenient following receipt of an incom-ing amendment request. Masters for public notices are available from LAs. Template formats exist for both the staff's acceptance of the licensee's NSHCD and a determination prepared by the staff. The latter , is usually prepared by PMs should they choose to rewrite the licensees' submittal for editorial style or to reduce length. The description of the amendment should be brief and broadly characterize the aspects of the license amendment (including TSs proposed for modification) in a form such that the general public can readily understand the purpose of the amendment. But,t MM should-also not be proscriptive as to a precise section number, technical specification, wording, or specific engineering parameter values. Licensees will often supplement submittals with additional information and changes to the original pro-posed amendment. *Ihe SE should include a discussion of any changes submitted by the licensee. All applications and supplements to an application should be sent under O&A (5030). The licensee must notify the state (50.91) by providing a copy to the state. Supplemental submittals raise the question of whether an additional request for public comment and opportunity for hearing should be published in the Federal Register. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has advised that any significant change to the original submittal should be renoticed. The amendment issued should be all or part of the amendment application noticed with only changes that are within the scope of the notice description permitted without renotice. Changes or additional information that are within the scope of the notice description need to be addressed in the SE or notEd[Afathen"ddEIi" Mand provided in a submittal from the licensee on the docket with a finding that they did nvi offwi dm N3eiWrEtid756FFtlis {Kr w : jinitial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. When in doubt regarding. the need to renotice, PMs may consult with LAs and OGC. Early consultation and coordination with licensees is extremely valuable in terms of minimizing the potential need for renoticing. 3.2 Emergency Public Notification The emergency public notification guidance is contained in 10 CFR 50.91(a)(5) where it states, "Where the Commission finds that an emergency situation exists, in that failure to act in a timely way would result in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant, or in pre-vention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, it may issue a license amendment involving no significant hazards consideration without prior notice and opportunity for hearing or for public comment." l 1 Page 3.2 Guide for Processing License Amendments
. _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _
A final NSHCD is provided in the safety evaluation and the notice of amendment issuance announces the opportunity for a hearing and public comment after issuance. Another limitation related to the use of this alternative is that I@l%'.lindd5xh15:iMtMi%$IEOMMTidFoNNNilMd3Iij206iil[$$} 37piilMtlaIiiiiI2sENiithe staff must determine, and document in the SE, that the licensee has not abused the emergency provision. Use of the emergency provisions should be limited to those cases in which the staff cannot solicit public comment using the exigent circumstances discussed in the following sections. As a rule of thumb, if a valid amendment request is submitted with less than 7 days before the need to issue the amendment, the request should be processed under emergency circumstances if the licensee has shown that an emergency situation exists. Licensing Assistants maintain useful models and guidance related to emergency amendments. He emergency provisions are also used for those amendment requests that have been noticed, remain ) within the comment period, and changes in circumstances require issuance prior to the expiration of the comment period. Because the use of the emergency provision requires licensees to explain why the con-dition could not have been avoided, the licensee is requested to submit an explanation of the change in circumstances and formally request the issuance of the amendment before the expiration of the comment period. l 3.3 Exigent (15-day) Public Notification If a license amendment request is submitted with a need date of more than seven days but less than four or five weeks in the future, the request should be processed under the exigent circumstances discussed in 10 CFR 50.91. The preferred exigent process is to use a shortened public notice period in the Federal Register. The regulation states that the comment period must be at least two weeks and maintains the normal 30 day period to request a hearing. In general, the content of the notice is the same as a normal individual notice except for the shortened comment period. The safety evaluation must include a final NSHCD and a section that justifies the use of the exigent circumstances process. Licensing Assistants maintain useful models and guidance related to exigent amendments. Because of the time required for document distribution, advance copies of the incoming amendment application should be sent to the public document rooms (PDRs) for 15-day Federal Register notices. 3.4 Exigent Local Notification For those amendment requests that require disposition in less time than needed for a 15-day comment period in the Federal Register, the regulation provides an alternative. The second type of exigent amendment application involves the use of local media to provide reasonable notice to the public n the area of the licensce's facility. The standard practice for this alternative has been to secure advertising in l local newspapers. The NRC process to prepare an announcement, receive concurrences, and arrange funding normally requires at least two to three days. Newspapers usually require receipt of the announcement two working days before publication. Allowing several workdays for a comment period results in a minimum time of approximately seven workdays from the submittal of the request to the issuance of the license amendment. Guide for Processing tJcense Amendments Page 3.3 l
- +. - - - - .
