ML20203P680
| ML20203P680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Cooper, Brunswick, Vermont Yankee, Duane Arnold, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1986 |
| From: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bernero R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203P681 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605080023 | |
| Download: ML20203P680 (32) | |
Text
m
<h M 22 %
ff5f MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director, DBL FROM:
Daniel R. Muller, Director, BWR PD#2, DBL
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH BWR PROJECT DIRECTORATE #2 LI'CENSEES 4/10/86 i
i On April 10, 1986, the Project Managers and representatives of utilitfes assigned to BWR Project Directorate #2 met in the Versailles IV Room of the Bethesda Holiday Inn to discuss matters of common interest. The industry perspective was introduced into the discussions by encouraging utility input in the Automated Tracking session, by requesting utility presentations in the Integrated Schedules and Technical Specifications sessions, and by the scheduling of utility questions during NRC presentations.
In order to provide a balanced NRC viewpoint in the discussions, representatives of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the Regions were represented at the meeting.
Descriptions of the meeting are attached.
The consensus of both utility and NRC attendees was that the meeting was very useful. A canvas of utilities present favored the scheduling of similar
- meetings as items of mutual interest accumulated.-
Cr&inal t'DrdIP/
DasiciR.iri dtr i Daniel R. Muller, Director BWR Project Directorate #2 Division of BWR Licensing cc: See next page Attachments:
DISTRIBUTION,
- 1. Agenda LTRfRETILT I
-2. Informal Meeting Notes PDR/LPDR'
- 3. List of Attendees Plant Memo File
- 4. Technical Status Update OELD
- 5. Automated Tracking EJordan
- 6. Legal Considerations BGrimes
- 7. Integrated Schedules ACRS (10)
- 8. Technical Specifications NRC Participants EAdensam 1
{Y "See previous concurrence
/
DBL:PD#2*
DBL:P *2 VRooney: csp DP r
/
/
)J 4/16/86 4/2L/86 8605080023 860422 PDR ADOCK O 29
I p
a Browns Ferry fluclear Plant fir. S. A. White Tennessee Valley Authority Units 1, 2, and 3 CC:
s H. C. Bibb
- 11. S. Sanger., Jr., Escuire General Counsel Site Director, BFNP Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority Post Office Box 2000 400 Comerce Avenue Decatur, Alabana 35602 E llB 330 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission Mr. Ron Rooers Tennessee Valley Authority Route 2, Box 311 Athens, Alabama 35611 Sil 130B Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 ~
fir. Donald L. t!illians, Jr.
Tennessee Valley Authoritv Chairman, Limestone County Comission 400 Fest Sumit Hill Drive, U10B85 Post Office Box 188 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Athens, Alabama 35611 Robert L. Lewis,tianacer, RFNP Tennessee Valley Authority Ira L. Meyers, M.D.
State Health Officer Post Office Box 2000 State Department of Public Ilealth Decatur, Alabama 35602 State Office Buildino Montoomery, Alabama 36130 Mr. K. P. Whitt E3A8 400 West Sumit flill Drive Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Teanessee 37902 Pegional Administrator, Region II U. S. fluclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georoia 30303 Mr. Steven Roessler U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Reactor Training Center Osborne Office Center, Suite 200 Chattanoona, Tennessee 37411 i
p 3,
Mr. E. E. Utley Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Richard E. Jones, Esquire Carolina Power & Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Charles R. Dietz Plant General Manager Post Office Box 458 Southport, North Carolina 28461 Mr. Christopher Chappell, Chairman Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 249 Bolivia, North Carolina 28422 Mrs. Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse Budget and Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Star Route 1 Post Office Box 208 Southport, North Carolina 28461 i
Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 fir. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch Division of Facility Services Department of Human Resources Post Office Box 12200 j
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 l
l
?
Mr. J. M. Pilant Nebraska Public Power District Cooper Nuclear Station CC:
Mr. G. D. Watson.. General Counsel Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 4999 Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Mr. Arthur C. Gehr, Attorney Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Cooper Nuclear Station ATTN: Mr. Paul Thomason, Division Manager of Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Director Nebraska Department of Environmental Control P. O. Box 94877 State House Station Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 l
Mr. William Siebert, Comissioner Nemaha County Board of Connissioners Nemaha County Courthouse l
Auburn, Nebraska 68305 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
,i P. O. Box 218 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 l
Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 H. Ellis Simons, Director Division of Radiological Health Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall, South P. O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
\\
W.
=*
8'
T Mr. Lee Liu Iowa Electric Light and Power Company Duane Arnold Energy Center cc:
Jack Newman,' Esquire Harold F. Reis, Esquire Newman and Holtzinger 1615 L Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Office for Planning and Programming 523 East 12th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Chairman, Linn County Board of Supervisors Cedar Rapids, lowe 52406-Iowa Electric Light and Power Company ATTN:
D. L. Mineck Post Office Box 351 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office Rural Route #1 Palo, Iowa 52324 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Thomas Houvenagle Regulatory Engineer Iowa Commerce Commission Lucas State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319
I~
.O e
I Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr.
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Georgia Power Company Units Nos. I and 2 cc:
Bruce W. Churchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. L. T. Gucwa Engineering Department Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. H. C. Nix, Jr., General Manager Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Mr. Louis B. Long Southern Company Services. Inc.
P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, P. O. Box 279 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georiga 30303 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairwan Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513
y-Mr. E. G. Bauer, Jr.
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Philadelphia Electric Company Units 2 and 3 CC*
Mr. Eugene J. Bradley Mr. R. A. Heiss, Coordinator Assistant General Counsel Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse Philadelphia Electric Company Governor's Office of State Planning 2301 Market Street and Development Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 P.O. Box 1323 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Washington, D.C.
20006 Bureau of Radiation Protection Pennsylvania Department of Thomas A. Deming, Esq.
Environmental Resources Assistant Attorney General P.O. Bo'x 2063 Department of Natural Resources Harrisburg, Pennsylvania -17120 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Mr. Albert R. Steel, Chairman Philadelphia Electric Company Board of Supervisors ATTNi Mr. R. Fleishmann Peach Bottom Township Peach Bottom Atomic R. D. #1 Power Station Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Mr. M. J. Cooney, Superintendent Generation Division - Nuclear Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Mr. Anthony J. Pietrofitta, General Manager
. Power Production Engineering Atlantic Electric P. O. Box 1500 1199 Black Horse Pike Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station P.O. Box 399.
Delta, Pennsylvania 17314
-Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
1 Mr. R. W. Capstick Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station CC:
Pr. W. F. Conway W. P. Murphy, Vice President 1.
President & Chief Executive Officer Manager of Operations Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Corp.
R. D. 5, Box 169 R. D. 5, Box 169 Ferry Road Ferry Road Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 Brattleboro, Vernont 05301 Mr. Donald Hunter, Vice President Mr. Gerald Tarrant, Connissioner Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
Vermont Department of Public Service 1671 Worcester Road 120 State Street Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Montpelier, Vermont 05602 New England Coalition en Nuclear Pollution Hill and Dale Farm Public Service Board R. D. 2, Box 223 State of Vermont Putney, Verront 05346 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Mr. Walter Zaluzny Chairman, Board of Selectman Vermont Yankee Decommissionirg Post Of' ice Box 116 Alliance Vernon, Verront 05345 Box 53 Montpelier, Vermont 05602-0053 J. P. Pelletier, Plant Manager Verwent Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
Post Office Box 157 Resident Inspector Vernon, Vermont 05354 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 176 Raymond N. McCandless Vernon, Verront 05354 Vermont Division of Occupational A Radiological Fealth Vernont Public Interest Administration Building Research Group, Inc.
10 Baldwin Street 43 State Street Montpelier, Vercont 05602 Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Honorable John J. Easton Thomas A. Murley Attorney General Regional Adninistrator State of Vennent Region 1 Office 109 State Street U. S. t:uclear Regulatory Corrission Montpelier, Vermont 05602 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pernsylvania 19406 John A. P.itscher, Esquire Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110
.-n.,.=~
AGENDA April 10,1986 Heeting With PD#2 Licensees Bethesda Holiday Inn - Versailles IV Room 8120 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 8:30 INTRODUCTION Daniel R. Muller, Director, BWR PD#2 Robert M. Bernero, Director, DBL TECHNICAL STATUS UPDATE Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking - Revision 2 to NUREG-0313 (W. Hazelton)
Permanent Installation of Hydrogen Addition Systems (R. Hermann)
AUTOMATED TRACKING Tracking systems in use by(NRC (G. Gears) Utility participants)
Systems used by Utilities Benefits of NRC/ Utility compatible system (G. Gears)
BREAK - 10:30 a.m.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Sholly process (J. Scinto)
New exemption rule 10 CFR 50.12(a) [50 FR 50764J (F. Cameron)
Interpretation of 10 CFR 50.59 (J. Scinto) 12:30 LUNCH 2:00 INTEGRATED SCHEDULES Introduction / Background (M. Thadani)
Utility experience (Iowa Electric)
BREAK - 3:00 p.m.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Introduction / Background (G. Rivenbark)
Tech Spec Improvement Program (Georgia Power /E. Butcher)
Emergency Tech Spec Requests (G. Rivenbark)
CONCLUDING REMARKS (D. R. Muller) 4:30 CLOSE
BWD #2 April 10, 1986 Meeting With Licensees Informal Meeting N,otes IGSCC Presentation Warren Hazelton presented Draf t NUREG-0313 pdrogen Water Chemistry Bob Hemann presented Hydrogen Water Chemistry Issues.
Can the Tech Spec changes be kept spearate for hydrogen water chemistry from the Steam Line radiation nionitor setpoint changes?
Cob Hermann: Yes. We will prefer them separate.
Will there be anything in the Tech Specs for hydrogen storage?
Bob Hermann: No Tech Specs required for storage.
Tracking Systems Gerry Dears presented NRC tracking system Utility Tracking Systems Browns Ferry
- Manual Tracking System
- Each TVA organization has its own
- TVA offered to get back to NRC on how the system works Carolina Power & Light Company
- Computeriz'ed tracking (comitments)
- Autcmatic reporting systems
- Comitments due in 15-30 days are flashed on " Green" sheets
- Comitments due in 14 days are flashed on " Yellow" sheets
- Pink reports mean overdue.
V.P. follows up the pink reports.
Nebraska Power
~
- Manual action item tracking system
- Separate tracking of generic action and plant specific actions
- Will provide additional information.
Iowa Electric
- Mainframe data base system
- Commitment control system driven by priority
- Priority 1 - contains commitments to NRC and to INP0
- Priority 2 - contains all other actions
- System similar to CP&L Power Authority
. Currently tracking system is based on PC
- System being updated to mainframe
- System puts out four different kinds of reports
Georgia Power
- Regulatory commitments are on the mainframe
- Terminals access the mainframe
- V.P. has his own terminal Philadelphia Electric
- Manual tracking system
- Commitments on computer / manual system using mainframe
- Planning to have PCs to interface mainframe Vermont Yankee
- NRC action on tracking system on mainframe
- Interactive system
- Can change anything except the due date to NFC
- Printout can be obtained in i hour
- Does not generate any formal reports
- Plant has PCs for tracking plant specific action items.
Legal Considerations Scinto presented the Sholly Process
- Licensees must do 3 standard tests. They cannot rely on examples alone.
- Examples are supposed to help the staff to make rapid findings for noticing purpose only.
Camercn presented the new exemption rule
- Public interest standard has been deleted
- Must make a "No undue risk" finding and demonstrate underlying purpose of the regulation
- The rule includes special circumstances showing Scinto presented interpretation of 50.59 evaluations
- If 50.59 analysis is done, then don't have to follow FSAR as long as Tech Specs are met
- Make sure that there is no unreviewed issue involved.
Integrated Schedules NRC introduced Iowa Electric to present DAEC Plan Iowa Electric Presentation
- In response to questions, NRC explained the working arrangement of the DAEC Plan.
Technical Specification Improvements Program George Rivenbark introduced Ed Butcher'and Georgia Power Ed Butcher described the Executive Summary of the Plan
- 40% of the Tech Specs can be dropped if we go ahead with the plan as it is
- This effort will take at least until the beginning of 1987 before Conmission Policy can be issued. After the Policy Statement it will take about 9-18 months before the licensees can implement.
Georgia Power presented its program.
o, i
I s
LIST 0,F ATTENDEES NAME AFFILIATION U ooney NRC R. J. Lodwick Vermont Yankee NPC B. Capstick Vermont Yankee NPC G. Gears NRC W. M. Alden Philadelphia Elec. Co.
H. D. Honan Philadelphia Elec. Co.
G. Rivenbark NRC J. Heidt Georgia Power Co.
H. Abelson NRC J. A. Gray, R.
N.Y. Power Authority P. Kokolakis N.Y. Power Authority M. Thadani NRC D. Wilson Iowa Elec. Light & Power S. Swails Iowa Elec. Light & Power W. O. Long NRC G. Smith Nebraska Public Pwr. District L. R. Berry Nebraska Public Pwr. District E. Sylvester NRC K. E. Enzor Carolina Power & Light Co.
S. Zimmerman Carolina Power & Light Co.
D. Clark NRR M. Grotenhuis NRR R. E. Rogers Tennessee Valley Authority B. Alsup Tennessee Valley Authority S. Norris NRC D. R. Muller NRC C. Paul NRC N. Craig NRC J. Scinto NRC F. Cameron NRC T. Johnson NRC, Reg. I, SRI Peach Bottom J. W. Wiebe NRC, Reg. III, SRI Duane Arnold S. D. Floyd Carolina Power & Light Co.
S. P. Maingi Penna. Bureau of Rad. Protection T. A. Baxter Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge L. A. England Gulf States Utilities S. Stern NRC W. Hazelton NRC E. W. Weiss NRC E. C. Wenzinger NRC, Reg. I S. E. Bryan NRC R. Sullivan Mitre Corporation S. Toth New York Power Authority R. Beedle New York Power Authority J. B. E11mers New York Power Authority J. Lanberski New York Power Authority D. Bauer Vermont Yankee NPC S. Miller Vermont Yankee NPC i
LIST OF-ATTENDEES (cont.)
NAME AFFILIATION J. Nagle Philadelphia Electric Co.
M. Wetterhahn Conner & Wetterhahn W. Birely Philadelphia Electric Co.
L. Nellen NRC, Reg. II K..Desai NRC E. Butcher NRC E. Adensam NRC W. Houston NRC L. Gifford General Electric Com K. Shea Newman & Holtzinger K. Walden Nebraska PPD E
t 4
Attacinent a Technical Status L'pdate NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACRS
SUBJECT:
LONG RANGE APPROACH FOR DEALING WITH STRESS CORROSION CRACKING IN BWR PIPING DRAFT NUREG-0313 REV 2 GEN.
ISSUE 86 DATE:
FEB. 28, 1986 PRESENTER:
WARREN S. HAZELTON 4
PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV:
PGM. MGR. ENGRG BRANCH DIV. OF BWR LICENSING NRR PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.:
2-9410 SUBCOMMITTEE:
METAL COMP 0NENTS
NUREG 0313 REV, 2 EXPANDS REV, 1 COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL STAINLESS PIPING (cL 1, 2, 3)
REV, I HAD LIMITED SCOPE REQUIRES FORMAL QUALIFICATION OF NDE EXAMINERS AND PROCEDURES REV, 1 JUST RECOMMENDED THAT IMPROVED UT PROCEDURES BE USED PROVIDES GUIDLINES FOR EVALUATION AND REPAIR OF CRACKED WELDS REV, 1 REQUIRED REPLACEMENT OF CRACKED WELDS e
i
,a
l' NUREG 0313 REV. 2 i
GENRALLY FOLLOWS RECOMMENDATIONS OF PIPING REVIEW COMMITTEE NUREG 1061 VOL, 1 RECOMMENDS:
USE OF IGSCC RESISTANT MATLS REPLACEMENT OF SUSCEPTIBLE PIPING PROCESSES FOR RESIDUAL STRESS IMPROVEMENT IMPROVED WATER CHEMISTRY PROVIDES SPECIFIC INSPECTION SCHEDULES CONSIDERING:
MATERIAL IGSCC RESISTANCE STRESS IMPROVEMENT PROCESSING WATER CHEMISTRY IMPROVEMENT REPAIRS AND CRACKING CONDITION PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR CRACK EVALUATION AND REPAIRS UPGRADES LEAKAGE LIMITS AND MONITORING
a STAFF POSITION ON RESISTANT MATERIALS RESISTANT MATERIALS ARE:
LOW CARBON WROUGHT AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEELS E.G. 304L, 304NG, 3L6L, 3L6NG, 347NG STAINLESS STEEL WELD METAL WITH LOW CARBON AND HI FERRITE CAST AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL WITH LOW CARBON AND HI FERRITE INCONEL 82 WELD METAL LOW STRENGTH LOW CARBON STEEL NICKEL BASE ALLOYS ON A CASE BASIS NOTE THAT MOST AUSTENTIC ALLOYS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO IGSCC IN CREVICE AREAS POSITIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH 1061 VOL. 1 4
f l
.A 9
e STAFF POSITION ON PROCESS SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT (SHT)
ELIMINATES PRIOR SENSITIZATION RELIEVES RESIDUAL STRESS FROM WELDING HEAT SINK WELDING (HSW)
REDUCES SENSITIZATION FROM WELDING REDUCES RESIDUAL STRESS FROM WELDING STRESS IMPROVEMENT PROCESSES REDUCE OR REVERSE RESIDUAL STRESS IHSI REVERSES STRESS DISTRIBUTION MSIP PUTS ENTIRE WELD AREA IN COMPRESSION LAST PASS HEAT SINK WELDING MAY BE HELPFUL TO RESIDUAL STRESS IF DONE PROPERLY WILL BE EVALUATED ON A CASE BASIS POSITIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH 1061 VOL, I
WATER CHEMISTRY BWR COOLANT IS ESSENTIALLY PURE WATER EVEN SMALL AMOUNTS OF IMPURITIES WILL CAUSE IGSCC IMPURITIES ARE OF TWO TYPES:
INCREASE THE OXIDIZING POTENTIAL INCREASE THE CONDUCTIVITY BOTH MUST BE LOW TO KEEP THE ELECTROCHEMICAL P0TENTIAL LOW 0XIDIZING POTENTIAL CAN BE REDUCED WITH Hz CONDUCTIVITY CAN BE REDUCED WITH ATTENTION TO WATER CLEAN UP AND CONDENSER LEAKS MAINTAINING 0 TO BELOW 20 PPB AND 2
CONDUCTIVITY TO BELOW 0.3 MICR0 SIEMENS WILL PREVENT IGSCC INSPECTION FREQUENCY MAY BE REDUCED
STATUS OF HYDROGEN WATER CHEMISTRY IMPLEMENTATION TEST AT DRESDEN 2 CONTINUE TO LOOK GOOD
~
LIMITS ON 0 AND CONDUCTIVITY ARE MAINTAINED 80-90 PER 2
CENT OF THE TIME NO EVIDENCE OF ABNORMAL EFFECTS ON FUEL IGSCC ON SAMPLE IS HALTED FOUR OTHER PLANTS HAVE RUN TESTS RESULTS FAVORABLE PLANT-TO-PLANT DIFFERENCES ARE SEEN SOME PLANTS MAY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH INCREASED RADIATION LEVELS HYDR 0 GEN ADDITIONS INCREASE N16 IN STEAM DETAILS OF HYDROGEN STORAGE, HANDLING, ETC, WILL BE PLANT SPECIFIC ACTIONS i
I
4 CRACK EVALUATION CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH NUREG 1061 VOLS. I AND III BASED ON LIMIT LOAD ANALYSES TAKES ACCOUNT OF LOW TOUGHNESS WELDS MOST WELDS ARE SAW OR SMAW ALL STRESSES ARE INCLUDED FACTOR OF 3 AGAINST FAILURE IS REQUIRED, WILL RECOGNIZE REVISED CODE IWB 3600 OLD IWB 3600 MAY BE USED IN INTERIM LIMITED TO 2/3 IWB CRACK DEPTH SECONDARY STRESSES MUST BE USED AS OVERLAID CRACKED WELDS MUST MEET SAME CRITERIA VERY FEW CRACKED WELDS ARE NOT OVERLAID
CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS METHODOLOGY AND PARAMETERS REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED IN NUREG 1061 VOL. 1 PRESENTED AT LAST SMIRT CONFERENCE BASIS IS THE ITERATIVE FRACTURE MECHANICS K
vs GROWTH RATE APPROACH STAFF POSITION SPECIFIES:
RESIDUAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION ALL SUSTAINED STRESSES INCLUDED K vs RATE BASED ON RELEVENA TESTS RATES BOUND FIELD DATA
e-0 INSPECTION SCHEDULES NUREG 0313 REV. 2 SIMILAR TO 1061 VOL. 1 SOME DIFFERENCES BASED ON RELENT EVENTS EXAMPLES CONDITION COMPARIS0N RESISTANT MATL SAME AS 1061 VOL 1
NON RESISTANT NOT CRACKED SI WITHIN 2 YRS SAME AS 1061 VOL, 1 SI AFTER 2 YRS MORE FREQUENT FRONT END N0 SI MORE FREQUENT CRACKED MORE FREQUENT REPAIRED OR NOT NOT INSPECTED SAME AS 1061 VOL, 1 TABLE 5.1 i
IMP, WATER CHEMISTRY SIMILAR CREDIT
9 9
INSPECTION SCHEDULE COMMENTS NUREG 0313 REV 2 INCLUDES MORE UP-FRONT INSPECTION THAN 1061 VOL, 1 REASONS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT ADEQUACY OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED BEFORE REQUALIFICATION EVEN STATE OF THE ART INSPECTIONS WILL MISS SOME CRACKS NEED TWO INSPECTIONS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ASSURANCE r
l l
INSPECTION SCHEDULE COMMENTS REV 2
INCLUDES MORE FREQUENT INSPECTIONS OF "0LD" STRESS IMPROVED WELDS REASONS INSPECTION UNCERTAINTY DEEP CRACKS (
1/3T) CAN GROW FASTER AFTER IHSI REV. 2 INCLUDES MORE FREQUENT INSPECTIONS OF REPAIRED WELDS REASONS HI TENSILE STRESS IN AND NEAR O' LAY POSSIBILITY OF CREVICE
i SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES CONDITION REV 2 1061 VOL, 1 NON RESISTANT NOT CRACKED SI AFTER 2 YRS ALL IN 31 YRS.
50% IN 10 YRS.
THEN ALL EVERY 10 YRS.
THEREAFTER NO SI ALL EVERY 3 1/3 YRS ALL EVERY 6 YRS, CRACKED REPAIRED ALL NEXT OUTAGE ALL EVERY 6 YRS, OLAY OR Si THEN ALL EVERY 3 1/3 YRS NOT REPAIRED ALL EVERY OUTAGE ALL EVERY 6 YRS.
NOT INSPECTED ALL NEXT OUTAGE ALL NEXT OUTAGE
- NOR MITIGATED (PLANTS OVER 6 -
YRS OLD)
- 1061 TEXT AND GL 84-11 PERMITS 20% SAMPLE
EXTENDED USE OF OVERLAY REPAIRS 1061 VOL. 1 LIMITED USE TO TWO FUEL CYCLES UNLESS INSPECTION METHOD WAS DEVELOPED.
BWROG II FUNDED EPRI NDE CENTER EFFORT EFFECTIVE METHODS NOW AVAILABLE CAN DETECT ANY CRACKING INTO O' LAY CAN DETECT CRACKING WITHIN 1/4 T OF O' LAY REQUIRES ATTENTION TO SURFACE FINISH 0313 REV. 2 REQUIRES INSPECTIONS EVERY 2 REFUEL CYCLES EPRI HAS LONG TERM PIPE TESTS IN PROGRESS
HYDR 0 GEN WATER CHEMISTRY REDUCED INSPECTION NUREG 1061 VOL. 1 SPECIFIC FACTOR OF 2 ON INSP, SCHED, NO CREDIT ON REPAIRED WELDS NUREG 0313 REV, 2 "ABOUT" A FACTOR OF 2 ON SCHEDULE BUT ON A CASE BASIS REDUCED FREQUENCY FOR REPAIRED WELDS REASONS DATA FROM PLANT HWC TESTS SHOWS WIDE PLANT SPECIFIC VARIATION HWC WILL ALSO BENEFIT REPAIRED WELDS i
F l
L
PRIMARY COOLANT LEAKAGE LIMITS NUREG 0313 REV. 2 SAME AS NOW IMPOSED UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE MONITORED EVERY 4 HRS.
PLANT SHUT DOWN FOR ACTION WHEN:
UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE RATE INCREASES BY 2 GPM IN 24 HR PERIOD OR TOTAL UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE REACHES 5 GPM f
1061 VOL 1 RECOMMENDED A TOTAL LIMIT OF 3 GPM REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE SOME PLANTS HAVE PROBLEMS IDENTIFYING SOURCE OF LEAKAGE CURRENT LIMITS JUDGED ADEQUATE
FUTURE PLANS CONSIDERED ACRS COMMENTS REVIEW WITH CRGR PUBLISH FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS - MARCH EXPECT COMMENTS WILL INVOLVE IE AND RES REVISED DRAFT COMPLETED
- MAY JUNE REVIEWED BY ACRS a CRGR JUNE COMMISSION PAPER SEPTEMBER ISSUE GENERIC LETTER D
0
O O
i IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL APPROVED VERSION OF NUREG-0313 REV. 2 WILL BE TRANSMITTED TO LICENSEE BY GENERIC LETTER GENERIC LETTER WILL REQUEST THE LICENSEES T0:
PROVIDE THEIR PLANS REGARDING PIPE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THEIR TECH SPECS INCORPORATING AN INSPECTION PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH 0313 REV. 2 THE STAFF WILL REVIEW RESPONSES AND EVALUATE, THEIR ADEQUACY
HWC INSTALLATIONS BWROG PREPARED DRAFT OF GUIDELINES STAFF SUPPLIED INFORMAL COMMENTS FINAL GUIDE RECEIVED BY STAFF BERNER0 LETTER TO BWROG 2/7/86 STAFF WILL PROVIDE COMMENTS STAFF WILL NOT CONDUCT FORMAL REVIEW RELEVANT PLANT MODIFICATIONS ARE TO BE MADE AND EVALUATED UNDER 50,59 CAREFUL CONSIDERATION REGARDING 50.59 CRITERIA IS REQUIRED IF LARGE QUANTITIES OF LIQUID Hz AND/0R Oz ARE STORED ON SITE
.w
'[r
e e
l 9 tit
[4 y*'o UNITED STATES 7.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
+
i s,
f wAsmWGTON. D. C. 20006
%.... /
FE8 0 7 26 Mr. G. H. Neils Chairman, Regulatory Advisory Comittee 8,iR Owner's Group 11 for Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking Research 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Dear Mr. Neils:
We have received the draf t of " Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installations", you sent to Mr. Harold Denton on October 12, 1985 for staff review. The staff has supplied informal consents on this Draf s which were given to the Gwner's Group on October 9, 1985. On February 5, 1985, we received the Final Guide and intend to provide comments on its content. However, the staff will not conouct a formal review of the Guide since its intended applicaticns are to support plant specific modifications to be performed assuming there are no unreviewed safety questions under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Any specific modifications perfonned at a facility under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, including Hydrogen Water Chemistry modifications would be subject to the regular inspection process and 10 CFR 50.59 review.