The process to secure advertising for an exigent amendment involves preparing the announcement and securing funding and financial approval for the advertisement. These two processes need to be done in parallel. The LAs have additional details and examples of this process. Because the announcement refers the public to the PDR or Local PDR to review the licensee's request, PMs need to ensure that copies of the incoming amendment application are placed in those locations before publication of the advertisements. While there is no legal minimum time required for notification prior to granting the amendment, the PM should try to provide several days prior notice. The safety evaluation must include a final NSHCD and a section that justifies the use of the exigent circumstances process. I Page 3.4 Guide for Processing License Amendments
1 1 4.0 Safety Evaluation The SE provides the technical, safety, and legal basis for the NRC's disposition of a license amendment request. The SE should provide sufficient information to explain the staff's rationale to someone l unfamiliar with the licensee's request. The SE includes a brief description of the proposed change, the I regulatory requirements related to the issue, and an evaluation that explains why the staff's disposition of the request satisfies the regulatory requirements. Given that the SE serves as the record of the staff's dis-position of a license amendment request, the information relied upon in the SE must be docketed corre-
>pondence. This is not meant to hamper questions and clarifications by telephone or in meetings. How-ever, if the information is important in the staff's decision-making process, it must be formally provided by the licensee. This guide does not provide specific guidance on the technical performance of evalua-tions.[li6}$5tlMaEAgers'and3B"rE fiEMMEidIETthiliEfthNahprIdriatEdiEpfa$1'dd65}$ ret @
gle EO5?padsoMehvoricIhlddfd@IMMliM5e"ctioit22sgivin[dhe[c6EifddiatiohEiE63 i fiM$igiifidanhe[offthe pr"op65AdictiEdiEtETiffiiiiiilitfiffreced5nt hvieivifth6fdieHdsiig5ali,Pid a i itEEfaEioiidiscussEd in this3idIrEcE,#fifdMITEfpili!5[$5(inhldtibrifthhTohditiS[hiEE aEd5Mel [diediing'pfobeduris). Reibci, General guidance regarding SE planning and control, the use of prece-dents, guidelines on requestisg'ddditi8:iallin ddadb@and the recommended format of SE reports is provided below. ( l l l 4.1 Evaluation Planning and Control l Safety Evaluations can be prepared by PMs and technical staff personnel, with or without contractor assistance. The determination of who performs the lead reviewer function depends on the technical complexity of the reviewItlidrisk7sEgEfiIai$EM555foj5IEl[ change, and the availability of a good precedent SE (see Figure 3 and the corresponding discussion in Section 2.4.2). Procedures for planning and controlling SE work are provided below. 4.1.1 Project Manager Review For those amendment applications determined to be appropriate for PM review, the PM should establish the estimated resource requirements and schedule. Project Directors may review schedule inputs, includ-ing resource estimates, and may ask PMs tojustify their resource or schedule estimates. See Chapter 2.0 for more details on planning for a review. Tools for completing the evaluation include those previously described for finding precedent reviews. In addition, the SRPfrRS xxuALL mdcx (sco Scchca 2.3)%iiiousLapplicationionlUn5[NRC Idal arE5 liitEEfc includes documents containing technical guidance, The seuiwi of the uidcx mckdcs insludsid regulations, regulatory guides, the standard review plan, generic communications, and selected other
, ymm .e documents. Us.mg the software computer applications o perform word searches on this collection of documents enhances the PM's ability to prepare evaluations. This is especially true for amendment applications that are not introducing significant changes to the traditional licensing-bases methodologies.
The PM must review the precedent for accuracy, applicability, and completeness against the details of Guide for Processing 1.icense Amendments Page 4.1
the submittal and the plant. Project Managers may also request some assistance from technical staff during a review for which the PM is preparing the SE. This request can be accomplished informally by discussing the amendment request with appropriate technical staff or by negotiating technical staff assistance using the Work Request Form (see Attachment 1). In such cases, the PM should specify the support requested. Two examples of output PMs may request are 1) a cursory evaluation of a PM's review strategy with sugges-tions related to applicable regulations, guides, industry standards, or other references; and 2) a cursory review of a draft SE, RAI, or other document prepared by the PM. ThEPM fmanalso} fr%vNie linpEtIsiainilhiEtl@IidEiisEe'i]Mildrina'$cETfoi{iiWirilihsi$5 Edin {@
^
liseisheierformandeEITliTPMTikTrIrYidi0iibl$$f6tiasseinbliii[the' appopriate r inpu@h'silS$Eddhis lidtiatfdbi Project {or liy cover
- ~ . letter tocensee; the h. and-_'.llie(M.BM.,5r,M,Mdodm5,i5iidr$[of
- n. .
the fwsomg otthe assessm,ent to the appropn., ate ~c . tiie10sess5siil!$rE regiona I: contact}or
~
%sii615 edtry intd th5 hiini idiieEiEft?}}G 4.1.2 Technical Staff Review Initial development, negotiation, and agreement of evaluation work plans are addressed in Section 2.4.
Changes to the agreed upon work plan are sometimes necessary due to circumstances related to the operation of the licensee's facility, the PM's activities, or the activities of the TB. As soon as possible after determining that a revision to the schedule is required, the PM or TB should contact the other party to discuss a proposed revised completion date. The revision should be documented by completing the appropriate sections of the Work Request Form. In order to minimize surprises, the PM should also remain cognizant of the status of the review by monitoring WISP and having periodic discussions with the reviewer or section chief. For those cases in which the PM and technical staff cannot agree on a revised schedule'$r tlNtihj%Ed5$gedid#ilidEdic'5Eds'I@riiEiiih's, the problem should promptly be brought to the attention of the appropriate ORP oud TDNRR management. The TB staff may also provide input to the PM regarding the licensee's performance for use in the spicumLc assessment of licensee performance (SAI:P) This is not required; however, should the TB have substantive SALP reisted insights or be reyested to provide input by the PM, an assessment of licensee performance should be provided as an attachment to the SE input memorandum from the TB to DRP. 4.1.3 Contractor Review Occasionally, technical staff will use contractors to assist in performing a review. Project Managers should treat the amendment the same as a technical staff review and communicate with the technical staff member designated as the contract's technical monitor. Project Managers should work with the technical monitor to establish the level of review, schedule, and the statement of work. 4.2 Use of Precedent Safety Evaluations Page 4.2 Guide for Processing License Amendments 4 l
1 ) There are a number of considerations and cautions regarding the use of a precedent safety evaluation by i NRR staff. These include, but are not limited to, the following: 1 ensure the precedent is appropriate for use with the intended amendment e ensure that the precedent meets current expectations for format, findings, internal NRR guidance for the item, NRR guidance to industry, and technical content a ensure that previous plant specific information is replaced with information relevant to the current plant a obtain TB concurrence, unless formal guidance has been issued giving an alternative e _ _ _ _ . .....___>ma concurrence process w.7,.. .vom mm .mm mv.u m.mm mou m suusmmm,. m .m. . _ _ _ of mm
,.n .
. s i a u vvusuammuj
+ yy p?vyrrvsyptr ggegr pg 4.3 R' % u. ssts,for. !Additi.'_p"
~
- -~- -. - .d- o n n n. n,.- n -. -
nm ia6n,f enoss RAl,s;n.v,ho,uld ,,, , . , n.
.. ..~
o and s T~he
~ n n, n.-
!was- developed!.with_; staffis accountabl~e ,v c proper,c_analrGIII for.the,'appr,o,_pr.frGnkthe;tecim,ltcompl, n,~
ica
,n- ..
exity,~1nsk.v. w
;signM.w_.,6, -;ie ,bef en prece'
...d~ec. ent amend., ments, t m-, h.es --.- p mand ,_ l.m tiepth m 7-m, ofview,th,s
..m.%
sanred% the;6,- +c -mot p EI5tEi!I En$$litiedy: lidihMt amendment ifA,hcationiand,co6ndMiiEeisiiiE5M.
. n .~ . n . n
; vnd nE nn-n 5'SIIIaEl 6 6..h .
app . applicable,w. ,a-codes, standards,tregulatotym ~i @w. o. ajhlienbiA5thndArdjReyiE@lEnMI!he.jfdil6@jfjdiidIshed[i@fhR$j@n.k r . .m { concerns:
,e; .. .m n - . . . . .
), T,he. staffould.make.eyery 5b.w ,.v,n,m ,. , .- , z, y.,,_If,p,,on,e:roundToftR41s,,pe_rr,n,n4 w h+ " . " .
aniisl:ES"l@iilic'EiEO n W . .'s M.V@iiffGlid6id?hWis'EiUiBF n fibo. *' - l
.c.an . i,nfer$lthk :te
..y fiudmg,&M,m.,m 7
esta s4 _ W..-.h.m;noc_essary;m.~formaso_n e:likely1t o be:exce.
.m.m y e dedjf.mmultip n .. .
y ie E6dihlddEftiff7:eEiisE .
%UNilidadl5d E! avoid saiGEiTWei'iE46EidifcW&.
r 4iE n-the-lneed foremany;RAlsWodIri c,ll_EF_sure ansEiWUeMiaitiEEh%ii? Mile _ l n- .- teffectlye:and' efficient: review, PMs:arefegfu. sed 30 m p...c , e .nn,. ,, .~,,n...-.
. n-.
notify,t,he,14censee prior to issui,ng,artiR41,and ., .d..ocument n,n the 'conv,ersation m the RAI cover.lederd( m-. n.w . ,- m ,.- n mn - N, Prio,r .t,o;de,ve,lopm..g an RA,,7thuijstaffs.s_houldv._ ensure;t ,. in_at: to n..~, th,e.m. n.f,orm,,ation_is,not.already,ayada.,hle:,.,
~ n, . n . .,. n an,m, n. .n . ~ . _ mn the;staffror; th,at ethe,r answericould3notycasonabl,ylbe;m.,ferred ' from igeneral, knowledge,:oriexist,mg
~. n ,n. ,. :n regulatory requirements;
- , -m ~ m . s m. .m,m_,_y_. m A. Question.,hou.-, y wy _ ,,
ss ld be specific ratiier.than :ov,,erly,b road, and ~the response _to tiie.RAI;should.be;,ot ya lue
- .m~m . . . _._ ,s .
to th_e staff's safety evaluation ba, sis 3 1
. . , . , . . . . . ,n- n . - - .._ . L .
-.n ,
5,; Ques,tiohs included inithefiorm,n.,llRAlj.should_;askifor. a information;thatLis:re,qu,redn,nie~lthe i :to3ma Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 4.3 '
.~ -- . _ -. - - . - . . - . .---- . . . _ - . - - .
r$ginidIordElitis.9N5Eh16MtidfiEuld'hxplicitifstiti_thded6iitEiyI6IsisWi0ikir@I6ElihidEd e.n;+fo~rm~atm n -nn.~._ m a nn nn a,,.n-fo,r.;thean taf urmg conference.csd,
-.o y JRDM.mddm'a ns s ees ionam,:g,% &.7(TheN.y.fsmayJgotsomewhat enerally;re.
..m sponssyew, toisuc - h m,
,m quinesMm.delingss,w me tcCvisitsla i
beyond,ithe; m.%. reg,u m --- n, , a nw dis,cus.n.nm,hM.RCpregional siontwit m y.m . , , - rsonnel
<n pe.n u :al~so=prov.,de:a i
the staf.hto_ learn:about:techsical means~for;n.on de.tails:thatinayM.vothmm.-rrant' inclusion. in an R1I)!
- ng.n. - . . - u, ,m. n , .w, , . . . . _ , . ,
dS If.an;RAI;ianissuedmd Ain Abel -.n.,,_'s resp. .onse does not fully address;the)(A,lttheM,will! set,.upla
, mny nnn . n.n ~..nw n -, n n n n meetmg;or;confcmpoeica,llMit,inth,eshcensee;to" discuss:sthe d,iscrepancy1and,shith,needslto16ne pbvidedMilEsidfdoiddMihp EtfiliEainendissent j revied wnm, 7.q 'lhe staf[s6widwke.a an mamMum.nw,-preymous esse reynews; Si ThOiA5elyIuSIiuWh{IUIWifMEsa'rda83 thilisen5eds$gEidYibMfmeddINif8Isli '
l shElid NsfastorEdifinidhlMM$dd61e3siaNididlio complete thirevieEMUiiiiOM, lid 5AiinE$Eti6ii lirAelines?gififiFgE@f00}iddFdy6didais hfiemple'ing t 556fVpilEiitiisifiEMsh5ioM yearky
.,. , _m, , , , , , , ,
- m. _ -..
The m, tent t n . ~
;, nof,his ,n .n- guidan,c,e_as
. nwn;,m n- ,. -
n,ot to.i,m,ut_the_. ,-staff . from gettm, a mme g the m,for,m,a, tion thsl,as,n.mn.,,,_., nn-anv a3technicaljreviewn t
- m. . s % rath~erythi.s3practiceiasinceded
. ._ s my m. mv- to,ensurefth~atnthenm,.
.. _y forma,nont.reguest_sawalli,
.s .
prod,uctiveand . focus.;s~taff,tandAe_res_ourc , ,es.on the pertment~1ssues;nhce,y_essary to;mak_e_ajegulatory dec_ ision. 4.4 k. kb. aN. .h. ! b. tN.e.$tYheb.~lylt.hken from S$hY
,g _n . .- .