The following coments are relevant to potential plant specific Hydrogen Chemistry Modifications. Many aspects of potential Hydrogen Water Chemistry Modifications appear to be of the type of modifications that will be able to be carried out without license amendment under the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59.
Suitable comprehensive evaluation of whether or not the modifications constitutes an unreviewed safety question for the specific facility should be included as a part of the Safety Evaluation supporting the modification.
Some aspects of potential hydrogen water chemistry modifications, in particular the permanent installation storage and use of relatively large quantities of liquid hydrogen on site at a specific facility,' appe'ar to raise the concern of potentially new ano cifferent accidents from those previously considered and evaluated as a part of the facility licensing The determination of whether or nc,t the hazards associated with process.
the potential explosion and fire hazards from the storage and use of relatively I
large quantities of liquid hydrogen and/or oxygen at a specific facility require careful consideration by a licensee when reaching a determinatiun as to whether a proposed modification involves any of the three criteria for "an unreviewed safety question" defined in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2).
l
$$$T hil f
\\
f i
. - ~
2-Mr. G. H. Neils Mr. Robert A. Hermann of my staff will remain as the staff contact for this work and will be available to work with the Owner's Group on this subject.
)
n
=
Robert M. Bernero Director Division of BWR Licensing G
t
?
k i
l e
e F
f <
iL/)tCL fL G s
y m
Northern States Power Company 414 Ncomet Mas Annneapons unnesota 5540t Tearonone t6 2n 330 5500 January 27, 1986 Mr. Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen / Water Chemistry Installations Enclosed are three copies of the report entitled " Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installations". This report was prepared by the BWR Owners Group for IGSCC Research (BWROG) and addresses comments received from ACRS and NRC Staff related to a previous draft.
The BWROG requests NRC concurrence that implementation of permanent BWR hydrogen water chemistry installations, performed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the enclosed report, can be accomplished under 10CFR 50.59.
This document was prepared and is provided on behalf of the BWROG with the objective of reducing the licensing burden for both BWR licensees and the NRC Staff for the implementation of pemanent hydrogen water chemistry installations. Although the BWROG has approved the guideline report as such this does not necessarily represent a commitment of any specific BWR licensee to utilize this particular mitigation method in their overall plans.
The BWROG anticipates that, upon NRC Staff concurrence in this report, the NRC Staff would issue a policy guidance letter similar to the letter which addressed piping replacement under 10CFR 50.59.
Please call me if you have any questions on this information.
Sincerely, A m7u l
G. H. Neils, Chairman Regulatory Advisory Comittee BWR Owners Group II for IGSCC Research cc:
R. Jones /EPRI m 2 e +o dil Q l]
l W-y*7(
j i
4 i
I M
- k c1 i
,!! AUTOMATED TRACKING a
4 w
l I
1.
1 MANAGEMENT NEED l
l l
l l
1.2 AUTOM ATED VS.
MAN ~UAL TRACKING i
l l
l 1
O
XRC TRACKING l
2.1 TAC FORMS-TAC NUMBERS 2.2 ASSIGNMENT OF TACS 2.3 ORLAS 1
l l
{
i 4
9
MAI:NFRAME TRACKI:NG 3.1 SLOW T~ URN AROUND POOR USER INTERACTION i
3.2 PCs TO END
- USER, THE STAFF l
l l
~
l l
t
l USE OF PCs IN NRR i
1 4.1 START UP PHASE 4.2 POTENTIAL FOR BETTER TRACKING BETTER RESOURCE
. ALLOCATION (e.g.
PEACH BOTTOM) l i
L 1
e>ne m
@gumm eguim e
W ue6ee,o W89 Nipp$ ee e 4 em e-gg, e og-ei ame-pgee=e m
h 6
- &*#*6 We4 SS $5MM e e@+e m e hee nas e
e4+ e4 g e Me e.
-M5.--
Mi SYSTEMS USED BY LICENSEES 5.1 UTILITY PARTICIPATIOX N.
1 I
e S
=
+e e, %...= e m,.. m e en-,
e, ee es-i i
i IXTERACTION BETWEEN i
l NRC AND LICENSEES l
i i
l 6.1 SUCCESSES,
- PROBLEMS, ETC.
I 6.2 INTERACTION BETWEEN PARTIES TO IMPROVE C OMMUNIC ATIONS i
9
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FACILITY AUTOMATED COMMITMENT TRACKING SYSTEM (FACTS)
TRACKS CP&L COMMITMENTS TO NRC ORIGINATING SOURCE DOCUMENT ISSUE DESCRIPTION DATE DUE To NRC 6ROUP AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE WEEKLY REPORTS GENERATED NO LICENSING DUE DATE UNIT ACTION ITEMS LIST (ONE PER UNIT)
ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORTS l
MANAGEMENT (RAINBOW) REPORTS 6REEN
- DUE WITHIN 15-30 DAYS YELLOW
- DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS PINK
- OVERDUE l
(3703RwS/ccc ),
o 1,m d b !
- : : l 2
O:
3:
a: 31 2
v.
A O
A:
WW~":
A: 2:
C R
c W
WE$2:
.C R:.
m.
t m.
s.
o d8 5
q
$5 g
5 52 M
EE 5
m W
g a
"k k
&I W" %
W.
o m
y a
5
= EW zg 5
w e m5
-r m
Y 5
$t 52 8
Ed
~W 8
Em
=
g E E w$$
3 W
W5 g$
k$2 o
=
-m
-m g
I h5 b
~
=~
-b o
og E
S.
E=$
f5
~.
W
~*
=*
wIW52 E-3 es 5-me g
% W E
M ig
-W bc
=
wE g
EME"3 g5w 5
E 2
=s*Ea
--E m
gg tg s=ggn
=gg zo.
=
5_
aw-ma m_
g-s v
u m_
umn g**
v 3
i B
5
=
- ww
=~~
u
!=J W
W W
m ss
=
gW d
2 0
1 5
w g
g dxa a
5m=m a.t g
_=
G5
$' O g
.3 4
W
=
u w.
m E$
JE JE 45 J'
na Cu na CC
?
- 5
- M
$5"
$2 S3 SE w
SW g
E"W E
E EE E
S m:
3 5
A 5
g 3
2 R
S S
5 5
?
O ?
5
?
g E.
E.
3 d =.
=.
=
o m
m m
m m
G d
5 d
d d
d 5
5 5
d
=
=
=
=
=
=
2
=
a 2
n n
n n
M k 5
R C
R 5 R O
R a.
w a
o a
m a
m a
d g
Wgs 4
s s
4 s
4 s
Om3 6
b 2
b b
C N
m m
m m
2 n
m n
C M
g a
g G
3 m
- E"
$w" WE"
$E" EE$
$E"E mzi mEM mzi
=zW e
meu l
mz L
os
.a 2
- n..
a..
.s
.v m.
.m..
,. w
.~
a-
.c
.ae o
d.
o a
w a
a.
a 2,
.e a >..
~.4.
n c.
w a.=,
.J*'=.
.=
.-.i-M g
g J.,
.am q
,a m.=
.=a..
ms a
., a
- w ss a
-l-s
.- m wo cm w
I
.s a
a J1 J U. a.
.a
^
- J U.
%h
.J
.J4.r
.a.
.x J
a
.: =
-ao g1 a s.
.J
=
z
.r.
{
lt 2
.=
m m
.J A
W e.
am
- ci 8
e.
w
.v m
,,, s s.
-. =
=
e a.
m 4, c.
=t k s; F
g, w -
g.
m, a
n-x.
.a gg m.
-- a
,h
.s c
N Egg
~
a
=
o.-
o w
Bu=
.c c
=m
.<=
o o_
)
.n.J m
m.,.
4 m
c l
3 w
5
--W =-
5 m5 m
=
m
.h-
=w l
u
=
o
.o
- u. e.
m s a.t o~
mom o
~
w=3 5.
.r.
n 3.a.m,-
u-
~~. m vm m
.n.s 5
. c u
am
=
=;
=
.i
.s t# = -
aW E.. T
.2 2-s g
.=J.=-
--m mm o-s I
be. *==*
ha, gc u,3 o
p
.a w.
w5
. o, p
s ua u.
m m, -
u
.3
=
> z.:' -
a a-m
-.m 8-m.
>.=
m.
.=
=..
.o
=
m
- 4 J-
=
t t
l R
m m
e-2 2
3 m
./3
(#3 d
d d
-=.
=
o.
m w
m J.
W W
a.,J
'O p.
'G C
4 C
- .3
.3 3
a3 a44 m
m
.s.
on
.aA
=
=
J:
y v.
8
.m a F.'
==
23 taJ.?
u 62 LJ' E^
g g
M s a.
m g
M
.,.,3 4.
g m.
o e
o o
u m.
f 5
g 1
M Z.
}
'a.
3.
.=
e3 4
l
?
e.-.
Q m
\\
=
1 4
EF er 3
.3 O
Q 4.
4.<
- ..a.NA 0
.=%
ED L O
FJ
.J.
a w (.1 **
a_3 A,
,,s.
O.s
- 4.,
J ~ '*.
- .3 m
'8
-.8-aJ a*
cr....
s.
.sa
- s. $s ers.v. g as..r. a w
w
. r.
Sc w.
.z.
..aa 6
e +4 rs -.=
s a
O 24/0.'/2U -
CAROLINA F0WER & LIG:lf CONFMY fAGE 2 BNP RESPONSIBILliY REPORT REPORT DATE 04/02/86 DL1 A',Ev.
TACIS tti rG llE FRI RESliNGil<tE I n Slit As.ttKf UNIl SOURCE DOCUMENT ISSUE ACl!0N GROUP INDIVIEU!.L DATE FEC'l'
... = ---
=..............__-
- 1&0002 1
PROVIDE DESCRIPTION OF MUD. FOR IMI IILM AWAIIING ILMi !!#UI.
itS IUMAL PSEP
!!.E.4.2.(7).
MP BROWN 04/lub
- ag 36G0029 3
NRC REQUIREMENT SUM!i RESULTS OF ISI INSFTCil0NS 90 AWAlilNG FLANT INFUT.
NLS TURKAL PSIP 2
NYS AFIER CONFtEi!ON OF OU1 AGE MP WHEAILEf 09/01/86 flRR
%G0029 3
NRCREQUIREMENT SUM!i RESULTS OF ISI INSFICI!ONS 90 AWAlilNG ftANT INFti.
NLS IUDAL BSEl-1 DAYS AFIER CONFtEi!0N OF OUTAGE.
Mr WHEATLET 12/Glih j
tGR 1 M 033 3
IE WLLEllN 80-13 IE BULLEllN REQUIRES EXAMINAi!0NS OF AWA!!!NG ftANI INFt1 NLS FLOID BSEP 1
CORE SPARGERS AND IN-VESSEL PIPING BE BNP F1NLt 10/02/81 tmR MADE DURING EACH REFUELING OUTAGE AND RESULTS SUM!ilED TO NRC WIIHIN 30 DAYS, i
i
- kGOM8 1
ASnE CODE REQUEST EXEPPi!0N FROM VARIOUS 10 TEAR LETTER IN ROVIING 3/21/86.
((S IUPIAL PEEP 1
F1 ANT REQUEST ISI REQUIREnEN15.
ENP V1AILET 04/04 %
,,, p 4
f
9*
2 5
1 2
8.
9 6
1 0
9 4
5 5
7 0
1 S -
0 2
0 0
0 1
1 I
0 4
0 0
0 0
0 G
G M
E 4
E 4
E 5
E C
F S
8 8
S 8
B 8
A E
P f
N 46 4
4 4
6 5 4 6 6 C
SE 88 8
8 6
8 8 8 8 8
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/
/
1 7 T 1 5 LM.
1 1
0 00 0
3 1
0 l 1 0 l N
1 5 E E.
//
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
4 5
5 4 5 5 U U.
55 5
4 D B.
40 9
0 0
0 9 9 0 9 L -
6 A
N T
0 S
O H
E T
S l
S 8
0 -
I E
/
E v.
R L
l N
P R
I l
i W
I A
L L l f
E 1
B B.
f l
0 O
D C
L I
i L
R H
C I
l.
H F
B T
N W
I N.
0 SI.
N
/
OT.
P N.
4 S E E
0 RI R
S B
B E
f L
F A
F L
P P.
d N
B l
K H
S i
K l
e F
K.
N D
O T
A G
S N
S l
E S
l L AM Y
CS U
A L
T A
NI N
LESK I
FG U
A l
L lui 0O S S l
A KO D
T 0 I l l
0 i P R
I S WE A M
1 l MI MG 0
L S l K
l R NAC NI l I
l P
0 LP R O OT 0 S L A1 E E M N 0CCR I li T T U O
3 l LFS Al C.
- F
. 4 I
I A T
CE nE C R
Ml 68 P AI F P R A A 1 M B/
/4 S OI E T 0 lS N E
H 5
I 1
l I E R
L!
T
/ / N I
GOSl i Y N
L O E
U L
i l
U t I A F W
F SOi FKI
& M F
iKD l
RI e
Ll l
KC I
EB MS EB 0
I A i l N E
N l
l AL N S BT i
U R M f
I N SS I
sRPD l
O R. RUW I HS KO I
T T !
T OCI A
E M
UEF N
I I
M I
O H
. E
! 0 G
E t I T
I l
PC L
FH 1
L RK TI e1 T N H0S M
K.
P I
P l
RI T MI 3
N ARO R 1
I' C G
I SI G
! EE T
I E d
K4 B
E T R E
SME L
W l
T T l
! T I
l T
l A 0 S
d A
EUm OR N
l RNU l
I T N l
S LPLA NI Et i
EEK I
V SE R
0.
MS A
A A L9 t VGS O AC T
A N l
C G
i.
A T
R EI M
HVFI F uKKK PLL EOK C
M LC A
PEIW I S
N A
A I
S M
)
N E
1 l
I l 1 B
I 0
E A
1 E C
O I
1 SM M
M L
M A
S I
L K
GT OP A
R I
L N N R
S
(
)
G G
O O
M R
R C
l E O
I S C
t N F
E EC I
P
)
P
)
SP tE t
N F
N N
O GU A
I I C I S
sE) N E
E N
E U
D iu4O C) P O
P t
T R
KO M
fl 3C Ml l
O I
O 2 A T
(
iE -
(
(
- C SK
- T l N F
RSl l
E I
E E
O l CC E0C S U C
S PS l
l T 1 R l B I
t Eo l
N EE H
SO C
N t C&I NT N EK) I U
G BT I
I PN O
u I l I
4 Me l
M1 A
T L3 Fm D
S O
SL I
A1 N
I i
I L P
RC o
l SR I
I OI M)
MC AER E
LLE GEM A
I. P EE R.
I l E P
T AOT S V C)
- I )
R A
)
P I S I R S7 ALI I SSl N N
i N e
O F
Y SN V U K (.
KI l
N SEE 0 1 l
P E
l N
MI KS 2
E DEO CP l
O E
1 F O O
G APC EI O i
T R
K4 O(
R O(
N L(
t I
l C T C D.R L I
A MERL E.
R iE I O I
l RL P
L V E.
MS MR U.
O O
E ME&
R E &
I 1 E &
P S.
K SI S A PI ST ( C T ( C I 1 ( C I.
4 8
/
P P
P 2
I P
E E
E I
F N
P P
P P
M 0
4 L.
S S
S H
M H
/
0 F.
S B
S S
S S
4 I
j
,l4 i'
I
(
I
i
~
j i
l THE SHOLLY PROCESS
- 1. LICENSEE SUBMITS TECH. SPEC. CHANGE DESCRIPTI'ON. AND ADDRESSES THE THREE i
NHSC CRITERIA 10CFR50.92(o) r
- 2. PROJECT MANAGER WRITES THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE dONCERNING THE CHANGE:
THUS PROVIDING A BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED NSHC CONCLUSION-FI E~i 3
i i
n g-
=
1 l
PROBLEMS i
l WITH THE SHOLLY PROCESS
.i I
1.
LICENSEES TYPICALLY REFER TO THE l
COMMISSION'S EXAMPLES IN 48FR14870 l
RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE THREE NSHC CRITERIA 2.
LICENSEES TYPICALLY STATE THAT THE CHANGE MEETS THE NHSC WITHOUT PROVIDING A BASIS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS l
t l
3.'
THE COMMISSION'S EXAMPLES WERE TO BE USED BY THE STAFF.
HOWEVER. THE LICENSEES WERE PERMITTED TO USE THE EXAMPLES ONLY TO REDUCE THE INVENTORY OF CHANGE REQUESTS 8
I l
l l
l1 f
LICENSE AMENDMENT l
NSHC CRITERIA (1) i l
THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT INVOLVE i
i l
A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE PROBABILITY OR C'ONSEQUENCES OF i
AN ACCIDENT PREVIOUSLY EVALUATED.
l
LICENSE AMENDMENT l
NSHC CRITERIA (2) f l
THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT CREATE l
THE POSSIBILITY OF A NEW OR DIFFERENT KIND OF ACCIDENT FROM ANY ACCIDENT PREVIOUSLY EVALUATED.
i
j
. ?.:
.. L
~
~
~ ~ ~
.~
i a
i i
1 I
l LICENSE AMENDMENT l
j NSHC CRITERIA (3) f I
THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT INVOLVE t
l A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE MARGIN OF SAFETY.
t e
i 3,
j.
l-l-
COMMENTS ON FINAL REGULATIONS i
FOR THE SHOT.T Y PROCESS
- 1. PROVIDES TWO ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES l
FOR PRELIMENARY CONCLUSION OF NHSC.
- a. REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF A MAJOR COMPONENT OR SYSTEM. IMPORTANT TO SAFETY IF TWO CONDITIONS ARE MET.
- b. STORAGE CAPACITY EXPANSION OF f
THE SPENT FUEL POOL WHEN FOUR CONDITIONS ARE MET.
9
1 i
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL RULE AMENDING 1 OCFR 50.12(a),
)
SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS.
l l
"THE REVISED CRITERIA WOULD
(
AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS WHICH, ARE AUTHORIZED l
BY LAW, WILL NOT PRESENT AN UNDUE l
RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARE i
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMON DEFENSE 1
AND SECURITY, AND ARE JUSTIFIED BY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES."
L
- i..
as aeg
/
'g UMTED 5TATES l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N i
I was.aastow.o.c.seems s
%,.'..../
December 23, 1935 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director
- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research James M. Ta'ylor Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement John G. Davis Director j
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration 1
Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., Director Office for Evaluation and Analysis of Operational Data j
G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs I. -
FROM:
Guy H. Cunningham, !!!
Executive Legal Director i
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL RULE AMENDING i
10 CFR 50.12(a), SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS Enclosec is a copy of the final rule revising the criteria in 10 C.F.R.
I 150.12(a) for the granting of exemptions from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50. The final rule was published December 12,1985[50 Fed. Reg.50764]
p and will be effective.on January 13, 1986. The revised criteria would authorize the Comunission to grant exemptions which are authorized by law.
will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, are consistent with the comunon defense and security, and are. justified by special i
circumstances. The final rule differs from the proposed rule by the elimination of the specific standard addressing the "public interest".
Instead the Comenission expects the public interest to be adequately considered where one or more of the enumerated "special circumstances" are present. If none of the special circumstance criteria appear relevant, the rule requires the EDO to consult with the Commission before an exemption can be granted.
o
[ bh
~
8
s'..
v 3-Chip Cameron of my staff will be available to assist anyone who needs further information on the rulemaking history or the provisions of the rule. He can be reached on x28689.
0%hatsFgned by Opy K Cunningham,lil Guy H. C6nningham, Ill Executive Legal Director
Enclosure:
As stated
}
cc: Regional Ad.ministrators e
I a
E t
DISTRIBUTION FICameron P
WJ01mstead GHCunningham Ei OELD R/F gp OELD 5/F kegs File
.s 8
Central File 1
L.
r 6
pr r
/
o 0FC :0 ELD L
' :0 ELD
- ELD fj '
y
:-----.-4....:....-------.:---..------.:-----.-.----:--.--------
NAME :FICaperon
- WJ0 stead :GHCundingWam DATE :12/2cf85
- 12/ Eld 85
- 12/.11/85 L
s
N*
I 34754 Federal Resieler / V'ol. 30. No. 23e / hreday. December 12. taas / Rules and Regulatione Lcense she!! be establaebed at the tisse.
- 2. Section 114.2 is amended by.,.. Actooec Flee! eule.
of tenuance-revising (b) to read:
euenaamv The Nuclear Regutetary (2) Pnot to the termination date. the 9 W pmduces not propered wider Coenmission le anwn&ng sie mguletions licensee may request leeuer.ce of am to clarify the standerde that wtLI M Osease.
estabhohment license for en indefinite epplied when it comidere whether to priod by applicatsen as povidd la (b)When se estabbehment hcense le ' yent esemptione from the requiremente llau(s).
leaved for sa intetim period not to eedified la 10 Olt Part 30.
(3l Before a U.S. Veterinary Biologica enced 4 yeast &e uteblishment may, syysctrys oats:lanuepy 13.1ses, Establishment Ucense will be issued fe, conunue a certela apuified
,,,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,,,
se indefinite pened to en esteblishment enHce w d logical peducts with the F.X. Cameron Of! ice of the F.necutive previously feeued a U.S. Vetennery perminion des Deputy Administetor lage! Duwctor. US Nucle er Reguletory Bioleyce T.etoblishment License for sa hori&d.That Comminloo.Weehinston.DC 205S5 bitena period. b licenese shag (1) Such unBeensed peducts be" Telephons:301-492 asse.
demonstrete compliance with provielene been prepend in the estabbehment N"" "NN of the Act and mgulations w&n ee 12 mones pdor toinvence d
- 5. Sectiott 102.5 is emended by b establishment Bcense.
I.Sechground revising (d)(3) to reed:
(2) Such unlicetteed products are not On Apdl2A1965.ee Comminion lies.s UA vetermary esseeenetpreewet
- dieeibuted Interstate.do not beer a US leeued a proposed rule mo&fying the Veterinary license number. and en mot er""la for grantans nemptione from se a
uename etherwise mptwented in any seener es requiremente of to Olt Part 50 for the having met the requires
- ente for ld) * *
- enlicensed.'are papered la lacetionsducts.wbedierlicenedor F
i
- o., e e
el A i t al att a Regulehone provides that the bet of e!! biological producta prepmd la Indicered to legende fUed in occardence Commission may stent enempoone the licensed estabhehreens.
with Port 100 of this Subchapter.
6e Ngdehorte in Port 50 that it e
(4) A description of methode of -
determinn are authonted by ta= and Preparation and testing of each will not endanger hfe or property or the PART toe-FACILITY REQUlftEWENTS unheensed product are fued with cornmon defense end ucunty and are POR LICEttSED ESTABLISteMENTS Veterincy Savheg etherwise in the pubhc interest.
(3) Records are meinte[ded la Tre&uonelly.this authonty hoe been Accordingly.O CTR Port Ice is
' emended as follows:
ecmordance with ll 11s.1 and 11s.2 and delegated by the Comminion to its eteff 1.The authority citation for Port toe include ett products, whether licensed or which determinee whether esemptione continues to reed u feDows:
anHcensed.
Co en i e le not su f for Products.
thes Econed w malicanud Pouible for its regulet one to pre &ct u
a d
and accommodate evety conceivable svuang (bl(tl to med-Pio new dicened beelogiul circumetence.Connquenoy. It bee 2.5ection 10r 5 is amended bY a, p,p,g g, g go g histMiCeUy Provided mechenieme to establishment efter lesuence of the grant eumpuone whm opphceuon of l
g tes g pro,erecen og g,,,nge, establishment license except se the regulanon would not serve the e
povidd la 6101.1 Public interut and no undue nok to b (b)...
(4)The licaneee either achie ee e,
(t) A listing of 50 rooms by identifywig hunure M all diunted poducu by' public heele and estety would occur se a result of not requmns hteral e
letim or numbm and h fractions b close d b latena pnd w edherence to a perucular requiresaent pmd in esch. Esceptions any be discostinun producing and remem in mviewing i Sat 2te) mqunts for 3
t eted for genere! purpose erese e' bom the licensed establishment say
. enempbone, the NRC eteff (" staff") hoe rooms. Functione performed in each pduct which la mot utmed considend whether any undue risk v
eres and room eheu be descabad.
would ruult from the grenung of e whether h licensed or unlicensed poducts. Is rooms where produtta see.
tene.
particular esempbon. Thae detenmination wn in genal.bued en esp. w d 4. th.. a N e.,
oep.my Amenmooseur. Yearanary
- 9"* '* Q*"O
,",",8*
","' d'"g"e'*M1,
,g 7
ng sideration of the methode egesnet croce contaminaties shou be -
Int Der.m Mied tbts.a see nel - speci!!ed m the specific regulation for 88Ciud*&. r.