. - n,n, m,wg g Dur;n . mgtthe,rev np iew,.,,,,ym?1. b n=tiapph;.,, T _ cationset he, staff,will;baseJtsMindingsjoniaMTety2cf I5foiMdtiob[hi$[dildM iifd555ioinl cods $dh5d[f5MMCM[M infrgigri=mparyTg! mm.wrngssp;;rstigGiiisiiWm357,W"- mew rw menh-approval c
% v-
.~.wr.a >s en
. considered impor tant!to9y3 d f k Mot:
s.- - . . r me enn.,traditionally:ref,gs err @. @nn:nia,_,Nmb
.. , n . ,n . n.n.
staff,'sn n._Caf;s,uM,n ges:h.ave .6e... m _- i a co i im.,,'pr artappm,dco,,mmitutW,EI@. _. -o-,---y,< Item,M_mm tmentsdIt'as portant_to conEl m e m..m mmat m its proper context as a.n ar ,, m m m . r. otii.- hand censees l
,m _. . . . ~ , .
d~ie,NRCi n m., . .m,tsff'sN.n,y,,lMDea,d. eutro Gl l.d.ll k,tyyli cen hing basis infor mation - fatifi
%w . .~ &To,iaddags%,mmw,edm 77, m. .~._,poblems; !
improve. internal.;p.wy tocesses, w*,a tik.mm,s.,ts_ improye;a ,p,-m interact ions .,, g, swith. y
. - ~ . . g.m m,m.~m n -n, , , . . . . .;heen,s~ees,.the,tstEf,;plansito nm defigmne;mor,e a I formallyjai.hiemr,chyt.n censmgtbasis1informa, offli tion.,and;r, elated,:processesiinaan .,g g.-. , m,wdetter NRRioffice
.n v ,, , - n., nny n a .-
, , .,d;Off,icc,inetter;807,ipcontrol,n.
(propose .. - i, o 9/9,m.The n 9k u. .
. y.w,_m.
om inerarchy;1
.m y c ange mm relates:to control,and m
e. re ..,tmgtsyh,of:Licensmg por
.,m.
s . _-,. . m processes _ ass.ociated:w,ith.th,ewanou,s
- m . .m m Bas;,s,for Oper
- m. ,m .
elements of,the licensm,,g lia.myd,n,;approa,chito sis th,e hierarchy at th .is- likely.to_be..meludsd m the'peddmg
-n.,
-officen ,,w;as letteris follmvs
, - .m.mmym,m, _n .
.w . n nn,,_vnw .
(1) Obhgationseconditionsforc_ actions that are lega~lly bmdm.~g sequirements; imposed on[h.,,,, eensees (6ibughIaph._lica6fe 3iild,7,ij615tions,Mders,L
.- n, - . . ,,_,n,,, , ind1lihehsesG' lie 715hdiiti5hfofi,6biiisti6ns
,. nc.. n.. . .
(sometimesirefer,redito,s_as tregulatory/ requirements)fdurm. w ,,,,,terac,tionstwith? g routme:m . hcensees
.- .,m_ . . .
sh,ould be resery .-~bd fo,r those matters warrant, m g pnor NRC approva'o
. , ,l.f_cha_nges;-
Page 4.4 Guide for Processing License Amendments I 1 l
(2) Mandated,; . 6documentsn,_suchp;as,ah,e,>d,%r ASARi he; ,-.ndnn- qual em w mw
.m,-
assurancee m.m., . ,3 an d ithe.w
; emergency om-ye%swidor.gl9yinchfjhe2NmRC 5l as 4 EsSbMhid[M$idhanje c6ntiolMreU6ttind .
b) f6"gst6ip.%W WE,rittesh.WNtiliisilisiWiyEMEnWijiiEEiA g_ -.m m
,_ .. .y tegulatory; .. .. _for! ..~.,-.n.. _ matters m,whic .s.,vit., die n,6 M, .N. % . . . _W, _. .,. _.__terest but y w.e ,e . .. . .,. ._
wisch:do 5M.i,tGi.,(PSAR4r3 e
-m mmm m not NW m ' , % i. % ding requ~ireme_nt ordactu$oWy program subject.N .3 o o C a W d . , ,.chm. ~ q ~ ,angecontrol,m echamsm mm},
-. nymn c (4) NonfLicensmg-R..W e" @ww.w~ m formation . s , th~at!:. srexclianged.n:n mm$mdag.mww.mpn p troutipedaleractions
- s .. rm mm-~
; 4lgpf, + ,q y,x ~lb~ut that_ does. _o me wnot wananthemgn __ :ss part ofLthe m
. w m .y Thcensing basis.d nn . . .n
. n ,h,e;,c,o,ncept of_ A. .e o. M a. .%n A,lthough.t , . y.gnn,, bastsformat,on m i ' wn.nHo_rsson+fmM-has existe a ime, n,nplanned e, .n;-n ~ -.w n Emp~ha.nv.n s:sfonD s -o ,1,, n. m. .-.a .w cation s of; m. formationlM.mihIlj0id hMaM~ t y<TdaIi;cn iX wrequire
;.}iadssh"diiE"W: < : E. .t :o 4"'5dd he NRC'stMMWW@MM6EllE
- n.n .. .
n . n wwm mmm.w regulstory1 bas,s,y.mnw.i '. change. 'm i om 2W ,repoitm. . wg.mechamsmsnapplica%mpM. v;a-rts,and a
- h. - we.v: .
ammmmww nu. ,tations,tand other;cx-vm. e W 4 v,# y,w.w. .~ o ,yanous. types:of h,c~ensmgthaddafgpnanon.wmnndor;operatmg plants.;
., , w mnm ,. , . . . _. ,,n ,
As to thepartof;the.).m, m; ;',1 M,." , an~ .n yoJyes regulatorp.ommitmenhts,mmm mith,the .
~mm m.w .n f 'xwen -ne mm www Nuclear 3Bnergyldm nstlsv.m. a. n, nonto f4thetindustryr Wh; . ..Na;,, h.. 'impaging .
~ ~ , . n . . w.
comnutments,ma
- n. m . m m .n den 10 o a:m * . . an .mwn. etag discussions; - nk2 wit p tm. Mn. ,. ow n% n
. : on m .- m m .m .s ,m. _ . _ _ . . , eme.,
hose .s;mc. tent to complete i W.% . R,M m@ince letter of,,,d,,Off th,e results:gice
.(propose .-. oftt c n. , , ,, ..
._n tments Mad,b,y:L,i e ,-, a i 'W..
.~
W 's b,fo .leted by 9/99,) ion.n ...m . . ,.n.enn ory; commitments .nn !y. m_ .n, W W,. a L w M.,In, . v n p m .n n ,~ . , ,w; y general,en <
.cprrent, rules;and' . .. ,,+Q. . . , ,i a ' . . C.o w :siong
, m ve consistedc,wm yspa zwiv su:wn :w n . . . , .and l censees of .y c ? n2" ~ . ..
, %pm~ls, contro Edhiih6E65Mit7w Yd6fdindihiduAl356dC$M MM.$A m Uddf6r
- yerifymg;regulatotys6v. dy icensee%sc c_ m.~ yor...
identifying,y - 4mm
~
AdditidAal[ii6*M b .. w ; & ' ,d ftaff3istihE86r!EMMEs503 br6vid.ai'ifsd - n. dwusspesainihyggmijilkentq57dHftEna Made . - - . byerLReac_ Pow,. dV4sW , . . torso.M. Aa ' -Cir y. wr tember285i998; n
%., dated S,ep. -. -
n n. .m.n nnn nMb(WA, em,g_s,lrequ . :pn.or, NRC,tapproyal,l,oftsubsequent The esc. ala , tion;oknnd. comi Ecpamoon inng s.m er ge ,, .
"g.
, - m .w e% y changes,$,should~'be ,y,.7. :-
. I p , + P t h,u_ satisfy,the s cn,. y s w yy.7in teci,micals%.%f.%pecificatmns
.y byt,10LCER15036 o,rtmcl. 4 9 M.#. . ,,.n,ddress,,.my voa m
a tena sigmficantr . .,..for'.mclusion,_ m ..fe%.sa ty; issue m ,ydtoutm,,e m.m ,. , commitme n n - n .
- n o .ye en . a w n.v w w ,mhouk@ s eediscusse n n d..v !m ~h,et on n
staff',. techm, . n-_, cal. s sa fety;evaluationM.sca matters thatf. .
% mt
.la~ted,mto @ 4 A,
formal;hcen_se . n
- n. ten.
con +for
..n w n. heense .
conditions.
.n.-....n,,. . . . - .. ,,v,__.. _ , . , nw. , -
b~ee,n amended tofcapture; a % @Wo,.ts may be rev. ised .
. m future l,ce se;n. ,.n.n,t, requests to i n amendmen v . .c ,
.- v. ., . nn n-del,ee.the_spe. cia, l app =Im,dfW$,stdfMn.termines that a l. .icense condi, tion imposed m_a.recen,tly. created appeddinh60ldM[irAliM.MWE865g"ati6n a:sNdescribid Lin/thiihierErE59[5hlEfn'insMis s infdhnatioh. th'e conditioIM@kMdie'6heiatin' ' license. g Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 4.5 i
MMMMBisiti&JGIEntiiiue~1ni Giss'ToliftTsiiiiiiWnT i c LTeGEiWiisii6infai EiGiliiBRirNsisWinpi&failthMEidliEESEhiE[eUINiR@MOiiididlSMiddiA[55iiihi lidliiWi$liiddllBliiNnid$nnuniyfthis'tyniCdfMMMM4"M5iinifiW6dfih6jfityS l N66ai$$$4llic' atiA${i$!di3pWEdlFSARUME35siihiIsifd RiiMlBMilidiWai@NQe?a.61&fthsWiniffiWd ~lKT77di86i3idiiE
.' ~ Di W M iin ndm s nudii 6MiliilEgidiit6fdsiiiMamendmenipage shiEliiEsisiddjifinsRT5fEIKni6fd6i[tiidMi(RIstAf'fl MGlGIEiGRiiff#iiMidiGiffsfLEby316TNiiGiiffsihif9BdBiMITaifsyiiisWGi36sikiiiTaiu Idi6i41lii6511bTIINE#As. Tid intnni6uid6ciME6ikidWiidifGjiiijEirxiMNM 4.5 Safety Evaluation Format There are several sections of a typical SE, which are described below. Attachment 2, the Safety Evalua-tion Form and Content Guide, provides additional guidance, in a checklist form, for the content of some of the key sections of an SE. These should be used to quickly assess the completeness of key sections of the SE.
4.5.1 Introduction The introduction section of the SE should provide a brief description' of the licensee's amendment request. Supplementary submittals and their effects on the scope of the original notice and the no significant hazards consideration determination, if not renoticed, are also described in this section. A typical introduction consists of one or two paragraphs. The description of the amendment included in the public notice may be useful in preparing the description in the SE's introduction. 4.5.2 Background The background section provides the regulatory framework for the licensing action. This section should provide a summary of the relevant regulations, regulatory guides, generic letters, or other basis for the current requirements and the requirements following the amendment. A description of the system or component, if applicable, may also be needed to better describe the effects of the change. This information forms the basis or criteria that will enable the staff to determine the acceptability of the licensee's amendment request. The background section may also provide a summary of the licensee's rationale for the proposed change, including operating problems, changes in technology, or changes in analytical approaches. 'Ihis informa-tion forms the "why" of a licensee's request. Although the reason the licensee is requesting an amend-ment may be irrelevant to the acceptability of the proposal, it may warrant inclusion in the evaluation. This information may also support the conclusions of the evaluation, in that the proposed change has minimal safety consequences but offers advantages in terms of reduced radiation exposures, reduced costs, or resolution of other hardships. 1 The above material related to regulatory acceptance criteria and the licensee's incentive for the proposed Page 4.6 Guide for Processing License Amendments
l i change may be included in the introduction and evaluation sections in lieu of having a separate back- l ground section. However, the preferred format includes a background section. 1 4.5.3 Evaluation , 1 The evaluation section documents the staff's evaluation of a proposed change against the relevant regula-tory criteria. The evaluation should include a description of the proposed changes and an analysis of the proposal in terms of regulatory requirements, established staff positions, industry standards, or other relevant criteria. The evaluation should also contain the staff's specific conclusion that the proposed ; change is acceptable in terms of public health and safety. Very broad statements such as "the staff i evaluated the changes and found them acceptable", although commonly used, do not provide sufficient ' justification for a licensing action. See the attached Safety Evaluation Form and Content Guide for more information. 1 1 4.5.4 Other l In addition to the technical considerations of the SE, the issued amendment will include the following sections. Licensing Assistants maintain standard language and examples for these sections. mn a mn .~,en
,e, Regulatory
_ n - ~ . . ,., nn (Connnitmentsl,(ref.1SECY-98 nn .n .n -. 224) dvy
-n a ,fetyfEy'aliiah n., ~ ,ons;foiamendment requests
,,, - .n.v . - n, g regu poniainm,n:=lator,.y comnu.tments sh,ould;.d,iscuss:then,itment,s comm and state tha,t e thw' staff fin'dithat n~ .~.e nsubjec matterns -
ihmm,,hwn, ,.n!ad~equately,;~ controlled;,byathnam'g dn.r. sda
. ,n.wnnunistrativelprograms.alf;n edhcensee. an I6fidinE5dhEfu'dE6uid$rdds idguhIfrj?idrimiit5E5Idfschiirii{s5Eti5fiiiMSEWyMAssi t3 lis,iEd6fEiMi_sT&asuiE?Ih6Gif n - , -n n mn57Piiiii5 fir.igal,iEffcj5,si,fid_iiion$_fithe$fEiaiI&iiEs
-- n. !