8"'e* enesee.es.e echieving4he utetory p ee.The e.
- 9... e.*,es...
/..,,
ste!T corepared propose method of compliance to ensure the the regulatary
. PA5tT 114 hflODUCTlost IIUCLEAR REOULATOM purpom wu unsfied and he the REQUIREMENTS FOR 980 LOG 4 CAL method to be used in a perucular enee COMutSSION PRODUCTS' ui --
wa. ua*r me P.,*,,onisie nd
..cu.,e;,1,4,. ; 3.cPn,
wo h erefr.
A
,6
- <^aiauy -a f-aampaa *
"; "A d.' *rt h I s"a*.,,, n,, g:g,i* *'e~s~sev:~ Nuclear 2*ydb l%*eia"L':'"
s.o.t.c coorn,.on.Cie,pce n.f e e,
~~~~m ww :*
essenment techn, ques have been
. Aesh=tsy:35 UAC 181-1886 7 Q1t 3 ts.3,,
a
' ""* 'IYO..,.'*.s. C, s..., 1. Geenleeien.,
. seedeble. these techniques, along wish i
8 C
-.. ~. -, -. -,, - - -.... -. - -. -..
...4 l'ederal Reep8 / Vol 505 No. 239 / Thursday Deca'aber 12. 1985'/ Rules and Regulatione geys5 engtneenes judgment, have been need to The Commission expects b htent of circumstancee bt luotify b ensure that the esemption hvolved was its regulations to be met and normally esemption.This datumination would be
. saceptable from e safety standpoint he this requirsa coc. forming to the sonaned to the considerstloe of the sumraary.the staff would evaluele as regulations as stated.There are equiries of the situation, simdes to bee esempuon requeat to determine if there circumstances, however, whers on cited in the SAoreham decisfon.
was a jat fiable rence for the balance it would not be equitable or la including b sta se of the facility's life.
proposed asemptica and.in eddition.
the public interset to esquire literal any Snancial or economJe hardshape.
=bebt edequate protect on of b adherence to repletions particularly any unusual difficuttles in complying i
public health and estery would be where a perticu.ar requirement opphed wtah the reguleeton. arty intemal maintained if the alaaptica were to e specific plant would oot result la an laconsistencies in b reguletson, the granted.
Improvement la overa!! safety se a applicant's good faith efrert to comply As noted is b Supplementary
- with the ngubtion from which the Information to b proposed rule, several roouctionin risk to the public.
The ob*ective of this rulemahing la to exemption is sought. the public interest t
recent adjudicatory proceedinp identify the criteria to apply la such la adherence to the Commheion's reviewed by the Comuninloa. had made circumalances and to provide a means
' regulations, and the afety toure it evident be it =ould be desirebte to for considering bw circumstances so involved.
attempt to state efestly the that consistent regulatory decisione cas in addition to the genere! star dards of circumstancu for which the be made concerning exemptions to proposed i 5012(a)(1) the Commission proposed to edd a new i 50.12(a)(4
. Comminion behewn that exemptions Comunission regulations.
are warranted for the guadance of
& Communion's exemption which would require that a paruci.lar se apphcants. licensees. the eteff. and the authority la exercised consistent with edition e Jsts before en esemption public. For exemple, the Commienion a the AdmuGtrative Procedure Act's could be granted W Comminion of recent decision on en exemption request requirements for infoemal rulemaking.
stated that these con &tions represent for the Shoreham nuclear power plant-Le. the regulatory policy for a partcular ettuations in which it would be nprevented a departure from poet staff rule is denloped thros.sh the rulemaking reasonable to grant an nernption.
o pesettce in the esemptaon ans. la proceu wibut expecting e need fo' provided that the genere! standarda of SAorebom. the Commisslon requested large numbers of axemphons.Therefois. I the appbcent. in addressing the b Cocunission wi!! exerdee Ita determmations to be mede under b 10 discntion to limit esemptions in any
- ".npu"u"' "cnu"n"a e'at han hun en CD11212tal eternption cnteria, to particular ares if the " exceptions" to the include e escussion of:
rule thresten to erode the rule itself.h "I'***"*"*"
' ' P' #Y#*"
- 1. The ' exigent circumstances
- that Commission is also aware that tions can serve es warnLng f
favor the runting of en exempton enemfs that a particular rule may needponcy. circumsmco substanusUy under to CDt 5012(e) should it be able
,ign.
nnt b b u cons M b es to demonstrete that in spite of its to be revised and can serve as a rulemaking prctee6ng) and on the basie noncomphence with CDC17.the healfb espplement to traditional evaluatfoo
'I "***PI"
- 8 "'
and safety of the public would be mechanisma in identifyms asses in need exemption practice for which the g
protected.
of revision.
circumstances under!)ing the esemption
- 2. Its basis for concluding ht, at the power levels for which it seeks II.h Proposed Rule appeared to be nievant and appropnate for exemption rebef.h Comunission subrustaan to operate. operation afb proposed rule retained the emphesized that.the con &tions in would be ee safe under the con &tione existing cnteria of 150.12(a) b a slightly proposed i Sa12(a)(2) constitute a proposed by it. es operation would have modited form, as general standards for spech apphcabon of een de sa%
been with a fully qualified onsite A/C b granting of exemptions. Undee cHtnion or the pubhc intend cHtenon power source.
propond i Sa12(a)(tk the Commiaeios stated in b general standards of In the content of exempuons related could grant axemptions which:
pr > posed i 5012(a)(1). Although an to plant opersbons.thne an n by law, wc ses pment an exempuon request could satisfy one of
(
determinetions regarding " exigent
'*['[""
the conditions in proposed i 5012(a)(2).
h circumstances" and "as safe es" are not
,jjN[
the g eneral critene in proposed emphcitly stated in 10 CTR Sa12(a).
escury.and an ne ne pec Wems.
l Sa22(s)(1) would also need to be Although the Commission specified that la e depenun hoe b tut oMe satisfied, f'
ShoreAcm was on}y to apply to the asistinerpe, the proposed rule would Propoud i Sa12(a)(2) would have particular circumatences of that case.lg
.han minind a finding that the requ!nd that one of the followir.g be also dincted the denlopment of thle exemption wi!! not "preunt so undue estisfied before an enempuen could be l
ru!emaling to codify appropriate f
exemption standards. N proposed rule itsk to b public health and safety" and granted; would be "consisteet with the mason (I) Application of the reguistion la the l
was na attempt to fash!oo a defense and semity. hn standade partic.dar circumstancu wuld be la compsehensive. consistent. procticable, Provide an orplidt recognJtion of g gg gg and oppropriate framework for traditional etaff pnctice in waluating Commission; or reviewmg esemption requeets,beood se te safety impUcacome of,a pardcolar (U) Application of b regulation la the poet staff practice and on the As currently required by l SE12(a). Particulst circurnstances would cot serve b underfying purpose of the rule the proposed rule would have also or is not necessary to ecmere ths gg.cy,,ga,,,
. ~. '.
required that the exempdon be in the underlying punou of the rulu -
"pubuc interest." However, the 5,DM gg[f Cornmission explicitly statedthat the
.(111) Alternstive or compensetory pubbe laterest determinauen would means exist to achieve the underlytag a no noe sta pe,r m isen pw. wen, * * % ' consist of a constderstico of the special. purpose of b regulatiort or enw.e.e4
{
e W
W l
~ - - - -
l I
i
\\.
3&758 Federal Register / Vol SE No. 23e / Thursday. December 12.1aas Rules and Regulations (iv) ne enempelee would result to en EI.pnsbBe Commente
.v esemptsons from lie mguletiene." As overell benefit to the public beelth end sefety thet compenestee for enF De Comuninion aceived wveu evidence for this propoeirion UCS citee i
decnese in esfety that may result been-oomnwate on b proposed rule. Sixteen eedon 1W2)of ee Ammic Ennsy As the yent of the esemption; e' of these were bom the nuclearladesty.
'"*'"O*'
- * * * " * * "U (v) Applicetion of es reguletion comptind ofeineic eti! inn lew Arme leese production or unlise tion licensee
. would ruult in treatment of the
,,,,,, g,yg ggg,gggg;,,,,,g g.cg to perecee =be-porticular opplichat er 1 censee ja e englasers, and a trade emociados. One
...en e,. typed se 6eerve and whowr manner subetontially dafferent then comment was submitted by the lew Stue 88 8688'" such sefery emaderde is puest
. seer munilarly situated applicante e' el Hermon 4 Weise. repmeeting b
- health and is minimise denser is his er kcensees e' Union of Concerned Scieneets (UCS).
paperry se W Comminion may by rWe (vi) m esempsoe would prov'de The ladustry comments were geners!!y mu u 42 tac **W 21 only temporary relief hem the supportise of the t' "
- re le addstion, no verieace from the eldecove in ettempting to cleetly its above requirement can be found in applicable agulation* er (vii) There le present any othe' omemption policy.However,insustry
- SectJon totb of the Atomic Energy Act.
me tenal circumetence not considered coenmentere did recomumend revision of
- 42 USC. 22171[h), cherecterned by UCS when h regulation wee adopted.
selected details of thle proposed se h pmvision that "governe h Coevninion directed the staff to elenfication.Dey eleo espressed both consideretion of hcense applicatione.-
favorable and unfavorable comments on Aa & Comminion Meted in the use esistirig staff practice. pre-me specific provisions of Coeunissioner Supp?ementary Information to the SAoreAom. is eve!ustang enemptione.
Aaseletine's proposeL noting that in 6
pending the effective date of this propeeed rule the authonty of en rulemding Comminioner Aeulatine many tupecte there did not seem to be mquested comments on the foDowing any subetontial differences between the administrative egency to povide for two venions.The commente submitted enemstione from 6te regulatione a weU.
i proposed rule es en e!!ernative to that en behalf of the UC5 focused estab.ished. In UnitedStates v.
proposed by the Comminion:
escluively on the Comminion*e beeic Alleg.neny.Ludlum Steel soe U.S. 742 (1372). the Supreme Court recosmzed the Secsion30ft Speerf7cEsemptione outlwnty 2 pont esemptione, and authority of an egency to estebheh
- e requested that the Comunleeson (e)(1) De Commise oo say,upon esemphon to addrne pecuher factual apphcahon by any interested person et ensdrew h proposed rule se being outside of the Commission *e authonty, estueuone. As stated by the Court-
,, epos its owninitiative. pent he discussion of the oor.tmente hee to W wen.nrebbehed he sa seency's eumptions from the requimments of the i
Ngulehens na thje part.
been organised into the following autheory so proceed in a comptes erve * *
- eegreente--
by einse of run of pnarel eppi,cenen 121The Comminion wul not consider A.m entent of the Comminion*e esteils a concosulent authonry se peevide 4
Fanting en enemption unlese special autbertty in the esemptione stee.
enempnene preced rn in order se elle for circumetonces are prysent-epecial circumstances M et r51.
circumetences are present er B.The"no undue nek and conunoo 7.
j (i) Comphence with the regulatione defense and security *Menderde of be a case involving nguletiene u, the 4
would be inconsistent enth some other proposed i StL12s(e)(1).
Fedwal Conununscanone Commium Coswmuion requirement; Ch"publiclatervet Wandardof the United Statee Court of Appeals for 2
(iil comphence with the regu!stion proposed i ScL12(a)(1).
ee metnet d Co!urnbia Circuit
?
would decrease overell facihty eefety. or D.N "special circumstances.
empharized that,a system where D
would not schieve or not be necessary seiterie of propeeed i ScL12(a)(2).
pgulatione are meintained inf;esibly E. Temporary noncompliances.
. unthout any proc,edure for waiver poses i
to acAiewe the purpose of the mgulation:
F.Rele$onship to other Commission legeldamculhu becoun b pown d g
(iii) comphence would ruult is endue regulatory sceans.
en egency 2 promulgete gennel g
bordship or other coeta that are l
sigmficantly la excess of those G. policy statement vereue rule.
wgdetions in the pubhc interest,, doe, not relieve it of en obhgataon to seek out i
contempleted when the reguistion wee A WKssenteMe Comau.seson *e the 'public interdetMn perucular I
edopted. er that om significantly in A88A8 riff da she Esemptione Ares enrew of those incurred by othere ladividuehzed situstions." WAITAodio e
sinaler 7 entusted:
De UCS requested that b
- v. FCC. 41g F.2d 1153.1157 (D.C Cir.
8 F
(iv) e comptience toeve le releed late Coeuuuselon withdrew the propeeed rule tees).ne court noted further that-le the licensing review that cannot be becausenemong other reasons, se tilhe esency*e discreues to proceed in AaDy resolved as a timely feehion despite
- Commission does not have the efetutory d6mcats areas through general ru good feath efforte:
authority to pont any enernptions item lenmetely haked is the nietence of a esfry les regulatione. The UCS atos the vol'* paced *'e ter cenederessee of se (v) compliance would neult in Supreme Courtla El anamensdip applicetwa I=r with*a h"d ** *P'c8*3 I
applicent or lecensee being treeted le a Alamoess # Co. v. Doin 430 US 112 er. accuessenses W.
menner significandy thfferest freen B CI.885 (terr) for the proposities set j
ethere esmalarly estusted; er tvi)here le to authority of en administrative Furthensore. as noted by b the agency to issue esem Court of Appeste for be Dietrict of aircumcen..present any other meterial
,s.ied b, Con,e.ptione must be einer a,s ga se Columbia Circuit, and contrery to b of conewe,ed whe. as
- sege.noe was.de,.ed.
e,ech ienguage of me enowng siemte a, si a e UsC coeunoni.--
- pi eso a.em,isee was be,anied e,iis iesislaave weio,y. Acccor.ing i.
. c a i a-a d - ad " c- '
asiens the Commission Bade that it
, UCS, because b Atomic Energy Act
'"*P'", d ad be essensed by new e.d wead e.d iis iesierenwe weio,y ni.ie -
o,"er,e,, so,eme,,, id no, t,e,,ee.med.
r he la ecmord with the common defense, spectSc provisione eDowing th*
and ascenty and that bm would be se Coraminales to arent esemptions from.
een in the fece of the esoet unambisvoue endue risk to the beelth and eefet demon,tre, ion of cone,e o;onalisiens se
,&e publie.' },
..,,,. g g..,y of its regulatione, the "Coeumulon leche.
foredoe. We wesen.e her ce v. coede.
- the younds to estouob rules for eas FJd Su,3sr (D C. Car te4 t
1,rs.
s
.m..
.a g
t
~, - -. - _, - -. - -..
o t;
r, t
Federal Register / Vol sgL No; 25s /.The edey. Dece* ber 11 tess [ Rules and Re~rufstione syrgf m
i ne Supreme Court deciales cited by permittee scent er liesseee to Me factore te its decision e!aking.
nes UCS. E/. duPont de Nemoure e C4 e.
tenorp*884 edweses ponteent y Act Tmia, supm. wee beoed on the Court's W""*****
FA3*d "'8 **
- The Commiselon's regulatory mondets la hall interpretehon of the specific esetutory Commissies et UAC aset(h).
souched la tenas of" adequate
,,,,ection of the public beelth and on scheme embodied in the Federe! Wetee The Commiselon believes thatits esfety." 42 Uic. 2222. The courts be we Po!!ation Control Act Amendmente of esemption policy. part of the bold trat absolute oefety or sess elsk la W2 (FWpCA).Un! ke b inetest Commission's regulations staos 19546 le not mquired. and beve laterpreted the
'8" rulemeWg. duhat involved the issue of within its statutory authority. As soled Atosnic Energy Act to confer yenhne esemptione hoes e specific above, the uneveilability of esemptione coseiderable dancreboo se the etetutory obhgerion, rether then should axbe pnessed exceptla the Commiulon to determme whot level of esemptione from nguistione designed te face of"the most unambiguous ireptement a generel statutory, demonstration of Congressionellatent protection la edequate ' Consequently, the basic standard is inherently brood obligehort for esemple, the to foreclose thenL" Alobomo herer, and general rether than precise. As long Commen;on's raponsibility to ensure supro.Nothingla the Atomic Energy Act se e Comauulon decision adheres to the
.CS odequate protection of the public beelsh prohibits the t'as-W from primary "edequate protection" stenderd.
and esfery. The Court noted that Secoon prov' ding for ease ptions and Section the decision can legitimately tehe isto 30s of the FWPS. whiLh darer.u the letp of the Atomic Energy Act
., secount cost considerations.
EPA to establish netional standards of authorizes the Comm4eion to-perforrnance for ne= eeurces, costesse he regard to the ludicial dectoione mbs premdsete. inese. necint and c6ted by the commenter. N h=cr no provision for exceptaone from the essend such rules and regulertone a mer be AeoesotDevelopment Corporation.
eienderde for individual plante. On the.
secessary to cany out the pwyness of slue II-contrary. Section 306(eJ empressly makes Act 42 USC taellpk e piv. concerned the vehdity of the tw+
it unie wful to operate a new source in steplicensing process A maionry of the notetion of the apphceble standard of Os e nfoted inue.UCS asserte ht.
US Supreme Court held in he content perfonnance after its effective dete-
,,en if the Commission doce have the that the Commission le absolutely
'D Consequently the Court concluded that efetutory authority to pont esemptione denied any authonty to consider the EPA did not heve the authonry toissue from its regulatione, the Commission enormous investment (aunk costal mede unences for indmdual plante unable to may not consider economic factore in during construchon in mdmg the comply with the nehonal standerde of granting en exemptiort Therefore any of defirutive oefety findirige for purposes of performance promulgated by EPA for the proposed criteria that oddnu operation.The ceu did not concern the the discharge of pollutante from "new economic consideratione must be general question of whether costo could sources"(es opposed to "ealetmg deleted. According to UCS this would otherwise be considered in licenema and sources"). The Court's conclusion wee loclude the public interest criterion la reguistory decisione. This conclusion is bend on the clear congrenionalintent p,opos,d i 50.12(a)(1). the epecific eleo opphceble to poner County supin that the new ocurce standerde should be condition in l 5(Lt2(a)(2)(v) where Finetly. the Comminion would absolute prohibanone. As the Court '
oppt; cation of the regulation would erophestre that 4 5012(a)(ilof the Soleb woult la treatment of the particular proposed rule requires e sefety finding opplicant orItcensee in a menner that the esemption will not present sei
.. A vehence premsen would be subeteatte!!y differvat then othee andue rtok to the public health end inoppropriese is e sienderql thes wee strailiarly situated applicante se oefety and le In accord with the common truended is ensure nebenal undornary and licensees, and the specific conditaan la defenu and secunty. It is only efter "meausua leen.hte control et sew eeursou
- e he *OR g ggL12(a)(2)(vi) where the esemption these efetuton!y beoed findings beve would prodde only temporary nlief been made that the Commission may Wotably.from the standpo' int of the fhsm the applicable regulatiott Citing then comder whether the oddaional UCS assertion that a efetute must hwer Aeoctor Development requitecsente for the grant of en expliary prende for the authoney to Corporettore e. Insernotional Uriarr of exemptivo have been met some of t
luue esemphonse the Court did find that Electncol. Aodio, ondMochine which include economic considerstaone.
EPA hed the authonry to issue Worsers. 38y US 413 (1981L and hrter andmdual variancee from the elfluent haitseione required to be opptml by County Chapterofisoak Walton League A The No Undue'Aisk andCommon July 1. ten, for nietmg sources. despite e.Nac ens r.2d tass (D C. Cir.1ers).D'/'" ""# 8**"'dr #"#8'd' */
UCS. rte that "Itihe courte bevo NUM the feiture of the FWPCA to esplicitly made 11 clear that the Commission may UCS also che!!enges the "no undue provde for such variances.
~.
~
not coaeldee the cost of meeting its risk" standard of the proposed ru!. on la regard se the provisions of the
" safety requirements in making deciolose b basis that it lowers the exietma Atomac Energy Act cited by UCS, the whethee to allow the operation of safety etendard for granting exemptions.
Cominaion cannot find any evidence fa
- auclear power plente." Applying tble However, b existing eefety etendard the general bcensing standards of ition to the stee of enemptione.
that the commenter refers to le the "se esches 1036(2) that Congrees latended osactoded that " t to prohibit the Commieeaos from issuing e may met sely on ocamo[nlbe Commission sefe es" standard thet =es controlling in ic leaves la b Comtnipion's Shoreham decielon.
seemphoos in heited cucumeteaces.
Furthertors it la unclear wbet ordee to change sa operating hcease to yether then the emioting requirement of perrait operseon et less t5en the same g 30.12 that the esemphon will not wievance the UCS citation of Section assurance of eefety se prodded by
" endanger hfe or property." UCS orgues Selb hee to the matter of emeeptione.
Sect on teth authortsee the Commissies compflance with the regulatione" that "there is no acceptable lower eefety t
The Commlulos believes that judicial stenderd'hn b se esfe es" l**".., '. /.* g ?..
precedent and long.etending Cansadsr te e @ppasesse see y Commissies practace confiturchat.
standard employed by the Commleston
==. si en meirve s., =h.cn e i.c is wtthis the confinee of carrpag out its es 9,.e,u.v.s. 4rc em ru ne seweed by ih.e Act memb.n. is e massie penmount reopensibiLty to geotect
.go e cu is.ao.m,. Aef saa F Se see basene ese w mee, of e.ch ecuvm and public health ood sefery. 4 any pidet goenc.nsrn e
O s
e e
e F
-r-.-,--v.,
e
-,s e-
,, - - -, -.. -,w-,,,,
--n-w%.
w,-ee,-
--m----
l o,
o 50784 Tederal Repater / Vol. So, No. 23e / mreday, December 22,1ess./ Rafaa and R la Shorehast This arpment le bened en h proposiGon ht "the regu!stione protection of b pubLc beslth and 14Aday ConpanyIShonham Nuclear _.
safety, the converse le est cornet, that establish the manamal tequinnesta for fallun to comply with one ngulation se Power Staden. Unit 1L L8P-44-45. 30 ufe operation of a suc!ur power plant
' '
- hy do not eliminate all risks anotherle an indication of the aboence PGtC 1343 ta00(October as, tena).
from nuclear power plant operation, but of adequate protection, et leset is aC. De MicIntenst"SmW[M" U,
are intended to proude a renoaabte situstion where b Commianiae bee DN##'
assursnce of afety." According to b nelewed b noncomp!!ance and foemd UCS. h Coeurunion may not retnet" that it does not pose an Nadue rtak" to A nisaber of commenta frees the g hadustry addnued the "pubhc internet" from b levela of potechno established the public health and safety.
laits regulations. Creating an emerepuos Two ladustry commentere. Norhaat. etandard of proposed ( 5012(en1Weo bued on anything other hn a standard Uchties. and Bishop. Ubennan. Cook.
of Wu comroentern Duke Powee Company, and Bishop. Uberman. Cook.
that damonstrates an equivalent Pwcell & Reynolds. representing several Nrcell & Reynolda. recommended t suurance of are operauon would mulities, requested that the degrade the safety of a suclear power Supplementary Informaties to the Saal the "pubhc interest" standard of plant because h license would have rule reiterate that b "no undue risk" 13412(e)(1) would be more been inued based on compliance with standard includes the consideration of appropnetely termed a
- balancing of the the regulataone, and the exemption compensatory measures. length of time equises" or "special circums ta nce s" would a!!ow the reactor to operate in of the enemption, and the powerlevel et:ndard. nue two commenters noted noncompliance based on some lower involved. As the Commission noted to that in the Supplementary Informstlen standard.
the Supplenwntary Inforrnation to b to the pecpond rule. h Commission proposed rule. it is enticipated that the stated that "the pubhc utterest Aa emphasized la b Supplementary staff review of the safety signlMcance of determination willconsist of a Information to the propoud rule. the considershon of the special Commission's SAoreAom decision la the requested enemption will take int 9 circumstan es that just fy the intended to only apply to the partacular scenunt the type ciplant operataon circumstancea of that case. 50 R 1650tLcontemp!sted (fuel loadir g. low power exemption."and that the " determination 1650s Coosequently. itis not sesting, power secension, or fu!! power en!! be confined to the equines of the oppropnate to characterue the "as ufe operabon). the length of time that the situation." 50 R 16508. Both as" Mandard applied in Shonham as the exemption would be in effect, the commenters believed that the "special "eaisting safety standard." As also enjstence of compensatory measures, circurnstances/ balancing of equities" noted in the Suppleroentary Information and other safety factors.
standard is consistent with the NRC to the proposed rule. the "no undue nak" One industry comrnenter. Baltimore staff practice la granting of esemptions standard of proposed ( 50.12(aKilla as Ces & Dectnc. requested that &
and gives the staff the necessary emphcit recognition of, not orly Commission include some dascupion of flembihty to evaluate h full range of traditional sta ff precuce in evaluating the criterion in proposed i 50.12(a)(1) potent al requests. Therefore, they the safety impheations of a particular that the emernption would be " consistent recominended deletion of the "pubhc wd the common defense and security."
interest" standard in proposed enemption. but of the statutory findings l 3012(a)(1). A third mdustry The commenter also noted that the required by section te2 of the Atomic Energy Act. 50 FR 1650s.1850s. The to wording of the current i 50.12(a)(ik that commen:er. Norheit Utahties. also endorsed 6 ides that a "special CR 5012fa) esemption provision was the exemption would "not endanger circumstances" standard is more originally added to & Cornmission's
- *
- the common defenn and secunty regulanons in 1936 and has a long
- * '." may be easier to apply, appropnate than a "pubhc interest
- history ofimplementation. 21 R 355.
la respones, & Comminion does not standard because it is more in keeping january 19.1956 The sta!! evaluates an Intend for the change in wording in the with tredations! staff practice. Balumore Ces & Dectne stated that on this issue.
esemption request to determine If there proposed rule on the secunty finding to it preferred Commissioner Asselstme's is a justMable tuson for the propoud change the nature af that standard.The version because that version deleted the esemption and, in addition, whether proposed rule would include the "pubhc interest" etendard. This adequate protection of the pubhc health statutory safety and securtty findings, ccmmenter beheves that the "pubhc and safery would be maintained if the based on section 142 of the Atomic esemption were granted. Contrary so Energy Act for" adequate protectico to interest" standard is too subjective. and what UCS suggests, the grant of an b bealth and safety of the public"and no supporting guidance was given for its laterprets tion.
enemption doea not lower the enjoeng
" accord with the common defense and safety standard for granting emeraptions. secunty." 42 U.S.C. 2232. This is in Both Duke Power and Bishop, Uberman. Cook. Purcell & Reynolds but rather esplicity reaffirma the contrast io the lenguese la the saisting suggested that the une of the broad extentts safety standard. This safety,
' rule to the effect that the esemptios must "not endanger life or property or "public interest" language in proposed standard represents the statutory requits.inents of sect!os 1st of the b sommon defense and secunty."The
( $0.12(a)(1) could eleo "clood" the Atomic Energy Act for " adequate ~
"not endanger" language is the currect application of the "special protection to the health and safety of the rule was never latended to embody anycircumstances" standard, citing the Public." 42 U.S.C. 2232.
special standards for esemptions that Commission *e Shoreham decision where In refard to the UCS assertion ht the differed from the statutory etenduda the traditional public interest test was l
Comminion's regulations estab!!sh the that licensing must provide adequate expanded to include a requirement of protectico to the health and safety af the " exigent circumstances." These j
antalmum requirements for providing adequate protection of the public bealth public and be in accord with the commenters recommended that the and ufety. b Coenniuion believu common defense and secunty. For an Commission refine the language of the that wlule it le true that comptierrce smemple of how the "comroco defense proposed regulation to emphettly define h type of assessment involved in with a!! MtCregulations provtdes and secunty" standard has been applied evaluating exemption requesta. Le.
is the contest of an asemption request.
reasonable enurence of adequate emele theMoneroflorig faland "pubbe interest" or "special
. circumstances" stated es an equitable
~
e 4
~. -
Federal Register / Vol. IDJNo. 23e / Nr'3 day. Decembre 52.1985 /,R6 lee aiid Riguistio6e sene 2
belanctag teet. and include a ist of an enemption request, and endorsed the analyeie la necessary at aD on the factors to be considered in applying this general approech of Commiseloner gearrel standard to which the specine test. Somewhat in contreet. the Atomic Asseletine, which they charactented se altuation applies. Although the Indualml Forum (A!F) behewed that the " adopting two general standards foe Coonmission believes that the Commission had ulected the correct enemptions remer then prescribing 6aimework of the proposed rule could be general standerde Furthermore.the AIF opecinc criteria to be swi."De Implemented the Commiseloo destrwe te nosed that h "apecial circumetences" coevnenter further noted that the b)hlos the c.teervet and meet emcient stenderd in l So 126e)(2) of specific list of special circumetences la implementetion process poselble.
Commissioner Ameeletine's proposal. 30 Commissioner Asseletine's proposed Becanoe the factors that would be FR 1e60s. appeers to be unnecessary i M12(a)(2) wee too narrow and didn't considered la determining whether b because the Comuniseion intends to reflect all the poselble factore which
- public Interest
- standard has been set.
grunt esemptions only in specist should be considered. Another industry would in large part. eleo be conaldend cucumstances. Anotherindustry coaunenter. Yankee Atomic, found under the "special circumstances" commenter GPU Nuclear lcriticised Commiseloner Aneletine's "specsel standard in i 212(a)(2) of the naal rule.
I o Commissioner Aseeletme's proposal for circumetences" ettractive in that it the deletion of the public intemt deleting the "pubt c interest" standerd.
Identifies " safe borbor" opecial standard will provide a clear framework I
although no further espenation wee circumetences without excluding any for implementation of the exemption offered as a basis for this enticism.
other circumstances.
rule without sacrificing any substantive On a related issue. Duke Power Yankee Atomic further suggested that polacy consideratiora The deletion of Company and Bishop. Uberman. Cook, the specific conditions of propoud the "public intemt" standard in Purcell a Reynolds, esserted that the i 212(a)(2) and the equitable factors proposed i 212(e)(1) reflecta e estuatione m proposed I m12(el(2). in cited in the Commission's SAoreham conc!veion that an enemption would 7
which it would be tvuonable to grant decision, be consolidered under b always be in the public intemt. If
-e en esemption. "gives the regulation a "public intes eet" standard in proposed special circumstances are pment and j
slightly i!!ogical structure."This resulte i 212(a)(1). Explicitly listing these the sefety and secunty Endings of g
from the specific situations of proposed factors in the text of the regulation im12(a)(1)are made However.the 13012(eH2) being used to define end would. eccording to this commenter.
Cornmission believes that the "public f
lamat the general standards According to provide more guiance on interpreting the interest" concept is still an oppropnete these commenters. it would be advisable "public interest" standard.De consideration for determining whether g
to state the special circumstances
. corarnenter eleo noted that this would be the general special circumstances etandard in terms of a definition.rether a way of more clearly indicating that the entenon in i 212(eH2)(vil has been i
Than by the limiting enemples of
'propoud rule wee not intended to met. and has added it to the final rule.
proposed i 4012(eH2) In addition. they subetontie!!y alter existing sta!!proctice The Commission emphasises thei a Anding of "special circurnetance s" only suggested that the list of factors to be to the exempdone erva.
4 ii considered under the "public intervet*
After careful consideration of b defines the situetions where exemptione standard of proposed i 212(a)(1) public commente, and further evaluation will be considered. Even if special would m many respecta parallel the of the propoud rule. the Comminion circumstances are present. no specific situatsons of proposed has decided to delete the public laternet exemption will be granted unless the I 5012(a)(21. Therefore. I 214eX2] le stenderd of proposed I m12(a)(1). As.
findings of f 5012(o)(1)can be made.
g unnecessary. and eleo deprives the the commenters noted, the public As noted above, several of the Commission of needed flexibility in interest determination consista of the commenters recommended a general e
considenns esemption requeste.
consideration of the special "special circumstances" standa rd.
g I,
However. these commenters requested circumstances that justify b rather then a standard that is defined by g
thaf. if the Comminion does adopt the esemption. Therefore. ~epecial specinc criteria. Although the
.e approach set forth in proposed circumatencee le a more appropriate Commission has the fleubility to i m12(eX21. I 30.12(eM2)(vu) be.
terminology for this standard. !n consider unanticipeted circumstances in
,i retained to provide for unenticipated addition, the Comminion is concerned the esemptione ares,it desiree to e
8 circumstances. Another industry that the framework of the p.oposed rule. establish a predictable and consistent e
commenter. CPU Nuclear stated that the could be somewhat awkwerd to exemption policy. The moet effective add 4 tion of the specific siruottone in implernent n'nd could result la way to accompt sh these objectives le to propoud i 50.2(aX12) does not provide Ine!!!ciency and conbion. In addition utablish standards. Consequently. the eny cienty so the esemption artewis, to meetles the general"no undue risk" Commission is employing the specific and merely adde more requiremente.
- end "public interest" standards of conditions of propoud i 212(a)(2) se his commenter also critaciud the proposed i 212(a)(1). proposed the criteria for the "epecial Commission a proposal generally for act 4 212(e)(2) requires bt one of several circumetences" standard in l $0.12(a)(2) etating any more clearly than the opecific condiuono enlet before an of the fine! rule. As discuned more fully eahting rule the circumetences lee r esempdon stay be greated.These below, the Comminion has modified which an enempdoe would be conditions represent specific some of the provisions of proposed warrested.
applicadone of the general"public l 30.12(e)(2) in response to the public BootIn Edieos stated that the
- laternet" se "no undue risk" stenderde la commente. However, the Anet rule does preecrtptswe content of the proposed rule propoud I st2(a)(1). nie presents the retain the criterion in propoud wee too e errow and imposed moes potesdal problem of determinin6 h 1212(A)(2)(vii) to retain the fletibiltry stringent standards then the NRC eteff extent le which the analyste and for the Cofrunisson itself to dul with had amed le the past. Northeset Unlideo conclusions on h specinc conditions of unenticipsted circurnstances. The believed that the seves criteria b
.i ed I M12(e)(2) willl#spplicable Commiselon believes that the "spedal proposed l M12(a)(2) appear to *
. la terviining whether the proposed circumstances" criterte in the final rule enconcpass most of the relevent beoes" l mistelft) standards have been met.
- do not simply odd more requiremente, wklah might be advanced in support of particaterfy whether eny futhe.
but do in fact, edd ciertty to the e.
s m
Federal Register / Vol 506 No. 23e / Thtreday. December 11 1985 / Eules and Regulaticme gryyt m
.. encaesary for ameldareties as a
- ~.- -.......
p.blic health and sefety. wodd seem While ameplianos with all NRC e
more appropriate.ne Comminaios separate special circumetansa, and the regulatione provideo reasonable would also note that one of the Commission has deleted thie provision suurence of adequete preectice of the i
ebjecees of b total earmptlen policy from i sa12(a)(2)of the Saalrule.
pubbe health and sefery, the converse le s of set forth in this floal rule la to estabbah However, ellernathe seems of not earrect, not failure to coinply wth uc.
cntens bt would allow more affecure comptance tasy be considered is one regulehan er emother is an e
implementation of the overall policy of evolusting the special circumstances hadication of the absence of adequaes efficient and affectiw muclear safety smaa,s la i Sa12(eH2)(ii) d the Real protection, et least la e attuaban where rep!stion.
rule.The detailed reqeirements of each ahe Commisalon has revsewed the e
id rroposed Section !s12(a)(2][la r.,, regulation la to CFR Port so moncompleance and found that it does estabhshes e special circurnslance ry!!ect a rulemaking jedgment that act pose so " undue nsk" to the pubiac not wher*
estirfection of those detailed health and safety.Purbrmore, the Ahameeve er essesnaarory meses at se requiremente la the only wey to achieve Commission has never~ defined the
'ch is soune ne ndert,.ng p, Peas el the the speofic purpose of the regulation moncept of"defenseta depth" to asu!*"**-
without imposing utmecessary hardship prec!ede the granting of en eacesphen USC asserted that this provisione er creating unforeseen conflicts.
from a regulet on a long u h would " violate" the Commission's policy However.ta eny particular case this appbcable exemption cntena are m' t. In e
in to CFR 175a(a) of the Commission's cauld prove to be incorrect. and the fact. the Comminion bea recognind regulations wtuch prohibit challenges to esemption peocess would permit
&at its rugslations may provide for the 8
Commission rules. Consequently, the licensees ce applicante to offee Pensibility of exemptions when en co#ementer asserta "[e}ech asemptaos attemetrve ways of achiewm' g the appmpnately high level of eefety is la procadans could be a forum for perpose of the regulation without oth'er fact achieved and the pubhc interest la rehtigation of the purpose of the rule madeelreble effects.De Comunleeien served. See. hv de Morrer of Consumers and the acceptable mesas of achieving does cot believe that this limited PDwer Company (Big Raci Point
[
that purpose."This would wease agency applicat on will eliminate consistency Nuclest Power Station!. C13-7the. 3 ruourcu and eLounate eD consistancy and rettability from h regulatory NRC see,000 (strie). The Apput Board and rehability Irma the Coreasuion's proceu. In regard to the UCS staternent decasion cited by the commenter.
regulatory proerss However, as that consideration of attemative Fermont YanAce. supro. concerned the
? Ie industry commenter. Northeast Uutitles, mechanisms would violate the correctness of a Ucensing Board was supportave of this provision because Commission's policy in to CFR 2.754, the decinon at:owmg contmued plant 3
68 provides empl. cat recognition that change in focus in the final rule to OPeretion pendma b outcome of en f
generic regulations cannot consider all "special circumstances
- makes it operabag hcense proceeding that had
& relevant factors for a particular consistent with the consideranone the been reopened to consider one safety l
t plant and that. to some cases. detailed Commission expects parties to addrese leeue. In effgunos the beensing Board i
plant requirements are inappropriate in ad]udications involvmg 10 CFR 2.754, decision, the Appeal Board did etete l
ther beceuse they =ould not. on a Proposed i sa12(a)(Z)(iv) establishee skat " reactors mey not be hcensed 3
yven plant. achieve the intended end a special circumstancee when-unlue they comply with e!! spphcable j
resuft of the regu!stion. or because thert standards."id at 129. and ht-e mas ao.eand ssuemo,e m -i.se wei.id resuh m en e e os
,,",""",,. ;;l' ;df,';*;;*A*t,
- 6 euecove mons f.,.csevteg e honesne *e rew.c hea>* -d ufm7 *.
undariymg purpose of the tvguletion.
4"' sates for any decrease la safety has abound receve en entestncied fu!I-power.
4 o
In considenne these commeats.it wee may monit M 6e eraar af 6e naampaan..
galkterm 1. cense en the g evnd that eere le apparent thei the esistence of UC5 stated bt thle provielon, so well 'usarwble menu not en cu epemie wubnes eduneh anntana un s,al.c twel*
o attemative or compensatory measurve la as proposed i 50.12(e]I2)[li) of 88d e*IetF M also en oppropriate consideretton in Cocuoissioner Anelatine's version.
making the "no undue risk" would allow so applicant or Bcenne to However. se esemption request wie t
deterrrunenon of I 5012 tar 11 compensate for the decrease in safety involved la this case. and the above Onginally. the specific situations of caused by en exemption by Increasing statements of the Appeal Board were l So.12(ejt2] were esemples of either the oefety la some other part of a plaare act made is the content of applyms the e
no undee nsk ster. derf it the pub!!c design or operation. According to tJC3, esemption cntene embodied m the laternt standard in proposed this would ignore the pdnciple of Commission ~e regulations Rather,the i 50.12tef(1). end therefore it was "defenetist depth." UC5 characterised loose in Vermont YanAce wao whether appropnete to include 'altemativ..e or
$la prtacfple by eteting that "[ejech of the licensee had cornphed with a compensatory mearures* as a special the Comouenion's sefety regolationa particular regu!staan. Furthermore. the conditaan under proposed I salge)(2)d18 halej a purposela peoviding e Appeel Board, with e abght With the change in focue in the final r
' reasonable aneurance of safe operation mod,8cataoe.epheld the Ucensag to *rpedal circumstancee*, efternative of a nuc!eer power plant" According to Board's deciseos to e'!aw canonued or compensatory maamures are no longer the commenter, the Contrdssion cannot operation. In suminary. the Cornaussion license a plant besed os sorse "overe!!"
bebeves that the effect of an exernption
.~
- ua sy..w.oo rotermd a me p,.e et finding of reasonable esaurance.but se total facihty safety la approsnate for ec=.8ase m ru w w mus m
- must resolve the safety leaues telsed by consideretion as a special circuenstance.
7 1****,d3," j'g 3 I noncompliance with each Individual Three comment, eddressed proposed I saia.sg ware aanwba.=ns.h e w,. e standard. UCS cited In de Afotter of I Sat 2(e)(2)(viil =luch estabbsbee e a, usa rw.d.= = c.rw v.sarrrvw as af Farrnonf TonAre Pe=vr CorPorof588 generaIcaJegory of apeoal wa (Vermont Yankee Nucteer Power cirewastances far-
""w== **u'% P'* = 8* Ias.aa*= =f e/,.^.,a
- '?.a.
e,.:"
staan). Atu.m s uc = s=
r.,
d
- ~,
ca.n, o.e,
,-.i o,
...e,.td.s. it,e r.1%e.... ode,iet A
m.
o.m in eup,,1.f
- asove F such senditsen is sul.ed en e sciveivel, Ier e e ti ~ e.
. *2 2.
..,.. ; arguments.
"...'*ts l
O 8
1
85772 Federal Register / Vol 30 No. zpe / Thursday. Decetaber 12, 1985./ Rulee and Regulations ee'*Mes peregre,h leital of ese escoesh he
- "mp6es shou ses be greemd enut se Atomic, whose plante "beve an oesset Tnne commentwo recomewoded that
["y j, wN pmnene he*
good oefety record are of smou else, ~
althrough floanclel herdahlpe would be g
and are remote frooi population considered under the "public intenet" 4
Duke power requested that some eenters? Accordmg to the comunenter. it etended of proposed I m 2(a)(t). It le these operators who are moet hhaly to should eleo constitute a "special idence be containedin the seek esemptions based os " hovel aircemetence" under proposed l
pP emestery Informetisa to the Anal proposals."
$ 212(eH2).This recommendation le rule on the salent of the coneeltation In response. the Comminios does not procese between the Eaecutive Director deem it advisable to include the beesd on the fact that undue hardship or for Operetsone1EDO) and the consideration of whether a material emensive costa have trediuonauy Commieeien.The coesinitation circumstance wee "Ailly" or "casuhiDji" formed the basis for enemptions greeted i
eencipened by thle provision would considered la the test of the Analrule.
by the Comrnisolon. by admirdstrative agencies in general. and are cleuly consist of embaitting the proposed staff Enough judgment and difficulty is sentempleted by b judicial decisione scoon se en esemption request, which already involved la deterimining whethee en the permissible scope of esency le beoed solely se this premios, to the the particular fact situation constitutes a. exemption criteria.
Commission for determination of
" material circumstance not considered whether the particular fact situation when the regulation wee adopted."
Th Commiscon we bt edue coneututes e special occumstance without trytng to determine whether it herdship or enecesive costs would within the meaning of this provision.lf wee " full constitute an appropnete "special the Coeuniesion mehee es offirmative However,y" or " carefully" considered.cirevaistence? particularly an light of in manJns a determination Anding on this issue the staff wiu then ender I R12(aN2)(vi) of the final rule the deletion of the pubhcintervet" determine if the other standards of pedesignated from i 212(eX2Xvil)of standard in proposed i 212(e)(1). The I 212(a) are met, and act = ' jy the proposed rule), the Comminion Anel rule has been revised eccordingly.
anticipates that it will of necessity have Because the " undue hardship or ao the enemption request.
Two other commenters. Baltimore Ces to consider b entent to, and mannala mive cate"wh Wd m a Electnc Yankee Atosuc Elecsric which, the circumstances were -
sovu b situatione contempleted in Company, addressed the embetence of considered in the rulemaking proceding proposed i 212fe)(2)(v) on the this provision. Baltimore Cu a Electric ha order to determine whether this treatment of the licensee or opplicent in requested that the provision be opecial circumstance le present. la.
a menner subetentially different than empended to e!!aw the introduction of addition, the Commission does not simunty sitated applicate w any other metenal inforrestion which believe it necessary to include in this licensen, the Commission hee deleted could support the exemption request prow eion such consideration as "eny this provision from the final rule.
and to include the evaluation of factors other material circumetence* or "any One comtnenter. Stone & Webeter I
which had been considmd when the other material circumstances which we Engmeenns Corporetien, recommended regulation =ee adopted but may not substantiaUy different from those which that the Caminion adopt have received the levelof consideration had been carefully considered in the
$ m:2(eX2Hiv) of Camissioner I
necenary. To implement this rulmaking procuding? Sech Aaseletine e propose! which ntablished suggestion. Balbmore Ces a Electrie eensidwetions would seem to already a special circumstance whenever-recomunended the foHowing w%
be covered under either the other A esept,ence issue is reised teie in de e,ecisi circo nounca in i minexo e, s n.ine f.e..., onne, he u, v i..d
- a
,,,,,~, e.rw,gr g,,,:;l:'g,
=d-ae crii-ion in I m1=.x2xvo of
.e a
, r..s.. d.e,.ie e d r.,in etron.
hm
- I M I"
[,,Y,'"M "gf"'TF
- segweted eN,uen w; hen the hg"g
,,,,,f,,ot ed d hen According to the commenter. *{tjbia se i
reguistion wee adopted? Fine!!y.la e,sictificant and not infrequent ee, i
wu ed.,,,d.
response to the Yankee Atomic crcumeance, e s. a new rule, and
}
In a similar vein. Yankee Atomic assunent on " novel le? the abould be hicorporeted in the proposed recommended that this provision be Commisolon don no e ht the
- rule? Anothu cementu. laBoeuf.
revised to allow the conoderation of "special circumstances" criterie of Lamb, biby a Medu. wee enucalof metenel circumstances not carefb//y
$ alMeX2) would proclde this provieson in Commissioner Asseletine's version. because is provided conadered when the regulation wee sonaldmuon of mech a propel.
adopted or any other material
. A somber ofIndustry comunenters, only a very limited recosmisen of the circumstenen which are embetentiaD laBoeuf. lamb. Leiby a blocRae.
seed for scheduler esemptions.
F diffent from those which had been Soldam Cu a Electric. Isham. this Accordag to this commenter, saren.Uy considmd in the rulemaking. a Behle (eepresenung Commonwulth Convnissioner Apeletine's proceeding. According to this Edisea).and Yankee Akale i m12 tex 2)(iv)le limited to
. ensunenter. this revissen would allow recommended that the special "cosipliance fesun""reind !ste la the the Commiseion to consider the "nevel gg,,wanca,,gg,g g, egg, g Bcensing review." which the commenter pNposel" rationale ofIndueWo/
seasidersoon of undue hardship or charectorind se " undefined and emcessive coste. Sech's provteios would ambiguous terme? Finally, the
- I C*
43 880
{D.C Cir. teFok W' 'ithout each a revielse, he elmilar to I go.12feX2)(lii is comunenter noted thet Commineionet Coensduloner Asse!sune's v)eios Aaseletine's Anding would be e stillry which presente e novel
. proposal enight be derned en esemption which ntabHohed a @el conditioned upon " good faith efforte?
es,,um,t i -
The commenter did not feel that any of
.es the younde that the circumstance wee somewbat although oot hally Ceephann umuld rumit le undu bordeki, thew limitations had any apparent reistionehlp to the public health and esaald e d he commentw Asreer
,"g M ",,',',,,,'eUe, d ao eve le as esfery, but " appear simply to be eteted that such a revisico is -
,,,,4,,,,4, g.,,,,,enWiunu ta roadbloche to the timely tousnee of pesticularly lapartant to operatore af.... emeene of neue hicurved by oth.e stederly operating licenses? A third commenter.
r
- ancieer power plaats like Yankee.
. a.,. assented.,
Ishem. Lncoln a Beele. stered that u
l
-m
c, r,,
- 4 Federal Register / Vol m No. 2sg / Tharadai. Demiaber 12. isms / Mes and Reguhtions W7n T
te seeded as as exempaan trase to et.
I atale)(2)(tel of Commeneaamer implied that these meddicadees se. r appiaceble ageience.
Aaseletine's vernos recogeisee a real delen se we.id be soneraphehed ed esbesantiel probien oftee feesd bP throgh she Commission's enempdem.
De Ceueission does not betwee not e
kis appropiate or adviuble to liarmee. However. sne commenter posene.
behned est se solution to the poblem De amamentur else mated be a estabitsh e egedaldrcumstance se to scoplse that e esophance lease siador spedal circanetance emild be spec 15caDy carected at the back!La i
reised relatrvely late la b NRC license estabhabad for the safety pal smacept.
standard.& Comumiuloo has
'"ww precome may rum.It is endue W IJberman. Cook.heonil a addmeed h teeue in the Snei role en or hardship ead onceentw cast.The Reyno!&i elebornsed se this ides by hechnitang 30 fR 3eos7.astri.
ed imeheauene of this catment would suggestas that a pienwpedte September alL tees, and forear enen ta be that amepliance luuas reland exemption ensid be jusened based mie discueelon her,is._. ry.
Isis in the bcseans miew sauld be quantitseve aseenament af everoE E IP'"'#7
"***N.#"*"
addremed mader the special po ser plant design and the poesstial circassiance of-riais to pob6c beelth and salsey. As as Virtually all of & Industry eacsesive cost., modne hasslahip er anample, b commanter eBared the ammawaters objected to the Th Comminaios does met ase the situence where as aeneeement of Commisalon's inteanoa so and the need to include i Sa12(a)(2Xie)of desip may demonstrete that tory pectice of smoting temporary empliance is manecessary to asecompUances for near-term opereung Coevniusoner Asulaune a proposalla b speciel circursesances cntena of es undecerily powet #c kd6 and. $te. As notedla b Supplemutary Anal rule. proposed i So.12(a)(2)(v0 enfety Erna endue nok.This osodienten informatloa to the proposed rule, for a (redeeignated as I Sat 2(eK2)(v)la the could be based upon e abowing that typica! power reactor under opersans I
11'=* review. b NRC sta!! aormally final rule). which establishes a spelal there would be no undue rish. because would reconnu' e that while the plaat circumetence for caus where the the risk of mactor care danese se a esemptios would provide on!
remdt d a penindu senumplium wii wu mdy forlow pww opmtion, temporary relief from the app ' cable not ateeed the plaat perfoneanos desip poww escension or even imtaal fuD regulation. adequately covers these objecevee establiebed la enfety goals, gwer operetion. the lent might act
& Comminion magnises het 4 Wy wuh n and m n E hnplementados d a sew goal wguleuos. In em carcumstancas j
8 re se e t commenter
- aascompuareces wm typicaDy dealt who oussested that auch situanone program, and the 15AP progrene. may wie by bcense ce&uona retutring I
might ateo be covered b the special demnetrete comphance wuh the "me compliance before procesang to a carcumstance for undue ship er undue risk" poruon of the esemption Perucular power level or by e particidst
,,c,,;,, go,,'ntere. Bishop.1Jberman, equation.h Coeuniulon would else use.h eRut on ufety d such Toro comme acte set ISAP is en!! at he piles.
am stage. and that es Comedesion "tempor sencomphances was d
Cook. Purcell h Reynolde, and Nonbeest Untities, addressed the poselbility of f8 88' ?*t estabhahed the Saal safety evaluated y b ete!! end discussed is inc!= ding such factore se complienes goal implementation program. In regent the steG ufety evaluation report. In oltuatione where b noncomphance 8d wtth pleet performance design le ISAP. the Commission believes that, would be corrected a a relatavely short
' objectives estabhehed is safety goals er at this etese of the pocese,it le moe, time and did not prevent a liading of in the integrated plant safety reeww eppropriate to implement the resulte d ede ate sefery,tiu otaff would d
conarpt es special cimumstances.
the ISAP pro em wtthin se speciAc con idu se opueWacenu ao est 5pecifically. Northeast Unlities drammerk ISAP.eether the,a through ee rm;ulmmanta must be met et a latu 6
. recomroended that the following test be the Coeurdesion's genere! eassept,ans tism or before a particular power pleet 8
induded as i So.14eM2Xviii)--
pobey. Asy adjustments neceenery as level was reached. However. the staft
(
c,('M'", ' ' " as eh ISAP to reDect the revision of the i
Comsniesion's exemption pokey wlE M Ad ** pre 88h canadu a grant en hie at safeey reeuw that compliance with the have to be considered la the contaat af anemption under i Sa12(a) for these temporary noncomphances. la the mswiste e4w.id not he required tw en that proyen.la regard to the safety Supplementay Infonnabon to se peuanier tesdbry, geel.Se Commismoe has noted that the Pmpo"d rule, se Cannmanba noWe
- h sommenter aussuted bt the safet goals am a eup ment to. but de intent to ebminate es pewce d d
Corrumassion's Intepsred Safety not supplaat, se uona.Thusfun, eBowing a licensee to defer comphance Assessment Program (1 SAP) would eMeugh ee oefety sale can assist in wuheut expanh smnung an support such a special circumstance.
se rmw of enempues ragmte. Ibey The comreenter cited the Cornmisoles should not.Ja and of themselves esempuan under i 50.12(a)
The lodustry commente on this Paper on ISAP Indicating that follodas sonstitute a specle! sircussstance.
posal can best be summerued in the m,eview d exiedag regulatory Two industry commenters.Northemse
{oDowing encarpt from the Bishop.
sequirerriente et e perticular plant."te
- Utdicies and Esehop. Liberman. Cook.