ggujatorygomputmentsnTypical.wordmg r~egar_dmg ggdlatgyicomnutments,is_as follows:, i
~
7 tam $@id[NEMlitur9TdEdiih"itmeiit[4357di&)NRd5iiffidTEidst$frTe s$siabfe ! f!6E6irR,o4
- .~ E_%feseWithel, abop~ve r_egula_a.~._ifduRE,i);sre$,s,iE,6Mflg&
=59.mtprovided._byjtheihce se s a6 !
pertamm,gi,nnna t g.n.ntory;co t( es ; ne !
.nm SNmtmstratWkprocessestincludmg n.-- s~ .,
- latorylcpmnutmentsido_no..nnnNnn i ,
regis itslen.vcommitr eky e.w.m.,,,w..,.,,,s.hn .ement! n 7,mmitmen. e program _.,n_above. j m mmmww requinng; es m iNR poor.y _Ceapp, .ofanm.m
;subsequentic roval,tLWarrant3 mhanges)&{Ihe;sta finm mnf e;creat w_.w mg mdu,s_tryiand; regulatory spertainmgyto 1., )CF guidance.,y, ym
.,c.- u0,.m ,RE50
,, s .. ,. m s ,,
mayIcall<!,fo. rasome
- m. w ..
ms , my, _. informa,tionjrelwmm ate i ;b Jnclu. a: future;up ate.of.th,e facility's f,inal.
- m. ,d safety analysis to the:ab~ove_com,m,tments;to%5 nnded m,y e-reportu m _ . , ,. ,m , ..
h-ie;m-,,< .
,,.s sentence pertaining,._,
.to.inc
,lus,on,n;of i e r- %
informa,tion
, mm up d,ates.to.,FSARs is anantenm step;to the, full 4 ..
rw, nn., , .. w - n m -..v,e w nnu a om , ,v , puplementation_of the ~ , w ,iesen,6mme previously; 6wof ylicensm2 bas,g.,tsformation.R ed hierarc in Completion of I [Eddi6faddsidff5Id$ce fofupilatini6fFS$hMiisid1EII$$dinblitAf69 S6ptErnbsr 1599.t e Emergency / Exigent Provisions - Safety Evaluations for amendments processed using the emergency or exigent provisions of 10 CFR 50.91 must include a section that supports a finding that the licensee has used its best efforts to make a timely application. I l l l , Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 4.7 l 4
e Final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination - Safety Evaluations for amendments issued using the emergency or exigent provisions or for amendments for which a hearing has been requested must include a final NSHCD. State Consultation - This section states that the NRC has consulted with the appropriate state official in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91. If there are state comments, they should be addressed in this section. Comments received from members of the public should be addressed in a separate section of the SE. Environmental Considerations - This section lists the appropriate categorical exclusion from 10 CFR 51.22 to explain why the staff did not prepare an EA. The PM determines if the amend-ment meets a categorical exclusion or not. For those amendments involving an EA, this section will reference the assessment's publication in the Federal Register. Note that Project Managers should plan for the fact that the EA and finding of no significant impact must be published in the Federal Register prior to the issuance of the amendment. Licensing Assistants maintain standard, OGC-accepted wording that should be used in this section. Conclusion - This section states the staff's conclusion that the amendment will not endanger public health and safety. References - All documents referenced in SE should be readily available forpublic inspection (if not proprietary) in the NRC PDk . available for purchase from other sources in
' the public domain such as Government Prir... , Office, the National Technical Information Services, University or special technical libraries, or the originating organizations.
I Page 4.8 Guide for Processing License Amendments i I l
5.0 Review and Concurrence Review and concurrence is the process by which the quality and consistency of the amendment package is verified. Concurrence involves obtaining the approved signatures required for amendment issuance. It is the PM's responsibility to ensure that appropriate concurrences are received for the amendment pack-age. D;ure 4 diagrams the considerations that should be made in determining who should be included on the concurrence chain. When the concurrence chain is determined, the name, title, and organization of each individual should be entered on an amendment routing form (Attachment 3). Amendment packages prepared by PMs must always be concurred on by the tbs associated with the technical area (s) of the proposed change unless the tbs have agreed that a PM or lead PM may perform their function (e.g., for certain line item improvements). Although affected by reorganizations, the standard review plan remains usefoi in determining the appropriate branch. Licensing Assistants perform an initial review and concurrence, before sending the package to other NRR organizations. During this review, the LA ensures that the package is complete, in the correct format for text and graphics, and that all the required steps have been completed. ) 1 When the SE is prepared by tic tbs, the PM has the responsibility for integrating it into the overall l amendment package. If, during this integration, the PM makes substantial changes to the SE, the TB per-sonnel involved in the preparation of the original SE should be an early reviewer in the concurrence chain to ensure that there is no change in technical content or original intent. In any case, the concurrence page should indicate the TB originator of the SE (see Office Letter 101). SE input from a TB which is used with only minor editorial changes does not need additional concurrence by that TB. When TB concurrence is not necessary, include the appropriate TB in a concurrence block and cross them off with a note that SE input dated was provided and no major changes were made. Guidance and signature authority for special categories of amendments, such as changes in licensed power level, are provided in NRR Office Letter 101. In addition to the appropriate TB, the Technical Specifications Branch (TSB) must be included on the concurrence chain when the amendment package involves significant deviations from the latest revision of the improved STS. Project Managers may also request concurrence by TSB on packages related to the implementation of the Pine! Pe icj S;.anmm en T S Iniy.v .m.. m. e er u m ,o,mcOf[tMIMEIA l [ihiiidg Ei$iditI5fiil5EM'Mi$ 10 CFR 50.36. Involvement of TSB also may be impoitant in those cases in which there are questions regarding proposed changes that are consistent with the most recent STS version or 10 CFR 50.36. l I Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 5.1
Amendment sr Package O V No e e Guidance i ! LA Concunence Yes 1 r 1r Obtain 4
. Required unences No SE Substantial Prepared Revision to PM -
TB input by? 1v'
?