Vuennan. Cook.Pumma & Reyoalda subseqwns integretrd seeesoment Phmel! & Reynolds. urged the
""""at louer-procese =ould hkely cause some of the Commisalon te loclude a provimien la '
defemd NRCresquiremente te he ne spaGc ethastions of poposed nun is no pernaler language to thw medLGod er deleted on a plant.eposes 4 S&t(s)(2) for as anaoption where processo role. be=mr. =he would i
beste. U4 Nedese Regetetery generic regulatione impose e hechtit that ePectScal!y mandate sbas chenes is precame.
- ==r. n
- Prut=i euw..e dme Comm6eeien.*1ateysted Seby se not lwused as e plans-epecine besie.
gou=g#eak lar thia pmpeenlie that$*f="y*,'f,1* af,",,",'g,Q, Aneumontym,em seCy e gyg r
(Memb as. tseg a.7be caneeenser,,.
h a new regulation may be power operemon mahn ne technical eenee. ar e
.m
.%,,,,,,,,,,,,g 4*g; 6,,.;,. 7 justled under the Commiseson's backSt prem u & M. p nWsm regeest procedutte en a generic benis.,thare meY eBald nos be neceseery. A certola mesend of e.se.eis sur i,.as
.,e,,qs,se e as er ese De SBdivideal plaats where the baChlit SanRatry should tu eHMa the Ds C"4 Pubbs Dneweed S. mens de trar M seum, etoadard is not met.These pieato abonad riseteuman, te. eoanet.orce enauld een be 8't.waw meumssc.
a
.e -
/
g.
.g
Federal Register / Vol. se No. Ese / 'thareday. December 12. tes's / Rulee and Regulation 50714 againd for e level of seemene for whieb en e
wgulenen hee se eGect w serm se pwpose-bletory of the previelen andles
- * ~'6 - -a*Da seletieaship to the oth eenditiene curroelly be l SoJ7(b). SS Fit ll;d',sa--l:'y,e'rg:=:; =:**,,,,.ms7. wead indicete er parts of10 CFR 8317. hierch y1.1erIL la promulgating ent coa.ot be nie,we. e Com
,, e,,,
sed a se me.eu ou.wi.d by se
,equa,emente fw mieeio ei.ied as eise saosof.Iun onde mJt hem neuempi. eases toesmentereL The pt - - to the operating license were "1ergely the we e releevely aermalpart of es e,elease et current l M37(b) wee the provielemal esme" as bee which had been requirm 1
the pleet heergever. because the Seef hee opereting license prevlolone origineDy Aer a prosteional opereting licamme.
used de "se endue rieh* to setettaeheng promulgeted se to CFR IILEF (a) through Deceuse the Andinge were largefy the eccepuble hsense ese&tions the beense (e].establiebing the erlierte and Psewom es would weeptem6 procedurve for the lessence of a seas. the Comminion did not bebeve esad' Dea 8 provide the eene level of pobhc that there =es a need for a provisional provisional operating license. 38 FR Duke Power effered its esperiencela ar12. Sept.g.1 gen.Tae provisional operoanglicense Significeasly,albugh the licensing ofits Catawba 1 Unit to etersting license wee estabilehed to suuty commenters os b proposed rWe had requested the Commlulos to etete IUuetrate the potentialproblems of anow as orderly and expedinees that the previsional opereting license requirtng eV temporary maa==pl3===.
Densition hem a construction permit is and ha!! opereting license requiremente i
to De evoluered under the esemption an operettag license is esses where--
were the same. the Commiselon did not croerie rether een being dealt with as
- The evidence would not support a agree with ee industry interpretstion.
license condatione. Duke Power seeerted flading of completion of constructies, er One respect in which the ste that me approach used in Catswbe. of s Where it wee desirable to obtain different is that for the luvance of a requinag e specific esemption from each Aerther experience before leeming the Anli AaB opereting beenw. l 3 reguletory provision for which operating ucense.
requirve bt " construction of the fac1 Dry compliance wee lacking, did not make SpeciAcour acesse was se. Ibe FR '21 opereting has been subetentia!!y completed".
technical eense and deleyed blload ed to ellow blioeding for approalmetely two weeks.
and low power testing to take place rebt then the provisional opereting beenu Ending bl*constnaction of b i
The industry coausentere questioned before the leeuence of the Ad! operating incility bn proceeded, and bre is why the Comminion did not even Ncense. la order to ensure that the mention bt the practice of greating Public health and safety were protected reasonable eseurence he the fecairy wiu be completed.* In promulgeting b l
- temporary noncompUences* has during the term of the provielooel new rule. the Commission eleo reteised esplicit reguletory support la to CFR operating license. 8 30.37(c) the.
the provision which authonzed the 30.37(b) This regulation provides that-conseponding provision to I 80.37(b)la i
le! d operenne f ceem wiUinclude the emioting rule, authorised b Comuninion to include appropriete i
apprepnene proviesens with supset le en Commia.ios le include la the provisione in b operating hcense with i
encampleted stesie of coneetetase and Provielonel opereting lacesso-respect to any uncompleled items of heatenone end cenetions a are requimd le eonstruction to eseure thee operation
,,, A,,,e,,gg p,,, gas
.,0,e,,, g during b period of the compteuos of awww tem operonse durtne the perted ei ser unsamplewd items of osaseucces,er each items wi!! not endanger pubuc eemplenen of each imme unil est endesger scher meeaste severed by psevleissel heelsh and sefety. The Commiesion wes pebiac heelsh and esfery.
Sadmek The AtomicIntuetrialForum seeerted merely retaining a provision. similar to that nothing in the proposed rule These provleional flad' set fore la that la b provisional operetaas license modifies i 30.37(bL and the AIF i 30.37(e) addrewed b procedura, which would allow the teenes i
laterprete b propowd rule se lesposition of conditions on the]Wf permitting b seeff to proceed under
- Construction of b facility ha opereting Ecenu for any uncom I 30 37(b) without the need to obtain a proceeded and there Is resseeable items of constructaan. However.pleted en of I sat 2fel enemptioet, eseurance be the facihty will be the Andings of I SaS7(e) must beve ban esopleted la confereilty wtth the made, including eabetennel compleuon i
The Commission's retionale for endias constructies permit sad b of construction, before i 30.37(b) would the past practice of granting temporary Comminice*e reguladoes, be applicable.The provtsions of noncompliances through license condiuono is twofold _to ensure that aR e Reseosable escurence exists that' - l 8047N sue,t be rud la conjunction esemptiores from the regulatione are setivitiu sobrised by the in. m a with b provisone of i 30.37(el. Finally.
formally and eyetemasceUy evaluated opereung bcense ces be esaducted shortly after the promulgetion of the and clocwnented and to ensure that without endangering public beelth and surrent ll Sa37(a) and sc.37(bk the i
rebelhem the regelations le b eed en esfety and that such activides can be Comaluice promulgeted the present I
9 eleet reguletory sothenty.Castrary to. esaducted in compliance with es versloe of I 30.37(c) to e!!aw for low wbet has been suggested by the reguleuses.
Power opereGon. 36 7% est h(sy 14
- The a y and 1771. The interpretstion urged by the
- - "[pplicent le 8.A.,.n soeunenters. the Coeuninion hee met eueR8ed.
esamenters.would also not be relied so 10 CTR 30.37(b)la leeming
- Pres of Amancialprotecdom wee consistent with the promulgetics of "mencompliances."and la fact, the Geraished.
I 8037tc)
NWuletory authority for this practice had
- There le resseseble eseurence that ki order to use en approach conalsteet been anspecined. la ametreet. Ibo see of. te facility will be ready for ialtlal 13042(e). la e5 casee where compliance with saleting regu!s tory authority, and with the mgulesene cannot be bed, wGI leading with meclear fuel within 3D days to ensure e documented and systematic bem the date ofleevance of the seasiderados of esempuon requeste, the Provide clear reguletory sothority for
. esemption reDet Althoggb the hteral pesvleienal operettag license.
Commleston wtU permit tempersry la15rth $ BIL37 wee amended to soocompilence if approprieto under wording ofI alls 7(bk road spart bom ellainets the provisional operating..
ll 30.12(e) or 30.37(bt Any schedular the other provisione of to UR SILay..
Rooses, to uteblish the standards Ier exemptions for neer. term opereting would seem to support the commestere* te leemance of a full-term operet'ag Scenoes eiust be accompanied by the Seierpntesee the Comalmice bee met Beenes curnatly la S 90.37(ek and to formal Andange required by to CyR esed i SILa7(b)is his meaner, and the, provide for the imposidos of, license 81L12(a). However. for these nut term il
.l
.e.
l!
t.
.J
-a
- -~. - -...- - - -
N Federal Register / Vol. 80. No. 23e / nuroday. Deceinber 12.1985 / Rules and Regulatione 50775 3pg opereting licenses. the Commlesion will methods of compliance. Comp!!anos generolly to the provisions of to GR og ceutinue to provide schedular reter with the repletone le pided by the use Part 30. If another repletico la Part 30
.e ander to CFR 30.37[b] through of seguletory pidn. branch technical
, provides for specific exemptfos rollef. or
%II 888p'N'Y noacomp!>ences for any pooleone. and the standard review plan. for alternetive methods of compliance.
uncompleted construction activities Such guidance, however, does not have the criterte of the speciMc reguletion are i
Iaired ameining. provided that the the form and effect of a regu!etion. De the approprf ale consideretiene. If the Commlesson can find purement le 10 Commiselon also recognisse that esemption criterte in the spedfic be GR 3(L37(e).1 bel eenstructica is acceptable methode of compliance may reguletion are met, the rule has been oubetentially complete.' Die le withis change over time bened os staff and complied with, and no esempdos ander 4
~
,,3 the scope and latent of to CFR SIL37(b).
licensee espalence. If what Stone a
,9 30.12(e) is neceuary. It la only la those
,ough Both b schedular esemptions and the Webster referred to se e "non-standard" cases where the specine exemptico or gg, scheduler alief for sear. term opereting alternetive method of compliance is
- alternetive comp!!ance criterta cannot bcenses will be docwnented by license outside the scope of previous be setioRed. that the opplication of the sendshone and addrweeed la the Safety interpretauces on acceptable methode generalcriterie in I sittge) will be sie I'*I"* Hon RePon.No mvisies of the of compliancefer the mthod currently appropriate. If the specific exemption i
repletory text ha been made to seceptebk te h staff, as esemption criteria, or the alternative methods of implement these changes because the bom the regdation may or sesy not be comp!!ance, can be setiened. there is no Conuniuion le menly effirsung what le seguired. Under the existing reguistory ased to eleo settsfy the criteria of required by the existing regulaeone.
bemework. an applicant orlicense may Ilo.12(a).
Finally, the Cominiuion would note thee demosotrete ht an alternative method ne AIF requested chrification on h gigi,y it le not unsympathetic to the need of of notisfymg the regulation le relationship of the proposed rule to the i
Bezibility la applytna its repleuono at acceptable. Falling such a Shelly amendment process, and to the le=w power levela, ne tw-ion demonstrauon. an exemption would be "Eving schdde" concept. Public
,g staff se currently eventing a rulemaking secouary.ne avklone to b SuWee Cu & Emc she mquewd j
that would provide for such flexibility, exemption violone which are the informatico mlevant to the Sholly y
F. Aelotionship to Other Coo-*=.
subject to rulmaking wald not the Aegulatory Actione change this regulatory framework.
process.Georgse Power requested i
clartScotion on h reistionship of the and Stw & Webster Enginecing stated enemptforis rule to requiremente which 5 tone a Webetu Corporecon noted fngmwing that the propowd rule only applies to 10 the commenter characterind ao lacensee ate arp num '
OR Part 50 and else noted t!.st ad 18 "commitmente'. often made by a Appu! Board decision in the Shoreham licenne to perform a partievler activtry, t
ou pec meane w accomplish the undertyms untent of the pmceding held that an samption such as modification of facabou dunns I
- (
regulenon."He coeunenter "9 vested mqunt to 10 GR Pan W did not a particular penod or prior to a thet se Comrnin.on not laterpret the escentute an esemption request to 10 parucular date-gg p,,, 77 3,,3, y,,,,,,f g,,,,
n ru!
mm
',*]P Alondlighting Co. (Shoreham Nucleer
- ,,;I,
ne
,, p used as s'n alternative swane of Pown Stetton Uinit1k N 21 I
compliance other then that speci8ed la NRC 30s Febmary 21.10ssk We -
reguladone. It does not apply to relief s
Dom license conditions or amendmente.
swdence docuroents."Os a reisted
- *** " 8'" "88" " "
- 8' technical specincetions, or other d
tesue. Duke Power and Isham. IJanels &
- " "'888"'I " ' 88* I" I
Buk. opnibily ddrwud b inn similar and constatent language licenne committnente."De"living schdde* involves the applicanon of e "8h" ** "I"I'U*"'
of regulatory swdence. Both the Commission agrees th'at enmptions' l
P ant.epainc license requirement. and cominenters criticized the staff practice ild elrequirma e lic.enu applicant to bom the provisions of each part of the brefore le not covered by the aquest eumptaone from NRC regulatione must be evoluetedand exempuone rule.
i graakd undu h esmpeon pmvkim
- C AeheyScotement Versue Aule
{
h-h i
,',q, rd e ew an.
a ory CPU Nuclew suggested that b e
swdea. or ohr guidence documents, I
leham. IlaccIn a Beale believed this to esemption would have to be'evelveted
.Coraminion, se en shuneun 2 ee y~
peoposed rule. mey went to luu a be sa inappropnete ar.d unnecenery h-g ggk"[d policy statement t provideo guidance t
seeof the esemption requiremente
@o edeim een m et he. h. - en interpreteLion of the "pubhc internt, because the failure to meet theess agule 18 CwmPond W ee che standard. In leeuing the proposed rule.
- requiremente" ofteale a resuh ole,I change in NRC e4If intirpedeGoa aa I
the Comtnission did consider the use of
,"*,I*[e U
b
,y text not a change la the enderlyi'g elb 10'QW 30 mqdmme, es enemption procese.The Commissicn "8d*D mission recognizes that soone ' Ceaunipios hoe detertained that mjecad eis oppmecuehaving est The Com
'O pans of h solemaking would be the more f
Comuniesion regulatione ere broadly g pg,s. ry at ele -
ePpropriate approech for formalizing the Iremed and eaaceptible of ratious g,,,
exempoon process he On a related potat. the roletienehly
. IV.no Flaal Rule
'A N "
8 em ' ant in mean u" nae et same.wr."
between b *neral exemption criteria in I
amene some emwwwee m ormes a. Mac tem he l 30.12(e) and other provisions la Pgrt Section sinfo)(1) Section
.es.ae.end de 6.ie.o.o emme e.
30 that contala specine exemption
.. g,9 g g r
n me e msw 9e.e.a.,,.4./
er ness ames, criterie et alternative methods of ee Comsninion m g ent eumptaone e eassibi se e-m
.# woe,.
the Commlula6 would whicW com llance"het i 30.12(a)la the k he U U,*e Y uTg#*"
emp eelse t are authodsed br la w. wit! eos pnwns en me, t eastek enemption provision that applies
,andw nek to the pvbl.c heshh and ufety.
s.
e p
O r
~
rm
3e778 Federal Register / Vol. so No. 230 /.Thweday. December 12.1985 -/ Rules and Regulatione and== emessesent wwh ihr sommes delease fielh enempties would seeels te,
edile Islead Nedeer Seetoe. UWt No 1&
m'd weenty.
base 8t to the public beelth and safety CU-ap-10,21 NitC art (tesok h she As in the saletang rule. en seempues thei compeonetee for any decreees la Motier o/DuAe hwer Cosviany r
met be "authorised by le w." Apart eefety that may roult from b great el (Catawba Neclear 54etion. Lleeto 1 and eating b the enemption: er
- 2) CU-FM 2 NRC too (1s75). !: most he & very fact o[f r
enespeios reliefite the granting of (v)& exemption would provide sely be undmteed bm that b underiytag the esemption cannot be is violaties af l**Potary reDef bom the applicable purpose of the rule shoeld be sommethhg regulati' e and the hcensee er applicaat mon specaac thee achieving adequeto other appKcable lewe such as the o
Ademic Energy Act er the National has seede good faith efforte to comply asidy pmtectnosi Otherwise all of the Enytriamente Pdicy Act.
with the regulaties; er.
safety mqoiremente la to CFR Part to la e departwo bom the test of the M)Them le pmeent any o&er becom wb ect m open lingsdos. and i
material cisanetence not eeneidend the emmpdoo proorse becomes open enjeting rule.lbe Snelrule bulres a when the reguletles was adopted for i
endd Rather. & ebecortetned fra
$c objecove of Anding bt the sab to b public which it would be la the public internet dos not 1
1 the'regulaeon mui "prnent en undue health and ufety" and would be l'get so amption.
the rule itself or b underlyuis M carcumatencM mpmwat rulemakirts procuang (for esemple. er
- consistent with the casamen defense amenne in which the ""'"".
opeci$c purpou of to CFR I so to wodd r
and securtty."Thee sienderde provule on explicit recognition of traditional believes it would be masonable to great be esauring a coolable core durma and A
staff practice in eveloating the selety. 888Rdsjdoe, provided est the general efter poetulated toerof<nolent en enem DI O RIM *XII 8m 8I80 888-accidente).
implicatione of a particular esemption.
~ As noted above. it is enticipated that the
'.cirandances wm uleckd en the Sectice 212(aX2Xiii) addneeee those evolustion of "no undue risk"wiD beeis dumpen che ed be" eltuations whm comphence wcmald consider auch factore es the type of been noted by the courte erith approeel result is endue hardship or ohr costo plant operetton contempleled (fuel therdeklp. maulty. mon shed" that en significantly in excne of those 4
loading. low power testarts. power
',",'[,'[" g g
sentempleted when the regulation wee escension. or M! power operation), the adopted. or that are egn Gcently in bom those coseidered in the ro!
excess of those incurred by others length of time that the exemption would be wi effect.the esistence of alternative 3,
similarly situated. This la intended to meene of compliance or compensatory provide equitable trutrnent to g
1 eienures. and other sefety factors. The applicants or liceneers who. becover of
,g, ncm a e Fi"8 the enemPtion some unueuel circumst'ence. are afrected 1
Commruion believee eat the "not endanger" lenswee in the castrent rule
[,*e p' dos e la a menner d flerent than that of other f
s wee never intended to embody any objecties la adding EtMeX2)le to
"""*'I*
I opeciel etenderde for esesytions thea '
appbcente. For example.ese la the 6ffered from the etetut etenderde ingem Itsuu n k type W uompdp Mortero/ Duke power Comporry 6
M he licensing must prov edequate' M,"re M r"e and5 mi.
(Cete=be Nuc!nr Staum Uniu 1 W the i
protecnom to the heelth and esfety of the existing NitC policy and procece of INM 2 E too W pMac eod be is sacerd with the a 12(eX2p) wouM sh evoluenas and yonting esempdoes la e enumen defense and escunty.The "mo*
Judicione and discnmine meneer.
situations where the esempoon would undue nek" easederd of the final swie is Section 30.12(a)(2Xi] w d address result in benent to health and sefety that e renoement of b sterutory etenderd eau situnone wbm oppucMke of a compenestes for any decrease in sefery that reflects cwrent stelf proctice la ese reguhuos in a partscder circuemanos that may result frcm the grant of the j
eseenpoons ame-would be la confisct with other rulee er
"P'8"ut2 tex 2X,) ntablishes e Section As d acussed earlier the "public requirureente of the Comminaies.nie interest"etsaderd of the proposed rule provision le designed for these condition where the esemption would bee been deleted.
einsesons where as applicaat er provide only temporary rehef frore b Section 312 22folltJ. Seetion 30.12(e)(2) licenen would be la the enesiolow appliceble reguletion.This would cover of the final rule provideo that the posioon of neuefying two er mere the so called " scheduler'esempdone Come.seion wdl aos censider yemens smallecting requiremente.
when h relief sought le limited to e en esemptaoc urdene specael Section 30.12(eX2)(u) would address specinc emowit of nme or antil e i
carcismatanose em pneest. Special those situations where application of the specific event occure.
f aircurnesenose er, present ;
regulatioes la b pertacular The applicant's good faith efforte to (i) Applicasson of the regulatmo la the - eircumstance la est asceeeery to esenP y with the required schedule l
particular circumetences weidd be ti scheeve, er would om serve.the would be one of the factere considered confhet wtth other ndes or reqeinemens underlytas purpene of the rule.Tbse la determining whether this special of the Comminiese er weeld lacinule these situatisme circumetence esista.
iii) Appiscatami of the rugulatlee in the seasidered la requeste far esemptione Section 30.12(a)(2)(vi) establiebes a porticular circuenseemoes would not 3
under 10 CFR 2.7se(bi, =bero estegory of any other meterial serve the enderlyug of theceler sistumetences peculier to that ceae es circemetences not considmd when the er istiot necesesry so vethe w
opposed to any ellegtd generic requis' ion wee adopted. Although the d
underlying purpose of the rule; se...- Insanguacy of the reguleses, may result Commiseloa klieves thee the conditione I
till! Compliance weekt reesit in undue in die frustronom of sne enderlytag la Il 212 tex 2Xi) through 212(eX2Xv) l bordebip er other onets that ase.
purpose of the rule.For example eseL Je will cover moet requests is which en eignificandy Is encese of those
..,r de MonerofpbedTe ces an# Electric exemption could reescoebly be greoted, o
cont lated when the regulados wee, Company (Diable Canyon Nuclear i sa12(eX2)(vi) recognian that there adopt or that are significantly in Power Meet. Units 1 and'fL ALAB-453,, may be circumetences, which could not i
encese of those locurred by othere St NRC 35 00stMe the Moderof
, beve been forneen in developing the i
simNo,dy situetet\\,,,,,,, *,,* [
Metispolitaa,fdeon Company (Three. conatiorre in i So 12(e)(2)(i) through c
. l.
1.
I
{
g3
e,
, 5..
I W
~
Federal Register / Vol. S'l No 239 / Thunday'. Decolnber 12.1838 [6!se n'ad Regulations grr7y gg sa12(a)(2Xv) In =bich it would be RegdeIery Analyde
~
.... - g let'and ease w temmed andw ear. setL e,
equiteble to provide abelhem th'
& Cmaldebu a
regWahens. In thue cases. ease enet sea a e.w.4 4 tu uit sanoja e.d Ilseast.1 sue (n sara apt ou teart Iand documenteboo of the sneterial
- 8uI8887 el8 88 88 circumstances not conaldered whea the h onelysis enseloes the costa and and sars an taewd umic esc me, es East 9ng reg lehon wee adopted, e detenniaeben benefits of the alternettves, as web as sea sa ammedad (c UAC Esottelk ething that the exempuon would bela b the environmental assessmoot.
E lk I M pareF#ph (a)la mised
,o r, pubhc internt and meeting b general onesidered by the 'ha=6= The I* '**d 88 I*E*""
r rse cntene. lacludme "no undue rtok,in analyele le eveilable for bepedios la g agte eyewns on
,sene, t 30 13012(a)(1]. en enemption could tuus.
the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H cad However, this provision would slao Street NW. Weehington. DC Sia6 e
(*
- * "P' J
I see t=Isin the Esecutive Dtmetor ler espies of the analyste may be obtalmed oppucadon by any intemted pean a ve of Operetione to consult with the
. Den: F.I. Cameron, Of5ce of the "P** I'8 *** ** " 8"*'
! hem Comminion before the exempoon sould ExecuevWel Directee.U.S. Neclew enempticos from the requiremente of the be yented-Reguletory Comuniselen. Weekingtoe.
"8"I*"*"*
- P"' " * "~~
ne.the The Coeurunion notes ther because DC M Tdepimos art.as-ense.
(1) Aubrtzed by lew will not present as undue etek to b pub!Lc beelth and would the critene in 13a12(a)(2) will new Regulatory FleafbiBry CertiAcation safety. and em consistent with the and include consideranon of herdahlpe or he accordance with b Regulatory esamen defense and secuatry.
unvouel 6fficulties. es weU es the level of esfery. It is deleeng the p evision Flesubillry Act of teen s U.S.C sos (b).
(2) N Comminion wt!! not consider the Codmission bereby cert 18ee that thle Fanting an esempuon unfees epecial shoes from omisung i Sc.12(e) os ad&noeel rule onllect have e olyslAcent economic circumstancu are pment Special I
requirements for enemptions from the impact upon a substanual number of strcuanetences am pmsent whenever--
ante fracture toughnue requiremente of to neee CTR part 50. Appen&ces C and H. A easU enudes & Raelrule primardy II) APplicadon of the reguletion la the affects commercial power ruectae Particular drcumstances confbets with au corrupon&ng delenon hee been made licensees and license applicante, some of obt rules or r'tuirements of the to 10 CER to solb).
whom comedtute e "emall entity."
'N""'=Imalon; or Flading of No Sign 3 cant Esviroemental IJet of Subjecte la te CFR Pest as
^
I"P*** A'*U* M cu!
ces dn Anstrust. C!a selned informe tion. Fire serve b underlying purpose of the rule a of N Commission hee determined prevention. Incorporodoo by toference.
er is not necenery to sc}ueve b I
octed under the Neuonel Envirorunental Policy intergoverrQnental reladone. Nuclear enderlying purpose of the rule. or ber Act of tene. se amended and b power plante and reactore. Penalty.
(Lii) Compbence would result in undue 4
Coeurumon's regdacone in Subpart A Radieuen prosecuort Reactor otting hardship or other costs that an of to CTR part St. that this rule le not a critena. Reporting and recordkeeping eigrnficantly in exceu of those mejor Federal action signincently requirea. ente.
sentempleted when the reguleboo was ad effecong b quehry of the human Ter the reasons set out la the adopted. or that are eigmficantly la environment Nmfore the Comuniulos pnemble. and under b authority'of b excus of those incuned by othere bee determined that it ws!! act prepase Atomic Energy Act of1954, se ernended, almilarly ettueted, or we id en ennrotunentaliscpect statement foe the Energy Reorganisetson Act of1874.
(iv) m esemption would ruult la 6:
this action N final rule mo&fies that es amended, and S U.S C 551. the NRC ety entene and procedures for &
le adopting the fo!!owing amendmente to benent to the pubhc he alth and safety consideration of esempson requests to CFR Part SQL that coropensates for any deenne in under to CTR Part 50 m adopoos of eafety that may treult from the great of the esempoon, or such entene end procedures does not d
hewe an envirotunentalimpact in sad of NOUCN MD UMLJ2 ADO 98 (v) m eneroption would prende only e
steelf. N potenuel environmentaj FACM.ff113 temporary rehef from the oppbcable irspect of e spec fic esempton will be reguladon and the licerue, or oppbcent er evalue ted. es appropnete. in the opotent L & authortry dtedon foe Part 30 hee made sood felth efforts to coroply l
s of the specific request for an esemption. contnaves to read as foUows:
. with the regulation. or h enviroruneatal enuement and Ausbertry:Sece tas. los let. tat, tea, tea, (vi) There Le pneent any obr see. se Saat am sp.em en en su em es seetenel circurnatence not considered Andfrig of no stard6 cent impact es ameeded sec, ass. e: Sist 12n as amended erben the regulation wee edopted for which thje determinetion is based beve (e2 Usc,rt)a. rise.zart. tan 22n Sam l
e been locorporeled into the regulateey sam Jarreecs. apt ant an se Stat tut-which it would be la the pubhc interest i
I d
analyese for this rulemaking m tan taea u nmended to usc east.seu-to pont an esemption. If such con &uoe l
evadebthey of the reguletory analyele/.
som uniem
'L le rebed on esclusively for neuerying m
d dn pe w Parsgroph (e)(2) of this section, the i
l enetrotunental neesernent is, noted aswler Aervlotory Ano/yese. e/ ret No art. ese, m at sea seen (a UAC seen esemption mey not be grented until the
.secuene star, tdt so,a,.m,and so.me,ela.
eense,ed,,,.ector for O.peradoas hee som F.necutive Dir eu, ruated en
- ruevam io v,,oru.coie docuse,,te
.,,d.e, u,u.C m.mn.e.s.,e.
,1iu U b Com seio edeie,mi uo i
ei.e Pe - orb n.duco A.
,T;;pt:t.,.;;ing:,'rs=,,,3:.ut.c g a la i no.a,-,e,h we -iea
,)
ne ano,w. do. -
er eseand inform..e ni,i c ieia e.sw ;---
en se om.wa iu Usc i a d aatia-a:
o..eusc.e.
-n-sens =-- ai.- a requinresat eebject to Peperwork
..e..e - - e. ter -
i asucao. A..f we0 (* uit %..,. unde us, tea n 544,L ess to U.s C azzet
$'" x ".,,,,,,,r,,,,,,,
,,,,n,,,,,,,.
al-::Ern;;
e
.m.m es.t n's:',elsooisi s.peo i
approved by. ~em-is -
e
~-
the Of5ce of Management ese sened==ler see teit6 se stes. east se (b) Proposed ef ternsetvos to the and Budget. approval number 3130-00114 assided tet,UAC IJotfbli il sale (1pl end' desenbed requiremente in Appen i
"i
.~.-
~
.m -
l --_-.
y,..
j Federal Register / Vol. 806 Mk RIBJ7hereday. December 11 tes5 / Roles and Regulations Ef773 end H of thee part er partisne thesent "tes E NW.Weeldestee.DC 4 lestrument Appread Procedures (5 TAP),
may be used when en seempsten to '
Bet 3"la the leDowteg pleses et Sonesse County Airport. le the a
I punted by the Commlesien onder (e)11 CFR 1J(b) deciption of the ace amendment.
$ Ett (bl u CFR Le(e) the len " counter
- wee Deted at Weeblegten. IL C this ab der of (c)18 CFR Lt tuodvertently replaced with the ten.
Desember. tees.
(d)11 CFR 4J(aM4XI) ilockwies." This action wGI correctly Fe the % clear Resulesary Commiestem, (e)11 CFR 4J(eM4 Mao) describe the trenetnoe ases.
samusi) Chin.
(f)11 CFR 4 yle) yencrfwa sats: 0801 QET.hierd sa.
Secmerre/sAs h hIU**
888 '
1CFR (FR Dar es-ame:2 Flied 161149 tes en)
(1) u C7R SJ(e) poe puuman esposes4Tions coerfact:
l (J) H CFR SJ(c)
BillReidy. Alnpace Brand. AirTreme esame same rem >e**
(h)11 CFR L103(b)
Divtsion. Federal Avtetsos g
(1)11 C7R L170(dN3)
Admanistretion (FAA)15000 Avieson i
PEDEAAL ELECTt00s C004488S$10N (m)1101 L17e(i)
Bouleverd. I.4wndele. Cohfornia saael:
(s)11CFR1003 telephose (r13) 2ef-11ee.
11 CFR Cat.1 to) U GR 100 te(s) suostresseTant seoessavicae (seeses mes-ul (p)11 CFR 10L2(e)
(q)11 OR 194.2(b)
IE'8F Tec#wdosi Asriendsnente ir 71GR10L3(dMS)
De August 12.1985. the FAA proposed (o 11 CFR HLe(s) to amend Part n of the Federal Aviati' n o
aesscv: Federal Elecoon Commission.
(t)11 CTR 11Lis(e)
Reguletione (14 CIR Port n) to espend actions Final rule: esenical
-(u) 1 CFR 111.te(c) the Sente Rooe. California. Trenoieos m a==d =ien ts.
(v) H CFR n2.1(e)
Area (30 FR 32441). This change to the (w)1101 nL3(d) trenoition area la necnury to contain euwesaav:h Federal Electice (s)11 GR 9002.s the propoud amendmast to h n3 Coousinios la publiebieg today (y)11 CFR scos.2(a)
Runway 32 Standard Instruinent techruce! emendreeato to its reguletiens (s)11 UR 8032.3 in Tide 11 of the Code of Federal Approach Procedure ($1AP) de'veloped Andbarter 3 USC 16 Catel med 8Erdtat for Sonome County Airport in contro!!ed Reguletione, hu changes are necesery se UAC sone (b) and eme(bk airspece. Interveted pertes =tre inytted because the Coeusiesion moved to e to P*Itici ete la this rulemaking ee= location on November 21.1085.
CertiScotion of No ENect Parvuont to P
erwuctive oats: December 12.tesk B UiC 005(b)(Regulatory Flealbility Proceeding by submitttng wntien Act).
coaunente on the proposal to the FAA.
poo ruevesse maonssariose coerracT:
I eertify that the etteded Anal tsle Ne comments obreenna to h propoul Me. Susan E. Propper. Aseistent General will not have a signincent economic wm received.This amendment le the Couant. ose E Street. NW. Weehiegtem. Impact on a subetential ovaber of emeG eame se ht proposed in the conce.
DC Joest. (3:2) 53-4143 or (es) 426-settties.& basis for this certlAcetion
$* coon n.181 of part n of & Federal 85JtL le that no new requirements would be Aviation Regulations wee repubhehed is suseumssnvaar espoessariosa; Os isnposed on any eine5 endties as a sweeft Headbook reco 6A deted January 1 November 23 19es the Commleelos of these rules.
Seek beges its move to e new locettoe.h Deted; Dec ober 1 tems, b Raale techruca! emendmente published !n this joke w'"'
socce revise Perte 1 through euze to This emendinent to Port 71 of the F*d' art *** y _ _ __
Federal Avienon Regulanone wtD Chapter 1 of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulecone to change Ibe (FR Dor es-aeana Filed 13 u-a6 een sol expend the 700 foot trenaltion eres to Consunion's addrene to thes of ste es,,
seame esse emene contain the proposed amendment to h locetion ae see E Street.NW.
E.S Runway 32 SIAP et Sonome Cowity 8
Weehangton. DC 20est AIPPor1-Secause these amendmeets are DEPART 48ENT OF TRANSPORTATION N FAA has determined that thle technical. they era mot asbeteneve rense Poderaf Avteson Aaseninistrogen fetulation onIr involves en estabbehed i
requiring notice and coinment ander the
. body of technical regulatione for which Admituetrouve Procedure Act 5 USC 14 CFR Part 71 frequent and routine emendmente are saa or submission to Congrew purseems necessary to keep them operetione!!y (Amesose nesset see.ask.Asrp sel current. It thmfore-fil to not e "meier to 2 USC 414(d) er as U1C son (c) 1 end sizze(c). her emeedeneste are.
gg,,,gg,, h g,,,,,
rele" mader Executive Order M2t1:(2)le therefore, made effective December 13,
- y act e "eign!!icant rule
- under DCFT test Regulatory Policies and Procedurn (44 i
IJet of Subjects to 71 CFR Chapter 1 eenscT1 Federal AeteMan R N hery R W and W Admialearstion.Tremoportaties, does not warrent prepareuen of e ESectione. Candidates. Pallancel Actices Correction to Saa! role.
regulatory evelvetion se the entiopeted committeve. Organitetion and funcuees impact le so minimal Since this la e (government hgescles).
suuneaav:On October 31.19m (so FR routine metter that will only eMect str f
for the reesses est set ebeen.Perte 1 48402) the Federe! Avtettee trafRc procedurre end alt navigation. It l
throngb ease de C3septer I of Title 11 et Adselaletretion (FAA) emended the is certified that thle rule, when 8!
the Code of Federalllegalettene eye * : trenesses eroe et Seete Rose, pavenut eted, wit! not beve e signincent i
t amended by remoeing the woede "y325
- Cel1Ternia.This -
'., ; wee impact on e sabetential nureber of emeD i
E Seset. NW. We ee D.C asser necessary to provide controlled airspece' entien ander h critene of the god lesettle. gin their the werde for abereft esecettag Stendeed
- Regulatory F1eesbihty Act.
g
).'
e
.r i
l tly
?
l
.?h
?.
s.
.t.
E
]
Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 44 / Thursday 7 March 6,1986 [ Rules and Regulatione 7744 p ucers who have not authonzed a (2) are revised and a new peregrpph
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY
('
coo retive association to receive (c)(3)is added to read as follows:
COMMtSSION pay nt for their milk, and whose milk
/
is not ubject to the Oregon Base Plan I unst Paymets from ww eduser*
10 CFR Parte 2 and 50 settlement funet.
pursua to 51124.68, shall report to the Final Procedures and Standards on No market a,rustratorin detail and on r,-
Significant Hazardo Consideratione 4
fanns pre bed by the market (c) * *
- administra r as follows for each such seasecv: Nuclear Regulatory (1)To uch coopw ive undum Commission.
producer:
authorized to receiv payments due (e)The p cer's name.addrus and ' producers who m et their milk acTio= Finalrule.
al ' unds of milk received fhi I
sunassant: Pursuant to Pub. L 97-415.
) et ub from such produ
- r. the average NRC is amending its regulations in final butterfat test b
- f. and the pounds of Bau Plu p anMo Ilines, an form (1) to provide procedures under a
equ a
8 butterfat contained ' the producer's which. before grantma or denying an milk:
p g
u amendment normally it would give "U
(c)De pounds of se and excess
- P,*
sotice of opportunity for a heanns on milk for each produce applications it receives to amend
- dmI*-*. tor by such cooperative operstmg licenses for nuclear power (d) The value of each roducer's milk as tion as having authorized such reactors and testingfacihties and pnor at the base and excess p ices for the coo rative association to receive such month:.
notice and reasonable opportunity for (e)The' nature and amo t of any Pa) ents:
public comment on proposed adjustments to and deducti s from the
)To the Director. Milk Audit and determinations about whether these i
payments due each produce and abiliantion Division. Oregon State a:nendments involve no sigmficant (f)The net amount of the p ment bepartment of Agriculture, for each '
hazards considerations. (2) to specify made to each such producer f milk producer and cooperative association criteria for dispensing with such pnor delivered during the month, for milk subject to the Oregon Base Plan notice and reasonable opporturuty for
- 6. In i 1124.46. paragraphs (a) ) and pursuant to i 1124.68 the aggregate of public comment for amendment requests (5)(i) are revised to read as foUo s:
the payments otherwise due such where emergency situations exist and individual producers and cooperative for shortening the comment period for i U244 Asocm m e associations pursuant to paragraph (b) amendment requests where ex2sent w,, m
[
and paragraph (c)(1) of this section: and circumstances exist. and (3) to furnish
\\
II...
(3)To each bandIn who so requests, procedures for consultation on these determinations with the State in which for milk received by ee handler from (4)(l) With respect to a plant w
& facuity IMud h locaud.
fully regu!sted in the preceding sponth producer,s who have not authorized a Amendment requests for research
.under this or any other Federal adk cooperative association to receive ructors ud construction permiu are order providmg for a similar allocation papnent for their milk and whou milk handled case by case.These procedures of begmning inventories of p aged is not subject to b Oregon Base Plan normally provide the pubbc and the fluid milk products:
pursuant to I 1124.88, an amount equal States with prior notice of NRC's l
j (q).Sghtract from the rem to the sum of the individual payments determinations involving no significant pouf @f skim milk in Cla I the therwfu due such producers pursuant hazards considerations and with an pounds of skim nDik in pa aged fluid t paragraph (e) of this section subject opportunity to comment on its actions.
j milk products in invento at the the provisions of i 1124.aB.The asvac7ws ears:May 5.1986.
begirmingof themonth: d ha dier then shall pay the individual (b) Subtract from the unds of skim ucers the amounts due them on or soonasses: Copies of comments adik in Class D the po e of skim milk bef the date spectSed in paragraph received on the amendments and of the in packaged cream in ventory at the (b) o this section. Any handler who the other documents descnbed below may
. mark administrator determines is or. be examined, or copied for a fee. in the beginning of the mon
,~
(ii) Subtract from pounda of skin was uent with respect to any Commission's Public Document Room at milk in Class H. the unds of skim muk payme obligation under this order 1717 H Street. NW., Washingt6n. DC.
In other source (except that shau not ehsible to participate in thle Named document may be purthosed
~
received in the fo of a Duid adlk payment angement until the handler bom the U.S. Government Printing prodect or cream) t is used to has met prescribed payment Office (CPO) by calling 202-275-3000 or e
produce, ora to, any product'.
obligations or three consecutive by writing to the GPO. P.O. Box 37062, Washington DC 20013-7082.They also spec 18ed in l1 41(b). but act in months *
.
- J ',
1 aL-may be purchased from the National excess of the of skim ajlk,
.Esseitw de March 1.isse.,
. Technical Informs tion Service. U.S.
. remainingin B:
", +. ~..
1.:.
' Siped at W D.C. en: February Department of Commerce. 5285 Port
- (5) * * *
(i) Other milk in a form other
.aa.sess..
."..s....
Royal Road. Springfield. VA 22181.
cream that w not subtracted pursuant, Alan T.Tasy.
r...... '
-s shanthetof a uld milk product or pion rustriesa meeonesarion cowtact:
. Asshw Aamerant
.Mwaadqrand *. !bomas F.Dorian.Esq., Office of the to paragraph a)(4)(ii) of this eaction:
Jaspechense -
.s e.. W.-
%. Executive Issel Director. U.S. Nuclear
(
,j
- 1.,,. ;
(FR Doc. 86-este 3+et;e4 sam)
- Regulatory Commission. Washington. '
7**
'r
'. "r * "" - '. ", f. l '. DC 30655. Telephone: (301) 492-4890.
7.In i11b paragraphs (c) {1) and
,maame esas se
. 4sp, W A.w, s,
s es..
b.
- - ~
.....i
..s.
m..
s '. e.,Gerve u.;..* =. e4 : 1.
u r..
. ' ' O..v ;.. <'
.a :.*
-.~
a s.
Federal Register f Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursday. March 6,1986 / Rules and Regulations 7747 issued. or proposed to be issued. as provided
%e public notice provision was -
- 1. Petition and Proposed Rule
.[
in subparatroph (Al. Each such nohce shan explained by the Conference Report as include all amendments issued. or prcposed follows-0",#
to be issued. since the date of pubhcahon of final rule on standards for determining the last such penodic nonce. Such notice The conferees note that the purpou of whether an amendment involves no shall with respect to each amendment or requinns prior notice and en opportunity for e gnificant hazards consideration proposed amendment (ilidentify the facihty pubhc comment before e licenn amendment involved; and (ii) provide a bnef description may hb effect, as provided in subeecton resulted from a notice of proposed of such amendment. Nothing in this (2)(Chii) for all but emergency situanone. is rulemaking issued in response to a subsechon shall be construed to delay the to anow at least a minimum level of ciuzen Petition for rulemaking (PRM 50-17) effective date of any amendment.
Input into the thnshold question of whether submitted by letter to the Secretary of (C) The Commisoon shall.dunna the the proposed license amendment involvn the Commission on May 7.1976. by Mr.
ninety. day penod follomns the effective date significant health or safety issues. %%)e this Robert Lowenstein. For the reasons of this paragraph. promulgate regulations subsection of the conference agreement discussed below. the petition was or 6e Co
'"b estabhshing (i) standards for determining
{,sj denied.See 48 FR 14867. Hewever, the
,,, g,r h n and 8
Procedures to the exigency of the need for the Commission published proposed cense nvolve no ifica a
consideration. (iil cntene for providing or, in hcenu amendment, the conftnu expect the standards, as intended by the petitioner, emergency situahons. dispensing with pnor content, placement and timing of the notice to though not the standards requested.
notice and reasonable opportun;ty for pubhc be reasonably calculated to allow rundants
. (PRM-50-17 was pubbshed for comment comment on any such determmation. which of the area surroundaris the facility an in the Federal Register on June 14.1976 cnteria shall take into account the exigency adequate opportunity to formulate and d
(41 FR 24006)).The staff's of the need for the amendment involved.and
,"beection 2(C)(lil that recommendations on this petition are in (iii) procedures for consultahon on any such the Commission promulgate enteria for SECY/79-660 (December 13.1979). The eterminati n th State in which the providing or dispensing mth prior notice and notice of proposed rulemaking was
'Y""
pubhc comment on a proposed determination published in the Federal Register on Section 12(b) of that law specifies that a heense amendment involves no.
March 28.1980 (45 FR 20491). Note that I
that:
eignificant hazards consideranon reflects the the proposed rule was published before conferees' intent that. wherever practicable.
(b) The authonty of the Nuclear Regulatory the commission should pubhsh pnot notice passage of the legislation and that the S
Commission.under the provisions of the of, and provide for pnor pub!!c co;nment on.
Congress was aware of this rule duru13 I
amendment made by subsection (s). to issue such a proposed determinatiori.
Passage of thelegislation.The staff's
.4 and to make immediately effective any In the content of s2bsection (2)(C)(ill, the recommendations first on a final rule amendment to an operating hcense shall take conferees understand the term
- emergency and later on the interim final rules are in effect upon the promulganon by the situations" to encompass only those rare SECY-81-366. 81-366A. 83-16,83-16A v
Commission of the regulanons required in cases in which immediate action is necessary and 83-16B. (These documents are such provisions.
to prevent the shutdown or derating of an available for examinetion in the t
Thus, as noted above. the legislation
'c[],,*,y,y,j,",[ hod 1[!in uE that Commission's Public Document Room at authorizes NRC to issue and make the " Emergency situanons" exception under 1717 H Street. NW. Washington. DC.)
,J immediately effective an amendment to section 12 of the conference agreement will in issuing the proposed rule, the an operating license upon a
~
not apply if the liceowe has failed to apply Commission sought to define more determination that the amendment for the heense amendment in a timely precisely the standards for determming involves no significant hazards fashion in other words. the hoensee should I
considerations, even though NRC has not be able to take advantage of the when an amendment application before it a request for a hearirig from an ewsency usellTo prevent abuses of this involved no significant hazards i@
interested person. In this "Iard, the P"#*" ** ***f'"" expm me consaraHonsmue standas M Conference Report states:
Commission to independently apen the have applied to amendments to ticensu's reasons for failure to b an operating licenses, as requested by the ne conference agreement maintains the application sufficiently in advance of the pet 2 tion for rulemaking and also to t
requirement of the current section tasa. of the threatened closure or dersting of the facility. Iconstruction permit amendments, to g
Atomic Energy Act that a hearing on the Coni Rep. No. 97-4e4.87th Cong 2d Sees at edhatever extent considered appropriate.
heense amendment be held upon the request se (1982)
The Commission later decided that f
N'j,#N
",['"[,$7,be C Rosis forInterim Final &de art these standards should not be applied to these the Commission. In those cases where the StandardsforDetermming Wh,etheran amendments to construction permits.
I amendment involved poses no significant Arnendment to an Opertrtmg Licertse since such amendments are rare and basards consideration to inue the license involves No SignificantHazards normally would not be expected to amendment and al!ow it to take effect before Considerations andExamples of involve a significant havirds this beenne is held or completed.no Amendments that Are Considered consideration. It therefore modified the conferees intend that the Commission wt!!
LikelyorNotLikelytoinvo/re -
proposed rule accordingly. Additionally, use this authority carehally. epplying it only Significant Harords Cons /derations the Commission stated in the interim to those hcense amendments which pose no eesnificant hasards consideration. Cent Rep.
Many of the comments on the interim final rules that it would review the No. 87-est. 2d. Sam at 37 (Ste2k final rules were the same or were
. extent to which and the way standards
. similar to those on the proposed rule. To abould be applied to research reactors.
.m ena e stmed ~
provide a corrvenient means for future It also noted that meanwhile it would b
its strong desire to preserve for the public a reference. the comments and responses handle case-by-case any amendments P
muningful right to participate in decisions on the proposed rule and the petition for eequested for construction permits or for k *. "88'd2ng ee osewetal un of nucles' t
Julemaking are consolidated and research reactors with respect to the tie os. 'an
'FePeeted here with references to the jesue of significant hazards a t for a be NRC. If requested (by an interested person).
earlier Federal Register citations: %e considerations. (46 HL 14867.)
N must conduct a bearing efter the license.
. comments received on the interim final Before the proposed rule on standards i
l amendment tahoe effect See 86 Rep. No. er.
seules are then discussed and the was published the Commission's staff 113. 97th Cow tot Sen. et 14 (testk -
Commieston's responses are provided.
was guided,in reaching its l
{
~
.. ~
s s
0 L_
h/48 Faderal Register / Vol. 31. No. 44 / Thursday. March 6.1988 / Rules and Regulations 8
determinations with respect to no separete matter,la based on public notim for insignificant types of i
significant hazards consideration. by beslth and safety.
accidents. his comment was not 4
i standards very similar to those accepted.The Commission stated that J
d described in the proposed rule and in po], g,'the setting a threshold level for accident the interun final rules. In addition, the consequences could eliminate a group of staff used a hst of examples of
- a. General. Nine persons submitted amendments with respect to accidents I
amendments hkely to involve, and not comments on the retation of rulsmaking which have not been previously hkely to involve. significant hazards and nine persons submitted --ante evaluated or which,if previonaly I
considerations when the standards an.
on the proposed amendments. One of evaluated. may turn out after further f
applied. Dese examples were employed the commenters stated that all three evaluation to have more severe by the Commissionin developing both standards were unclear and useless in consequences than previously 1
the proposed rule and the interim !!nal that they implied a level of detallad evaluated. (48 FR 14868.)
rules. The notice of proposed ru?emaking review of amendment apphcations far The Commission explabed that it is contair.ed standards proposed by the. beyond what the staff normally pouible, for axample that there may be Commission to be incorporated into 10 performs. When it promalgated the a class of license amendments sought by 1
CFR part 50 and the statement of interim final rule, the Commission stated a licensee which, while designed to considerations contained examples of in response to this comment that the improve or increase safety may, on amendments to an operating licansa that standards have been and will continue balance. involves a afgnificant hazards are considered "likely" and "not likely.
to be usefulin making the necessary musideration because it results in to involve a significant hazards reviews. 48 FR 14864, at 14887 (April s.
operation of a reactor with a reduced consideration.The examples were 1963). It added that the standards. when safety margin due to other factors or eamples of precedents with which the used along with the examplea will problems (ie., the net effect is a staff was familiar, they were enable it to make the requisite reduction in safety of some i
representative of certain kinds of decisions.ld in this regard it noted that significance). ld. Such a class of I
circumstances; however they did not Congress was more than aware of the amendments typically is also proposed i
cover the entare range of possibilities:
Commission a standards and proposed by a bcensee as an interun or final nor did they coser every facet of a 82 axpehus pmQation, qudng neolution d som signmcant safety particular situation. Therefore. it was the Senate Report; issue that was not raised or resolved
{
clear that the standards themselves
... the Committee notes that the before issuance of the operating ultimately would have to govern Commission has already issued for public license-and, based on an evaluata,on of determmations ebout whether or not comment rules including standirds for the new safety issue, they may result in proposed amendments involve dermieg ehr u amaht Mu a de M a @ mb MM I
significant hazards considerat.,d no significant hazards consideration.The to have been present when the hcanse ons.