Yes OGC No
# Yes ir i Concurrence Required TB ?
Concurrence Yes 1r 1r OGC m ence No and La Concurrence Needed 1r
?
PD/PM + Yee Concurrence TSB ,7 Concunence Contact
- l State 1 r Approved Arnendenent Figure 4. Planning Strategy Guidance for Levels of Application-Precedent Similarity and Review Technical Complexity Page 5.2 Guide for Processing License Amendments
, 1 1
Office Letter 906 provides guidance related to PGEB concurrence on EAs. The OGC must concur on all license amendments, unless an explicitly defined exception is documented in a memorandum of under-standing between NRR and OGC*. The OGC reviews the amendment package for legal defensibility and completeness. To assist those requested to concur, amendment packages should include: e copy of the license amendment e copy of the SE ' e copy of the incoming license amendment request, including all related docketed correspondence > e copy of the Federal Register notice (or the forwarding memo) e copy of any relevant background information, including similar evaluat'.ons used in preparing the SE, related internal documents, and easily attached reference material e memorandum forwarding the Federal Register notice ofissuance ' e . routing form including the applicable SRP section number. ' Parallel concurrence may be used to expedite the review and concurrence process if the amendment requires multiple concurrences and timing is of concern PMs should ensure that comments incorporated ; during the concurrence process do not affect the bases for concurrences received prior to changing the ! amendment package. Project Directors or their designees (possibly the PMs) must provide final concurrence for all amendments processed or confirm and document amendment package coriectness by their signature on the amendment cover letter and amended license. NRR Office Director concurrence and Commission notification at least 5 days prior to issuance is required for any license amendment for which:
- 1) the staff has made a fm' al no significant hazards consideration determination, and
- 2) a hearing has been requested which will not be conducted prior to issuance of the amendment.
The LAs can be consulted for the standard format for Commission notification. ; ' (4) As of December 1998, OGC concurrence is required for all license amendments. Should a memorandum of understanding be developed that changes this policy, NRR/DRP personnel will be informed via an announcement or memorandum. . Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 5.3 L
6.0 Amendment Preparation and Issuance I b After the required concurrence signatures are obtained, the amendment package is issued to the licensee and the notice is sent to the Rules Review and Directive Branch (ADM) for transmittal to the Federal Register. The no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) contact of the state must be called for comments prior to issuance of an amendment. The Office of Administration and the Office of the Secretary are contacted prior to issuance to determine if comments from the public or petitions to intervene were received on the proposed amendment. Although PMs are responsible for amendment l issuance, LAs perform most of the required administrative functions and are familiar with current practices. The final package should include: e a letter transmitting the amendment to the licensee for signature by PM e a standard distribution or cc: list e the license amendment for final signature by the appropriate level of management (consult Office Letter 101 for the current practices regarding the delegation of signature authority) 1 e the revised TS or license pages
)
l e the SE, with reference to an EA if appropriate (the EA is issued as a separate document) e input to the biweekly Federal Register notice or a separate Federal Register notice of issuance I e addressing for internal distribution to TB, TSB, Regions, etc. Guide for Processing License Amendments Page 6.1 4
i' Attachment 1 - NRR Work Request Form and Instructions i This attachment to the Guidefor Processing License Amendments includes the NRR Work Request Form and related instructions. The Work Request Fonn is used to coordinate amendment reviews that are performed by tbs. Project Managers should complete the " Background" and " Assistance Requested" portions of the form. The appropriate TB representative should complete the " Tech Branch Response" portion of the form. Various levels of discussica between the PM and TB may be required to reach agreement on the estimates included in the work request process. The technical complexity associated with the amendment request and the availability of useful precedents will partially determine the levels of interaction required. The TB should either agree with the PM estimates / requests or initiate negotiations such that agreement is reached within 5 working-days of receipt of the work request. Any inability of the TB and PM to reach agreement on a work request should be brought to the attention of vu mm dM[5kN management. Revisions should be negotiated between the PM and TB in order to minimize delays, maintain technical adequacy of reviews, and ensure the best utilization of NRR resources. Revisions can consider changing the scope of review, TB product, estimated staff-hours, target completion date, or a combination of these i to achieve the best results. Additional information for each item on the form is provided below. De:c Nyeiid - d.m. thc fu.m .s oubniated to e TO by he PM Nca- Rcps:/Rc :.*ea - syy.ve ie:c c eyi.cn shonid um chccked ic icncc; ,,hcihcr :he fe m is esswe:cd ;ih e eco -e.k .ic.ii v. .s bsiiig nocd to im. 3, mfu. met.on isle;,J io m. cx.st.ng wo.k item Priority - the NRR priority for the amendment (1,2, e 3ror4) Target Date - list the target date for the TB product (see Section 2.43) Staff hours estimate - provide estimate of staff-hours that will be required for the TB to provide the requested product (see Section 2.4.2) PD Signature /Date - assigned PD signature formalizing DRP request for assistance in the review of an amendment application with appropriate priority, requested target date, and estimates of appropriate expenditure of staff resources (staff-hours). TB Signature /~..:te - designated TB staff signs work request following agreement on the details of the work request (scope, resources, schedule). Signature indicates acceptance of the work activity and agreement with the information on the form. Subsequent changes to the information should be coordinated with the PM and Guide for Processing License Amendments Attachment 1-1 I
. l l
i 1