Committee bebevu ht the thWo was issued. In'this instance, the 4
The three standards proposed in the should be able to build upon this past effort, nouce of proposed rulemaking were and it expects the Commiuton to act pmana of the new safety inue b the whether operation in accordance with expeitiously in promulgaur.g the required Mvie w of the propoud aandmant. at i
't*"d 'd8 ""hi" th' '8"Peci$ed in uchu k ula @ a %.cou b u nta W the proposed amendment wou!d not (1) 301 [i.'e, within 90 days after enactmenth S.
of no significant hazards consideration, involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an Rep. No. W-113. WLb Cong. ist Sau, at 15 even though the lasue ultimately would I l 4
- (19st).
accident previously evaluated. (2) create be satisfactorily resolved by U the possibibty of an accident of a type Similarly, the House noted:
lasuance of the amendment.
Accordmgly, the Commission added a a
different from any evaluated previously.
The committee amendment provides she new example (vii) to the het of examples 1
or (3) inFofge a significant reduction in a Comenssion with the authonty to issue and margin of safety.ThNatenm finalrules - make immediately effecuve amendments to considered hkely to involve a significant did not change these standards. They beenws prior to the onduct or onepletim of hazards consideration. Id. See section did. however. change the introductory any heerms requued by section 1sete) when IlCIUIId) bel 0*-
i phrase to make the standards easier to it determines that the amendment town!ves no When the Senate Committee on anderstand and to use, sigruscant hazards consideration.However.
Environment and Public Works was 1
the authority of the Comunission to do so is considering the legislation described As a result of the legislation. the decretionary. and does set assese the above,it commented upon the Commission formulated seperate notice requirement imposed by the ShoDy dodelen Commiedon's proposed rule before and State consultation procedures that that mh a hwing, eso sugeset. be
. provide in all(except emergency).
subuquently held. Moreover, de reporting S.12tm a
Cosm:4ee's actica as Mght of 4Ae fast shot The Coemnw remsnamn that mesonsWe j
situations prior notice af amendman, requests.The nots. ors usually make a the Comaussion Aae aheady ioasedforpeHic persons may daffer on whether a hcanse
" proposed determination about comment rulee includans staadards for amendment tavolves a segruficant hasants determ/ning erAether on amendment invo/m soneidereuon.Therefore, the Commata whether or not "=' basards as senificant Aancide ceneiderosions. The empects the Comnussion to develop and considerations ar's involved la Coeuruneios aho Ane o how Asie ofcaece.
promulaete standards that to the maximum 8
r connection with as====d==ut and, ressepenedents under whahis har extent practicable, diew a clear disunction therefore, whether er not to eSer as seda6hahed craserie jbr such siererennetsmas between license amendments thet involve e i
opportunity for a beertog before en
...R Rap No. W-22 fPart 21. Wth Cons.1st significant besards bonsidersoon and those j
amenArmatt is immuod;if a bearkg Sees.at 26 (1981) (Emphase added).
that involve ao signiRcent hazards request in receleed, e Smal in regard to the second crissoson la the Of{$$j,",g"
,Pe re 4
determination is usade about whether or proposed rule. a number of commenters the commise6an a standards wedd not Perem a
(
not significant basards mnaderettone recommended that the %==u ion r
s a no significant besards considershon' a
are involved.The dociolon about establish a threshold level for actsdent determination for bcenn amendments to l
whether er not to lesse an em'endusent conseqeences (for example, the limits in permit rerecking of opent feel pool. S. Rep.
has continued to temein ene that, as a 10 GR Part 100) to elimbela prior.
No. W-tts. Wth Cors.1st Sess. et is itset).
1 1
s r
-r,--,--~y,
,--.-.--,y
,-r
Federal Register / Vol. 31. No. 44 / Thursday March 6.1986 / Rules and Regulations 7749 The Comroission agreed with the process. (48 FR teena.)(As will be considerations. Id. It acted. in fact, bt -
1 Committee "that reasonable persons cecalled, standasde were submitted by a under the intens fmal rule involving the may differ on whether a license petition for rulemaking in 1976 for the standards it would normally provide amendment involves a significant Comminion's consideration.) The prior notice (for pubhc comment and an hazards consideration" and it tried "to Commission then explained with respect opportunity for a hearms) for each develop and promulgate standards that, to the interim final rules that the operating lacense amendment request. It to the maximum extent practicable, ada.-ds and examples were as clear also stated that use of these standards draw a clear distinction between license, c ertain as the Commission could and examples would help it reach sound amendments that involve a significant snae them. noting the Conference decisione about the issues of significant hazards consideration and those that Ileprt admonition that the standards wrsus no significant hazards involse no significant hazards and exat ples "should ensure that the considerations and that their use would consideration." (48 FR 14868.)
NRC staff does not resolve doubtful or not prejudge the safety merits of a (Rerackmg is discussed in section borderline cases with a finding of no decision about whether to issue a t
1(C)(2)(b) sod II(DI.infre.) The significant hazards consideration."Id license amendraenL /d Rather. it Commission stated that the standards The Commisaion repeats this explained. the standards and the coupled with examples used as admonihon to the staff in the response examples were merely screemns guidelines help draw as clear a to comments in section !!(C) below.
devices for a decision about whether to distanction as practicable. It decided not With respect to the Conference hold a beanna before asopposed to to include the examples in the text of the Committee's statement, quoted above-efter an amendmentis issued and could interim final rules in addition to the that the "standarda should not require not be said to prejudgeahe original standards. but, rather, to keep.
the NRC staff to prejudge the merits of Commission's final public health and them as guidehnes under the standards the issues raised by a proposed license safety decision to issue or deny the for use by the Office of Nuclear Reactor amendment." the Commission recalled amendment request.ld. As explamed Regulation. Id.
that it was its general practice to make a above.that decision has remained a in promulgating the interim final rules. decision about whether to issue a notice separate one, based on separate public the Commission also noted to licensees before or after issuance of an health and safety findings.
f that when they consider license amendment together with a decision
- b. llerocA;ng of Spent Fue/ Pools.
I amendments outside the examples,it about whether to provide a hearing hfore iuuance of me two inhm fanal may need additional time for its before or after issuance of the rules the Commission provided prior determination on no significant hazards amendment; hs. occasionally, the issue notice and opportunity for prior heanng considerations and that they should of prior versus post notice was seen by on requests for amendments involvmg factor this information into their some as includmg a tudgment on the rerecking of spem fuel pools. When t14 schedulu for developing and merits ofissuance of an amendmenL td interim final rule on standards was implementing such changes to facihty For instance, a commenter on the
- published, the Commission explained duign and operation. ld.
P osed rule suggested that application that it was not prepared to say that l
The Commission stated that the of e criteria with respect te prior ruracking of a spent fuel storage pool interim final rules thus went a long way notice in many instances vill will necessarily involve a sigmhcient toward meetmg the intent of the necessarily requin the resolution of hazards consideration. lt stated, legislation quotmg the Conference substantial factual quesuons which nevertheless, se shown by the Report:
largely overlap the issus a which bear on legislative history of Pub.1.97-415.
'f"g" specifically of section 12(a), that
.I The conferees also expect the Commission.
p Congress was aware of the in promulgettng the regulations required by cornment wes eat &a Commiulon at the new sobsection (2)(C)(il of section tese.
Cornmission's practice. noting that of the Atomic Energy Act, to estabhsh the prior notice stage could lock itself members of both Houses ateted. before t
6 standards ths' to the extent practicable drew into a decision on the merits.
a clear d.stinction between hoense Conversely, the commenter stated that passage oMat Isw. &at eey expected that this practice would contmue. ld.
amendments that invoin a sign 6 cant the staff,in using the no significant The nport on the Senate side has been hasards consideration and thou hazards consideration standards. was amendments that invoin ao such reluctant to give prior notice of quoted abow b escumn in de House la found at 127 Cong. Aecord at H i
8'**iderena Thus standarda abou!d not amendments because its determination
, 3138. Nov. 5.19e1.
reqwre the NRC staff to prejudge the mering about the notica might be viewed as
[m ri include i in he of amples
(
j "A
deterrame whether they lavoin signincent The Comanisales noted in sospense that are considered hkely to involve a
~
health estety er environmasial abat the legislatica had mooted these significant hasard consideration.
censideratione. These standarde abould be comments by requiring separation of(1) because a significant hazards capable of being applied with asse and the criteria used for viding or oossideration findmg is a technical sertalaty, and abound assere that the NItC dispensing with pu c notice and matter which has been suigned to the Commission. However. in view of the staff dame set sessive deobtful er borderline
'me's'm'Isruncant hasard. comuneet on determinations abou significant hazards considerations from expressions of Congrenional I
- "'edesusa.
- o. wee (2) the standards ased to make a understanding. the Commission stated anse Caes,ad senes.at sr(tes W detennisation about whether or mot to thatit felt that the matter deurved
' l "The Comoussion stated that it had have a prior hearing if one is requested. - Eurther study. Accordingly. it instructed M the staff to prepare a report on this ettempted to draft standards that are as Id. at 14ees. The Comuniuloa=='u'lu,saatter, and stated that it would revisit f
aseful as possible. that it had tried to that under the two interem final r formulate examples that will he in the b Comunluion's criteria for public,
this part of the rule upon receipt and application of the standards, that notice and comunent had been separated review of the staffs report.Jd.The j
the standards in the interim final ruleel toen its standards on the determination report is descrbd in detail in section j
were b product of a long debberative about no significant heaards ',.
1t(D) below.
w i
?
j 7750 Federal Registee / Vol. 51. No. 44 / nursday. March e.19ee / Rules and Regulations i.
4-I In the interim final rule on standarde.
Mr.DOMENICL in the statement of prior to a pubhc hearing.1M Cong Rec. (part t
the Commission stated that while it is managm. I direct ettention to a paragraph in tul. et S.132s2.
awaiting its staffs report,it would,make [c 1
sua d pmn m yg in light of the Conference Report and findmgs case by case on the question of no sig lificant hazards consideration for authonty which that prodston grants k colloquies it had quoted. the each teracking apphcation, giving full NRC should be especially sensitive to the Commission stated that it would ensure consideration to the technical lasue posed by license amendments that have "that only those amendments that t
Armweible consequences."le that paragraph clearly raise no significant hazards i
circumstances of the case, using the in generet or specifically. the worde lasues will take effect prior to a public d
- l standards in i 50.92 of the rule.ld it
, " irreversible consequences" intended to bearing"(4g FR 143701, and that it would J
also stated that it dad not intend to make impose mtricuone on the Comaussion's mee a no significant hazards consideretion of that authority beyond the provisions of the do this by providing in 5 50.92 for review l
q l
p findmg for reecking based on unproven
$*,["'y,I'[ager can se Senator clardy about whether they involve irreversible of proposed amendments with a view technology. It added, however, that.
- where terackmg technology has been Mr. SIMPSON. I shall It le not the intention consequences. Id. In this regard, it made I
well developed and demonstrated and of the manaam that b paragraph in clear in example (iii) that an amendment genml. not h words " irreversible which allows a plant to operate at full where the Commission determines on a consequences. provide any restriction on the technical basis that reracking involves comnuseon's use of ht authoney beyond
' power dunr g which one or more safety 1'
j no signdcant hazards, the Comtnission the statutory prowlWon la esction tege. Under systems are not operable would be I
should not be precluded from making met provisim ee only determinauen which treated in the same way as other i
examples considered hkely to inv'olve a such a finding. And it noted that.ifit O Couun mus d ep n be significant hazards consideration, in determines that a particular reracking involves sigmficant hazards context. irrevmibihty"le only one of b that it is likely to meet the enteria in considerations. it would provide an many considerations which we would expect 150.92. ld the Comnussion to consider.!:le the De Commission also emphasized that I
opportunity for a prior hearing. ld.
deruminauon of basard whach is important.
the example did not cover all possible The Commission also noted that not whether the action is trieverstW.
under section 1H of the Nuclest Waste Clurly. thm m many irrevmiW acuone cases were not necessarily 4
j Pohey Act of 1982, an interested party which would not pose a hasard.he whm representative of all possible concerns, i
may request a " hybrid" heanns in the Comnussion determines that n and were set out simply as guidelmes.
Id connection with teracking, and may, (8,",',
"ee "
He Co' mission left the proposed uoi d be w m
participate in such a heanng. if one is a
irreversibdity of that acnon.
ride intact to the extent that the intenm held. It stated that it would pubbsh in Mr. DOMENICL I thank the Senator for the Anal rules stated ' standards with respect
. the near future a Federal Register notice clenneadon. That is coneistent with my to the meaning of"no significant j
desenbing this type of hearing with readings of the lenguage.... tu cerqr. Asc.
hazards consideration." ne standards respect to expansions of spent fuel (Part Ill. at S.13083 (daily ed. Oct.1. Isaal.
In the interim final rules were identical 1
3 storage capacity and other matters ne Commission then noted. 4g FR-to those in the proposed rule. though the concerning spent fuel. ld. Dat notice 14860, that the statement was further -
attendant lar:guage in new l 50.92 se can be found at 50 FR 41662 (October 15.
explained in a colloquy between well as in i 50.5g was revised to make
{
1965).
Senators Mitchell and Hart. as follows:
the determination easier to use and
- c. Amendments involvw.girreversible Consequences. Congress expressed ur prrcngw pa,, a, at s, underetand.To supplement the 4
some concern about amendments statement of manaam discussing secuan 12 standards incorporated into the 1
involving irreversible consequences, as of the report. the so called ShoUy provteion, Commission's reguletions, the guidance i
struwe that in determining whether e embodied in the examples wee evidenced in the Conference Report:
powd amendoient to e Iscility epweting referenced in the procedures of the 1
N confe'rees intend that in deiereuning cease involm no egcant hasard*
whether a proposed bcense amendment consideration, the Coauniesion "abould he Off ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
involves no sigruficant hasards considereUon, nPecisUy sensitive... to license
. copies of which were placed in the g,,,g,,;,,
and sent to b.s Public Document Room the Comnupion should be especiaU amendments that have irreversible censees. States, and sensitave to the issue posed by
. consequences."le my understandang correct amendmente that have irreversible that the statement seems the
- =='aniaa interested persons. It was the r
enosequences (such as these permittig en should take special eere in evaluating for h=laaion s intention that any request 4
increase in the amount ef effluenas or possible hasardeos seasiderations, for an amendment meet the standards in 1
redsorion emitted /rost e facility or allowists
""'"'"'a that involve temersible the regulations, and that the examples a focihty so operose fbr o penedof tim, eenwgeenent withoutfullsofetyprotections.l. in theee Mr. KART.The Senatets undere^ ^ ', se simply provide supplementary guidance.
snees. leeuing the order in advesce of a
, correct. As you know, this provisies seeks to
- d. Examples ofAmendments Dat Att i
4 l
heenas would, se e practscal setter.
overnale the holding of the UA Court of Cons /deredLikely Tolavolve foreclose the public's right to have ite views Appeels for the Distrtet of Columbia in Shouy SignificantNozordt Consideroflons Are 1
4 eensidad.la add, tion ee hce. sing board ' against N taa,magmistoryr-=<=='-- Thet Lisasdselow.De statement og d
would often be anshie to order say asse involved the venone of rediesttive eensiderations for the interim Anal rules
(
i sehetential relief as a result of as after the.'
krypton see bem the damaged Three Mile listed the following examples of i
fact heartas. Accorchagly, the conferees telead Unit 2 reactop-an irreversible scuom.
amendments that the Commission intend the
===i==saa he sessieve to thoes As in this cose, enoe the Commiselon has seneidered likely to involve significant r
hoemse emendments which levolve such approved a he==== amendment, and it has hasards consideratione.14. It explained hveversible consequeness. (Emphasie added.) gone lato effect. at could prove impossible to Ceaf. Rep. No. gr-est. 3Pth Ceeg 3d gem et eerruet any oversights of fact er errore of
. that unless the specific circumstances of bdsment.nerefore, the
--a=='a= hee am e license amendment Muest lead to a sr-as(tgezk r
ebhgedon. when essenstag to has!& or contrary conclusion when measured
%e Commleolon noted (4s FR.at
,,,g,y implicamene of eaht against the standards in i 50.92, then, i
14ses) that this statement was explained I,,eversible commqwoca, to insure that Pursuant to the procedures in 150.91, a
(
in a colloquy between Senators Simpson those amendawnte that clearly raise no posed amendment to an operating and Dcnnenici, as follows: *]-
significent heaerde seems win take esect'
- cease for a facility licensed under j
i
.-_.,~..__,_-_~._--____.----,._m.
,e-o m
_ _ _,... - -, _ - -,,,... -.., = _ _ _..,
_..--.m.
.- =,. -..
. - -- - =.-.
f Federal Register / Vol. 31. No. 43 / Thursday. Mardi s. goes / Relas and ' Regulations 7751 i
facility will hkely be found to involve change resulting from a nuclear reacter other industries, and does not mvolve a 9 30.21(b) or i 50.22 or for a testing (iii) for a nuclear powerreactor.a elsewhere in the nuclear industry or in y
significant hazards considerations.if core reloading. If no fuel assemblies significant increase in the probabihty or i
operation of the facihty in accordance signifrcently different from those foemd consequencas of an accident previously with the propcsed amendment involves previously acceptable to the NRC for a eimiusted or meste the possibihty of a one or more of the foDowmg-previous core at the facility is question new or different kind of accident from
{il A signsficant relaxation of the are involved.This assumes that as any arewtant previously evaluated; and enteria used to estabbsh safety hmits.
signi5 cant changes are made to the (2)The repaired or replacement tiil A significant mlaxation of the acceptance alteria far the technical component or system does not result in bases for haiting safety system settmas specifications, that the analytical a significant change in its safety or limiting conditions for operation, methods used to demoostrete function or a significant reduction in any (iii) A significant relaxation in haiting conformance with the techmcal safety hmit (or kmiting condition of conditions for operation met specifications and regulations am not operation) associated with the accomparued by compensatory changea, significanti changed. and that NRC has component er system.
conditions. or actions that mamtain a previously 'md such methods tu) An expansion of the etorage commensurate level of safety (such as acceptable.
~
capecity of a spent fuel pool when all of allowing a plant to operate at full power (iv) A miief granted upon the fo!!owing are satisfied:
dunns a panod a which one or more
' demonstratson of aw.sptable operation (1)The storage expansion method 4_
safety systems are not operable).
from an operating restriction that was consists of either replacing existirig (iv) Renewal of an operating license.
Imposed because acceptable operetion racks with a design which allows closer i
(v) For a nuclear power plant, en was ut ye denianstrated. Dis assume spacing between stored spent fuel r
increase in authorized maximum care that te opwoung mtricuan and te i
assemblies or placing additional rocks I
poww levd criteria to be appbed to a request for of the original design on the pool floor if (vil A change to technical relief have been estabbshed la a pnw I
specifications or other NRC approval mmw and that it is lushned in a space permits:
i involving a significant unreviewed sausfactory way eat ee cnteria have 12)The storage expansion method Ll safety questaon, ban met.
does not involve rod consobdation or
- ds double tiering:
i
( ii) A change in plant operation
,,(I (3) The Keff of the poolis maintained l
{
des gned toimprove eafety but which, g,
a en due to other facsors. m, faet allows plant opwanns facihty a relief granad from less than or equal to a95: and operation with safety margins an opuanns mtric6on eat was (4) No new technology or unproven sigmficantly reduced from those.
impped bw. sum ee aseMruedan was
. technology is utihand in either the y
bebeved to have been present when the not yet completed satisfactorily.his is construction process or the analytical 1
II" ** **
- I'*"*E N' intended to involve only restrictions techmques necessary to luaufy he where it is justi$ed that construction
- Epansion.
O Co$she7dNott has bem auspided sansfacurtly.
- 31. Rapones to Comments on laterim y
e (t
Sismficant Harads Considamtions An g&
, g, '
Q,,
II**I**I**
4 LisArdBelow. The statement of 4
considerations for the interim final rules cessequences of a previously-enalysed he coments an described in r
listed the following examples of accident or may reduce in some way a somewhat greater detail in an sale magin but where the remihe sif attachment ao SECY-45-20BA.
)-
amendants the Comiseen the e are clearly withis all A. C/srh ofShmdeMs asesidered not hkely tiinvolve r;*
significant heaards considerations.43 acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specined in the J.2 Comments--A group of f
FR 144es. it explained that.unless the Standard Review plan, as. a change coeunenters state that the thm
[
specific arcumstances of a license residtag from the application of a small stauderds in 15032(c) are unclear and amendment request lead to a contrary ref nement of a previously esed e that the examples in the statement 7 considerations-which they beheve i
conclusion when measured against the calcanlational snodal or design ansthod, standards le i 50.s2. then, pursuant to frii) A change to esafarm o tenses to are clearer than the standarde-should l
ahe procedums in i 30.g1. a proposed changes la the regeletions, wheuthe be made part of the nde; otherwise, they amendment to an operating license for a Isoense cdiange results in very minor aggue, the==amplas have no legal i
l facility licsosed under i so.21(b) or cdianges to facility opwayans idearly is signiacance.
l l 30Jt2 or for s teering facihty will likely, keeping with the regulations.
"1 -.a De Commission disagma be found to involve no significant.
(viii) A change to a heense to resect a with the request. As explained in basards considerations,if operation of.
minor adjustment in ownership shares response to the comments on the the facility in -
d=== with the among coewnere already abown la the proposed rule (see es FR 1 ease), the -
proposed asnendment inwelves only one *beense.Id.
commenters are earrect that the
[
ormoreof thedallowing:
1As discussed below.the Comenssion examples have no binding legal P
(6) A purely admindstreeve to has added examples (1x) and talin signincance,tioweest, they oo provide tectlmical specincaticesc far a
suspense to ensaments se the Aufertus guidance to the staff. beensees and to change to achieve consistency
'throughout the whl speciAcations... Analaules.)
the general pubBc obeet the wey the
.(in) A repair or ref - " ela standards may be intapreted by the correction of en error. ara change is major component er systaus insportant to Commission, ne ca==ia=ios did somenclatues.
., y amissy,g the following esaditions ens consider combining the standants and dei) A change that eensatutse an ~
met:
". r ;
examples as a single set afisttede he the y
additional homestios. sosenction, er (1)De repair erreplacanest pronses inaarim Saal rules, but decided against centsel not prenantly issduded hi the devolves prenaicos which heesboon. '
.this becauen (1) the standards end.
technical speciScatieas,og,a mere t r-
""y implemented etisest emme samenples had proved useful over timel s
seruisent survedisace seguirement.
en similarcompaarnas orsystemas,
- (ill the sta5 had used all three semedards N'
.. e 4
- .i.*
' i,
-. 4.A-
..g v.
se 7752 Federal Regleter / Vol. St. No. 44 / Thursday March e 1936 / Rules and Regulations end most of the examples well before issue of significant hasards.See, for compare the safety margin before the they were published in rule form, and lastance the discussion in section amendment to that which would exist (iii) the approach had proved adequate.
II(F)(1.3) below.
after the amendment to determine Upon reconsideration, the Commission J.4 Comments-One 6ommenter whether shot amendment would a
p has decided to retain the standards as requests that NRC should consider only significantly reduce the margin. In 1
they were set out in the interim Anal "csedible accident scenados"in
. applying this standard to determine.
a rule. See the response in section B(D) evaluating amendment requests against whether a certain amendment involvee l
below for a descri of the standards. the Bret two standards. it also suggests significant hazarde considerations, the l
j 2.2 Commen e commenter that, with respect to the third standard intent is to aseees just the reduction in 5
beheves that the interim finalrules (significant reduction in sai margins). unargin from that amendment and not to 9
" unduly" and " improperly" limit the Commission laitially assess all prior reductione in margin that 4
l freedom of speech and that minor determine the extent of the existing resulted from prior amendments j
changes in a plant can lead to severe safety margin before deciding the because these have already been a
health and safety consequences such as significance of a reduction, because the considered. Consequently, the
]-
the 1ses anticipated transient without extent of the existing margin is clearly ' Commission has not socepted this
t
?
power plant.
determination.
2.5 Coraments-One commenter
]
Aesponse-It is unc!aar how the
.On the other hand. another -
points out that the three standards are
+
interim Anal rule might limit freedom of commenter argues that it is virtually identical to the criteria in speech. It is clear, though that some inappropriate to specify a percentar l 90.5e for determining whether amendment requeste entail changes to a change above which the unreviewed safety questionsrexist, and plant requiring a review of whether or becomes significant.It notes t when states that this similarity is appropriate.
j not previously unevaluated accidents the safety margin is three orders of Another commenter makes the same 9
pose severe consequences. As explained magnitude, a ten percent reduction is point but notes an important difference above, before issuing any amendment.
clearly not significant, and that when in 5 50.5s. namel, that the word j
the Commissionis required by the the safety margin is Rfteen percent, a "significant"is abnt in paragraphs j
Atomic Energy Act (Act) to and that corr. parable percentage reduction may (a)(2)(i) to (a)(2)(iii) of that section. lt h
there is adequate protection for the be significant. It also suggests that the suggests that i 50.59 should be amended p
public health and safety. However. a cumulative effects of successive changes to make it identical with I 50'92(c)'
1 determination that an amendment to one system must also be considered.