d documented using a revised work request form. BACKGROUND The background section should be completed by the PM. Information to be provided in this section includes: Plant - the name of the plant associated with the application Units - the units affected by the proposed amendment l Project Director - the Project Director for the subject facility 1 i Project Manager / Phone /E-mail /M/S - the Project Manager, phone extension, E-mail address and ' mail stop l TAC Nos - the TAC number (s) assigned to the amendment request. Unless directed
)
otherwise, reviewers will divide work hours evenly between TAC numbers listed on the work request form. 1 Licensee Proposed Action / Submittal Date - A short description of the proposed hcense l amendment and related facility design or operational changes; the date of the incoming submittal ASSISTANCE REOUESTED This section should be completed by the PM. Information to be provided in this section includes: Technical Branch - list the TB being requested to provide support. A separate work request form is required for each TB dedicating significant staff-hours to the review of the proposed amendment. Other tbs Providing Input / Concurrence - list any other tbs that have been or will be requested to participate in the review by either providing input to the SE or concurrence on the final package. Scope of Review / Product Requested - describe the level of assistance and product requested from the TB. Examples include (1) complete review of a proposed amendment with documentation provided as an SE and (2) provide background information (applicable regulations, regulatory guides, industry standards) to assist PM in preparation of SE without need to send formal memorandum. Possible Precedents - list possible precedents found during the work planning activities -2 Guide for Processing License Amendments
PM Signature /Date - PM signtture to tuthorize TB efforts foll$ wing tgreement on ths details of the work request (scope, resources, schedule). Subsequent changes to the information should be coordinated with the TB end documented using a revised work request form. TECH BRANCH RESPONSE TB Product - acknowledges that requested product will be provided or proposes alternative based upon technical isrues, resource limitations, or existence of useful precedents Assigned Reviewer /PhoneE-mail - lead reviewer assigned to prepare TB product and interface with the PM during the review process (should agree with reviewer entered into WISP); phone
~
, extension and E-mail address. Comments - this space is available for TB to provide any conunents regarding the i scope, resources, r.hedule, technical issues, suggested involvement of other tbs, or other concerns or suggestions i i l l 1 l l Guide for Processing License Amendments
- Attachment 1-3
NRR WORK REQUEST PM REQUEST AGREED TO* yk(ohhhkM)$$$$k Priority: kNrghjkhj$!h[$k Target Date:
!$taNd$Mi$$ih$:$$ Staff-hr Estimate:
PD Signature /Date: : Branch Signature /Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Plant: - Unit (s): Project Director: Project Manager: Phone: E-mail: M/S: O-TAC No(s): M M M Licensee Proposed Action / Submittal Date: ASSISTANCE REQUESTED Technical Branch: Other tbs Providing input / Concurrence: Scope of Review / Product Requested: Possible Precedents: PM Signature /Date: TECHNICAL BRANCH RESPONSE TB Product: l Assigned Reviewer: Phone: E-mail: Comments:
- Any change in target date, priority or staff-br estimate should be negotiated with the PM before revising.
In addition, please inform the PM of any additional tbs required, that are not identified above, for the review.
- Return to PM Within 5 Workina Days of Recelot -
Attachment 2 - Safety Evaluation Form and Content Guide l l l i i INTRODUCTION O Reference to licensee's amendment request? O Brief description of proposed change? l O Reference to any supplemental submittals and impact on the no I significant hazards consideration determination? i O Reference to any related NRC activities (e.g., generic letters)? l BACKGROUND O Applicable regulations cited? - O Specific applicable regulatory criteria described?
- O Description of system / component and current requirements included'l O Purpose of amendment requests described?
EVALUATION O Detailed description of the proposed change included? O Method of staff review described? O Key information used in the review (from licensee or general knowledge) included? O Comparison of change to regulatory criteria included? O Regulatory comrcitment(s) & related finding (s)? O Findiags/ conclusions included? EXIGENT / EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES O If necessary, is there a discussion of circumstances and staff's . findmgs? FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION O If necessary, is there a final NSHCD? STATE CONSULTATION O State consultation conducted and comments addressed? ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS O Is the required categorical exclusion or reference to a published environmental assessment included? CONCLUSION l 0 Is there a Staff conclusion that the action does not endanger public health and safety? REFERENCES i O All applicable utility correspondence, UFSAR sections, regulatory i requirements / guidance, and industry standard / guides included ! (in reference section or within SE text)?
. .. . - __ _ _ _ . _ _-.. . _ ~ ~ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ __
t dttachment 3 - Amendment Routing Form o'
~ Licensing Assistants hive developed fdrly standard routing forms thIt address slight Project Directorate variances related to LA/PM/PD concurrences and responsibilities for various duties such as consultations and notifications. Each routing form is expected to include, at least, the following items:
- BACKGROUND INFORMATlQN Plant name and affected unit (s)
TAC number (s) Application Date i Subject or descri ta,5 n ! Amendment packe contact, phone number, and mail stop ! Ameadment number (s) and issuance date (at issuance) CONCURRENCE ROUTING / PACKAGE PREPARATION r Concurrence Chain including: LA, PM, tbs, OGC, Management (per OL 101) Technical Branches providing SE inputs i SRP Seetion Check for Final Package Review (PM) and PM/PD signatures (in accordance wis PD specific delegations) Check for Final Package Review (LA) and assignment of Amendment number (s) ; Dispatch directions PUBLIC NOTIFICATION / STATE CONSULTATION : Initial No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Results Federal Register Publicationi Information (type, date, citation) ! Notice period and expiration date ; Check for need for final NSHCD Check for use of emergency / exigent provisions - Check for environmental assessment requirements Check for inclusion of notice ofissuance Check for concurrences / notifications if hearing requested ; Check for impact on stakeholders (petitioners, etc.) i Date and findings from checks with: j State contact for comments I SECY for petitions to intervene j ADM for public comments l I l l l l i I i Guide for Processing 1) cense Amendments
- Attachment 3-1}}