Aespas ch.ons M and M H
involves "no significant hasards and not merely the individual change wrw twa diffemot purpoon.m l
consideration" includes a Bnding under - which is being subjected to review at 8 I" 2e us y
the three standards that the c!.ange does ang given time.
g not involve a significant increase in
... _ _ _ De Erst comment is er a*Periment involves an "unreviewed previously evaluated accident similar to the original petition (see probabihties or consequences, that it section 1(C)(1) above) which proposed
- enfe[e.quntion" Section M is und,2 ded In part, whether prior does not present a new type of accident standards limited to " major credible not previouly evaluated. and that it reactor accidents."The Comuniesion.
Commission a prevalis necessary for does not involve a significant decrease disagrees with this comunent-as it did the heensw o an opwating meetw 2 in safety margins.
previously--because it allows too much make changes to it or to the procedures Thus. the concern raised by the room for argument about the meaning of as described in the safety analysis comment is related.lf at all, only to
" credible" in various accident meanarios mpod w M conduct tats w
. xperiments not described in the safety
/ thatinvolve significant and does not include accidents of a type hazards.hdures governing these different from those previously analysis mpon.The licensee may not types of amendmentswe unaffected by evaluated. which is one of the criuria maake a change without such approval. if this rule change.See, e.g section laza.
for evaluating no significant hasards the change involves en unreviewed
[
esfety quotion.To insert the tenn ef the Act.
considerations.
1 J.3 Comment-One commenter The second commenter to that.
"elsnificant"into the criteria obviously ougests that the only standard that la la assessing the doyee of in would reise the threshold for maidng a s aseded is one that simply idenuflee margin in detenniming whether en determination. It would permit licensees L
those license amendments which make
===d==nt involves signiScant hasards to exercise far greater discretion in eensideratione, the
-i=8a= ebould.ludging which changes mquim e
p en occident possible.
j Asoponse-De standard sugested by asesse the cumulative e9ects (ca Comunteolon review. Wide varietions J
.the commenter le simple to state but margin) of succesolve changes to one among licensees might be expected. If the
-mi.elon has not reviewed en c
4 linpractical An amendment may involve erstem, not merely the individual lf e A:'y reviewed issue and not ebense la margin brought about by the asene. It should deliberate and decide alter the -l=i== seeched amendssent in enestion.De whetherits review la appropriate.
eencendas ecddent bibtles or -
rm--8-ion beheves that such a Derefore, the comunent has been eugestion would be imooneistent with *. selected. no Commission le considering he e eene, the. 2 may bevolve a system se.
- Its staffe time practice la this as di==ad in Section l
esoponest that is so ia===* to na
.the doyee reduction in mergin.
B(x1be c
ovaluation of a design basis socident yet he loconsistent with the thrust of the -
J.8 Commens-One comunenter i
E not levolve e splSeam.taserds
.. a / ethree standards on no =Ariaa==t.
generally eyees with the interim Anal esmeiderstles.Ines thanges hasards consideration, and would result rules but believes that the word
- .the deflaillen of thasards
)
in multiple counting of margin changes.
"significant" should be defined,if only to forestall court challenges by persons esaniderations" thereby,thenges The standard states thatthe '
1 the standards.The three standards f r-s=<= le to deterunine whether the disagreeing with NRC. It sugguts that j
. gven la the interin Rest rules together..
-d-a-t will result in a significant. NRC should create some sort of
- with the asamples are directed to the !
- toduction la snargin.Me latent le to.;
mechaal== to resolve disputes between G
~
+
". ~.
3 G
-. ~.
=-
e.
i i
i Federal Regialee / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursday, nearch 8.'1938 / Rules 'and 'RegulaSons 7753 t,
the staff, a State, or other parties over consequences of an occident previously the NRC staff to assure that doubtful or
[f whether or not an amendment request -
evaluated or create the possibility of a borderline cases are not found to involves significant bezard new or different kind of accident from involve no significant hazards
[u' considerstaons.
any accident previously evaluated; and consideration. As explained above.the Jtesponsem--De advantage of the (2) h repaired or repleemment decision about whether to issue an i
notice provisions ef the interim Saal component or system does not result in amendment is based on a seperate -
rules is that they provide an opportunity a significant in its safety health and safety determination, not on 1
for comunent on proposed function or a cant reduction in any a determination about significant 9
determinetions. Besed on a particular safety limit (or ting condition of hazards considerations.
proposal in an amendment request. the operation) eseociated with the 4
2 Commission welcomes any and all component or system.
g3, j
persons' comments about the In this context. it once again bears Comments-A group of commenters
" significance"of the proposed action.
repeating that the examples do not state that rereckings should be 1
Assde from soms examples as cover all possible examples and may not considered amendments that pose l
guidelines,it believes that the term be representative of all possible significant hazards considerations. in.
significant" should not be defined in concerne and problems. As problems are light of the Commission's past practi:e the abstreet, but should be left to case-resolved and as newinformation is i
and the understandmg of Congress that by-case resolution.
devel the staff may refine the the practice would be continued.
enamP es and6dd new ones,in keeping B. Clarley of Examples with the standards of this Anal rule.
Another youp of commenters agrees s
blany commenters argue about the As to the second set of comunents, see with h Comunission's position that the 4
clarity of the various examples in the the response to comment 1(A)(1.3) significant hasards determination on "likely" and "not likely" categories, above. Finally, as noted above, the each amendment request to expand a Additionally. some want to change, to guadence in the examples already has specific spent fuel pool should be band r
add to, or to subtract from the examples, been sent to alllicensees and others.
on & Commission's technicalludgment.
noting forinstance that the leeue of Jtesponse-In its decision to issue the repairs is problematic. A complete set of C. Classificets.on ofDeciss.ons two interim final rules, the Commission comments (as summarized)is attached Comments-Two commenters argue directed the staff to prepare a report to SECY-45.-30BA.
that the standards pose complex which,(1) examines the agency's Ad.fdtionally two commenters argue questions that " require a level of exPenepce to date on spent fuel pool the Se werd "signi$ cant'in the analysis that goes far beyond the initial expansion reviews and (2) provides a emannW ebould be defined so as not to sorting ofissues that Conyees technical judgmen.t on the basis for IM*altical decisions to the authortred." ney at an argument which various methods to expand spent urwwwable judgment of the staff."
made when the s were fuel pools may or may not pose Finally, another commenter requests published as a proposed rule, namely, sigrdficant hasards consideretions.
i that the guidance embodied in both sets that "the use of these standards cannot De staff contracted with Science of examples should not only be help but require the NRC staff to make Applications. Inc. (SAI) to perform an referenced in the procedures of the.
an initial determination. well before the evaluation of whether increased storage i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
formalhearing(if any)le held,of the of spent fuel could pose significant t
but thatit should also be formally health and esfety merits of the proposed hazards considerations in light of the j
transmitted to alllicensees in the form license amendment" And they e
guidance in the interim final rules. SAI of a generic letter, regulatory guide, or that Congress did not authorize C to provided a report entitled " Review and 1
~
other such docenent.
make such a determination in advance Evaluation of Spent Fuel Pool Expension
- +c 1 ne examples are merely of the hearing on the merits.(A third potential Henards Considerations."
i 4
guidehnes and the Comunission feels the commenter agrees with this argument.)
sal-64-221-WA Rev.10uly 29.1osa).
i present examples are adequate. A list of la sum, these commentere would prefer Os the basis of that report the staff examples of all possible situations
, standards that simply allow for the informed the Commission in SECY-O-would be interminably long. and it is not sorting of issues, rather then, as they 337 (August 15.1983) of the results ofits the Commission's latent to provide such argue, standards that allow the staff to study and included the SAI report. (Both i
e liettas. However, to clairfy the determine leases which are " virtually the report and the study are available as r'a==i==iaa's position on the repair or the same" as thoseit deterednee when ladicated above.)
replacement of a major-a paa aeer deciding whetbar er not to pent the -
'the staff provided the following views i
system important to safety, the license amendment to the Commission.
following esasspie has been added to In this same vein, both comumentere i
the list of examples (in sectionC argue that the standards contravene 111 NRC emportance to date with rupect to I
1(CN2Me)) above eensidered not likely Congress' intent in that the th=i== ion
*"'s",*I d $.'. $ " b T b has j
r to involve espiinemat hasards does not avoid resolving " doubtful or
. been providwg prwr eeuce and opportuairy eensiderations:
borderline onese with a finding of no ser pner he., tag sa ---h--ee in,elving (in) A repair er. / --,~ t of e significant basarde consideration."'
.arpenska of spent suet pool sierese.
I major a==pa==at er system important to,
safety.lf the folloerlag conditicas are i l'th the comum!be t'a==i== ton disagrees especity. De apptsoetsons we#e 1--!
c w
enters, as explained in as e messer af descretion 6essese efpassi6/e met:
~
I the previous discussion above on tble public interest This was the beeis cited tw :
}
(1)The repair er fehlacessent process very point.It abould also be noted thaf pronouctag then applacemens in seawmente bevolves practiose which have been see reason that deterednations on
'#"N" Z'"g",,"O"g",,7,',"","g,'","3,',, g
}
escasesfully implemented at least once sipdficant hasards considerations are '
ha a
en similar components er systems, 7 divided into " proposed deteradaations"
,,,,,4,, eau received w deu se increase the elsewhere la the sueleer ladustry or in and " final determinations"is to belP esorage capacity of emesse apent fuel peele. In other indsetries, and does not involve a sort 4be leeuse lattially.1n this process of.most cases, the commanu and sequeste to elydfleast immense in the probability or sorting, the Comumlesion hereby charges totervene have been resolved without actue!
~
i p
.er-----,
m---v~nn-n-
,,-m,,.,w,,-----,e-,,.-w-,-.
.-.--,--.--s.--,.~---
+
,J Federal Register / Vo'. 31. No. 44 / hraday, March & 1906 / Rulee and R:;&tiang H
1 3 e4 g
heennge before en ASLB [ Atomic Safety and about one foure ofits core et each solueling, expedmental dele and are considered very I.aoeneans Board).
Afic e year of storage, about get al the ehem.
1 Of the se applicatione.31 have been a husal redloectivt has decayed.
le the inwete Anel rule. the Conenissios j
i -
eecond or third appbcehon for the same (2) Technical on the beets wbkh steted that it wee not the intent to make a no poo;[s). All of these opphcetsons have proposed rarschang to increase the storage e opent feel pool expansion amendment asy eigraficant beterde consideretaon Endang or may not poes e sapu8 cent beseed' beoed on unproven technology. Rerecking to capacity-that as. replectas existang opent t
Mi storage rocke with new rocke that permit The techancel evaluesion of wheeer er est allow a closer spacing between bi
~
closer specmg of opent fuel asseinbhee. Two an leasesed opent fuel pool esosage cepenly seeembbe can be done by proven j
of the opphcottone evolved more then elmply involves potentiel heaarde coseiderstaan le wchukspe doeW Henne mebd d replacmg the reche on the opent feel pool centered on the Comnumion's ihme
-_i.los esa eleo be done by proveo empene
!!oor. In one case, the capacaty wee inceeemed standarde in the interte Rael rule.
ggy - a- - Rod came.ohdetinn. bowever by a method referred to es double-taenne. In First. does incrossing the opent feel
" md med this riethod. a rock is fiUed with aged opent cepecity signincently mereese the ty be dims of highly radioecsave componente of fuel mhde situng on h pool Door, once 611ed. or consequences of accidente previously fu ammbim.
the rock is reiaed and placed on top og evoluted? As d easesed in the SAI rupert.
la sunusary. both rod noneohdetson and another fiUed rock. Double-tienes wee rerecking to allow closer specing of tool.
0*** l' mag meneemt potennel emissy approved by the ete!! for Point Beach 1 and 2. assemblase does not mayuficainly incrosse the beessde considerationes Rod consoladation by amendments woued on hierch 4,1373.The probabihty or consequences of acadeau levolves re:etruly new escheology and i
ohr method thei hee bem proposed to pmytously analysed. However, the rod double tiering mey significantly increase the increese pool storage cepeory is referred to consohdetion method may incrosse the probabihty of accidente previouly analysed.
as rod coneohdeuen. Rod coneohdaties.
Probebthey of a fuel drop eccident by a factor Replacing existing rocke with a design whach ins ohes &amenthag or cutuas spart the fuel of two house of the inosew is the sember aUows closer spacing berwun stond spat ensembly and puttang the indmdual feel rede of assembly hfte and levolves headhas of fuel assembbee er placing edetional rocke of closer together. Storage of cely the fueirode, highly radioecuve feel enembly sospones a the ongmal deman on the pool Aoor af space without the spacere, end cape and other DouW nem of esche repame en inmessed pueste (e subset af wreckmg)is considered hardware, can increase storage cepecify by inquency la.ang beavy acede over the not hkely to levolve eisruficant hazarde 30 to 100 percent compared to storage of non, ePent fuel pool whach would eleo incmase the dasenembled fuel. Rod coneohdation-.m pr bebahry of an accident.
ecosiderstions tf several cand.tione are met.
i conjunctaon with rarechng-4ee been Second.does innemng se spent M Firet. no new tachaelogy or unproven technology le schaed na ether the requested for only one plent-Weine Yeaker.
storage cepecify create the pose.bahty of a k
The eteTe resaew of this oppbcatsen was new or dafferent kmd of accident from any consuuctaos procese or in the ana}ytsaal l
cosipleled a year eso. but see appbcataan le occident pmvimly onelysedN staff, as techmques necessary to bastafy the pend ng before an Atornic Sefery and weU es EAI. heu oot ihnuAed any n" expansion. Second, the Keff of the peal la memteined less than or equal to (L91 A h;e6 lacenems Board. We hewe approved g5 ee'egonH or type of neues a meh of amendmente involving opent fuel pool storage klo ew spacing ler the anel of greeter than 095 may be justifiable for e g
g perticular application but it =ould go beyond expenmone end the rest are still bems procemed. A detailed geble hdicating the cone a ataca. hownw."{ pmmt new the presently accepted staff criterie and esency's esperience to dete with roepct to accident scenarias which niey am b' would potenestly to e significent baserde i
maanderetion. Rerecking to eUow aloner opent fuel pool expension to corneased in the fg,
'8 N
8 SA! report. As of now, every operetag specing er the piedag of addatsonal reche of ructor encept Big Rock point has receind anspk dMe. eu medible acddente the onginal deotyi en the pool eaor, which appros el for et leset one rereckms or had the poeteleted have been found to be setietes the two precedmg cr terte. would be
'I"U*' **** P ' IIIII *" ""*I"*' "**'
I cher specmg storese method apprend with conservetvely bounded by b valuessee their imtiel basse.
~
need in to ufrey evalenean mprw core reloading seder seamples of su uch amendment, amendments that are not sonendered 1skely to The techmcel review of requeste to
'thard, mcronias de spam fuelpool involve sign! Scent hazarde considerstanne.
lacresee opent heel pool stemse especpy i
tly redece e Jd (Empbeme added)
I invoine evaluetag the physicaland storage cepecify mecheancel processes whch may oeste neigge er,ege,y9 gg, g,,geg,,ggg potential hesorde such as enucetety have identifled sign! Scent reductione in gg t
coneadaretsome. esaseuc and mechanicet safety due > herentna h stog judgement that a request to e nd the losding. pool coolies long term socomans and espei,y operrt feel pook.'the espneion 8'8' age eePecify of a opent Fue pool emidenen cf fuel claddans and probabshtsee may es, it ge e missein,eese g, peg which setienee the following to end consee,nences of vertove postulated temposstems by a few doyees. but this host considered not hkely to ineolve occidente end fealerse of demyod opent heel.
Isad increase le guerelly weg wnhia me algudScent baseado ceasiderations-Also,the esetron poisen and red structwel decise kamenses of to anstaBed seekse rioteriale must be shown to be sempetsbis syWeas.3m same senseit mey he (1) The storege expano6cn metod consiste with the pool envireement for a sigenneemt
> locusase b hem remurval,
of either replectng esteting mcks with a of time due to the uneertammen as to releevely minor cheeses in the eneRas einign which enwe cieser spectag bewan long the storage will actually be required system. le, by secreasing a pump cepecity seemd spent M enesh w piectng en ette. However, poteettel esfety heaerde But la eD seese, the temperstwo of the pool adhuomal reche of he anyaal been es to eseodated with spost feel pool supenetene wG1 somets below desige saloos. The emeH
- pool Door if spese parmte, are not es large se these easedeted with the hseense h the total emeust of Assies
- 62) The storage empammen method dose met reacter operecen bessess the purpose of the products in the peel le not a sayil8amet facter rod emmeehdedom or double twks, is acc6 dent somsidernesma. The tessessed (3) The Keff of the poolle mainteamed lose eigenstem is to elleur longer term storage of storage espec4y may result h an immeese h them or equal to us, and
- eged opent feel. Samse meet plante are new on to peof rescovuy se meessed the (4) leo sew techaalogy er unproven en te month senseling eyeie and the NRC in seutres multiplicense lector However technology le stilleed is etter the pueesselas e seemed ogsamise sequest after entsmetiv study, the ster determined la esmouceen prooms or the emelyscal appliestion to many lastensee. te presset
- type tot es long es to maalenuse meetree techalques necessary le justify the,,
meanslan requeste see to eBow esatuised matelpameise gestor suas less een er egeel myensies.
et of opent feel not bee does to 0.86 them any abange ha to peel moedyny ever a eless with to mermal of weeld not stystScastly sedime a mesWa af
'%Ie hadgment was baised an 6e releasely ase spent feel for whid the peel enfeey sugardises of she etmuse espeder of.
etaff's miew of as applicetiene astd the e dempied.TypionDy a pwm me seal.
result of the SAI study, which indicates
(
eriu wee r
s etene one third ofles eure et
. no techniques wahd to selaulate Ries thet if a spent fuel pool empenaien and so8esangend e gypt.ent swa vel repleae.beve been hooch merhed assinet
.,....,, esquest satis 8ee the above atterie then
~
e e'
- [,
a.
s%
-,-,,-m-+-y,w-
_.-,v--.w,.- w w,m m,- ~
,w,._--w.
~. - -..,.-- - - - -- -
.---.-......-...-e
-.~. -. ~..
~
s Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 44 / *!hdisday March 6.1986 / Rules and Regulations 7755 e
it meets the three standards in the
" sensitivity" to significant. ltreversible The Commission has not accepted the intenm final rules in that it:
consequences) contravenes Congress' last two commenters* suggestions. The intent.
legislation clearly specified that the (tl Does not involve a signincent increase in the probabibty or consquences of an Another commenter requests that a Commission should be sensitive to the accident previously evaluated; State and the public should have a say kinds of circumstances ou' lined by the (2) Does not crute the pouibihty of a new about any amendment request involving commenters.The interim final rule or different kind of accident from any an environmentalimpact before NRC repeats this language and seeks to accident previously evaluated. and issues an amendment.lt wants more insure that the Commission's staff will (31 Does not involve a significant reduction from the Commission than the statement evaluate each case with respect to its in a margin af safety.
in the interim final rules that the own intrinsic circumstances.
Finally, the staff stated to the
" Commission will be particularly Commission that:
sensitive" to such Impacts.
I D '4'#C7NOU."#
An H commentu assuts b 2.1 Comments 4e commenter Appbcations wtuch do not fallinto the Certain situations which involve requests that the term " emergency,, be above category must be evaluated on a case-by<ase basis.There are secondary taeues
,irrreversable consequences. such as deleted from the rule because it could be wtuch may be associated with a spent fuel permanent increases in the amount of confused with a different use of this pool expansion, but they must be considered effluents or radiation emitted imm a term in a final rule issued on April 1.
on their own technical merit as a seperste facihty, should be treated like " stretch 1983 (4s F1t 13968) involving the luue. As an example, transfernas fuel to
- power" situationa. it argues that this applicability oflicense conditions and another site for storase or transferring fuel to class of amendments should not be technical specifications in an a cask to another onsite spent fuel poolif considered hkely to involve significant emergency. See il 50.54(x) and 50.72(c).
requested. must both be evaluated on a hazards considerations as long as the
!! suggests that the phrase "warrantmg discharge or emission level does not expedited treatment" or some similar invo v s cant b o r ons.
exceed those evaluated in the Safety phrase could be used instead of the
%e Comm.ission has accepted its Analysis Report. the Final term" emergency."
staffs judgment. discussed above. It has Environmental Statement or generically Two other commenters request that added the foUowmg new example (x) to by rulemaking (Le Part 50. Appendix f).
I 50.91(a)(5)(involving emergency e
the list of examples in the "not hkely" This commenter adds that anY situations) be clarified to make clear category in section I(C)(2)(e) for temporary increau within generally that an emergency situation can exist reracking requests satisfying the four recognized radiation protection whenever it is necessary that a plant not enteria noted above (Reracking requests standards such as those in to CFR Part in operation return to operation or that a that do not meet these criteria will be
- 20. should be treated similarly.
derated plant operate at a higherlevel of evaluated case by case.)
Moreover. it requests that these power generation. One of the (x) An expansion of the storage situations should be induded as commenters argues that unnecessary capacity of a spent fuel pool when all of examples in the "not likely" category.
economic injury or impact on a the following are satisfied:
On the other hand. another genersting system should also be (1) The storage expansion method commenter argues that license classified as an emergency situation. It consists of either replacing existmg amendments involving temporary de bt 15091(a)(5) be y
racks with a design which auc,ws doser walving of radiation release limitations i by inserting, after the words n
spacing between stored spent fuel (so that airborne radioactive weste can derating or ahutdown of the nuclear 4
assemblies or placing additional racks be released at a rate in excess of that power I t"
e ords "in any of the original design on the pool floor if permitted--en issue in the,Sholly space permits:
decision), should involve significant E
(2)The storage expansion method hazards considerations and.
opuebon or 6cnau in pown utpd The othu commentu concun with then does not involve rod consolidation or consequently, a prior hearing.
words and would add the words "up to double tiering:
with tbnse--The Commission disagrees its licensed power level" after " power Jtes (3)The Keff of the poolis maintained comment that i 50.92(b) less than or equal to 0.95: and contravenes Congress' intent.Dat utput.
(4) No new technology or unproven section is taken almost verbatim from Anothat commenter suggests that an technology is utilized in either the the Conference Report (see section emergency situation should also exist construction process or the analytical 1(C)(2)(c)in this preamble) and is where a shutdown plant could be techniques necessary to justify the entirely consistent with the colloquy of Prevented from starting up because the expansion.
the Senators quoted in that section.
Commlulon had failed to act in a timely Before NRC issues an amendment a way.
E. Irrevers/ble Conseguenm / -
State and the public can have a say Several commenters agree with these Comments-One commenter notes about any amendment request that comments, arguing that emergney
- that license amendments involving involves an environmental 1mpact.ne situations should (1) be t>reamy defined.
irreversible consequences (such as those procedures described before have been (2) be available when a plant is 4
permitting an lacrease in the amount of designed so that at the time of NRC's shutdown and cannot startup without a
{
effluents or radiation emitted from a proposed determination (1) the State l'oense amendment and (3) include v
facility or n!!owing a facility to operate within which the facility is located is situations where an amendment is for a period of time without full safety consulted. (2) the public can comment needed (as is the case with exigent protections) require prior hearings so as ce the determination,and (3) an circumstances) to improve protection to not to foreclose the public's right to have interested party can request a hearing.
public health and safety. -
Its views considered.This commenter is section 5(Ls2(b) simply buttresses the Response-The Commission
(
especially concerned about the TW2 point that the Co==laston will be understands that the term " emergency" clean up and about the TMI-1 steam especially sensitive to the types of is used in different ways in various
. generator tube repairs. It krgues that irreversible impggts described by the sections of its regulations. However, the t
, legislation and its legislative history, 8 80J2(b)(which requires Commission commenters.
s.
P
_ ~. - -
I i
7756 Federal Regissee / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursday. March 4.1988 / Rules and Regulations gooted above in section 1(A). are very modified and a new I sos 1(a)(7) has notice and an opportunity for prior n
[
clear on the use of that terin and been added to clarify the peoblem. With hearing.
specificauy do use that term:
the "Sholly" regulations now in piece.
consequently, the term must be used as there are now two possible types of C. Eqgeet C#cuewtaacae a touchstone for the Commissaas's
. _ :. - Jes:
~
U Comments-One commenter regulations.
(a) e " safety-telated eswegacy* f a sugguu ht the two examplu M The Commission agrus with b which isunediate NRC action mayi e exigent circumstances are manecessarily commenters about need to broades the necessary to protect the public health
. marrow because both involve potenus!!y l
dehrunon of " emergency situatsons **.
and safety; and-lost opportunities to isoplernent The Conference Report quoted above (b) the ;.. -,. referred to la the improvements in safety durma a plant desenbed " emergency situations" as "Sholly legislation in which the prompt outage.ne commenter recommends encompassing those cases in which issuance of s license amendment le that the Commission make clear that immediate actson is necessary to required in order for instance. to avoid these ena lee were not meant to be prevent the shutdown er darating of a a shutdown. An example of this type of limiting a that exigent circumstances anene e ;;as where prompt action le can occur whenever a proposed plant. There may be stestions whose the meed to prevent shutdown or needed or e.ontinued full-power amendmentinvolves no significant detsrms can be equivalent in terms of operation but not necessarily to proted hasards consideration and the licensee impact to the need to startup oe to se to the public heakh and safety (health and m deem M m% W h a higher powet level.The Commaasion safety, erguably. Is protected by the issuance will provide a significant beheves that expanding the daRaitaan of shutdown, which would occur if the g,
" emergency situanon" to include these
'bmergency license amendment were situations in not inconsistent with not issued). We asnerpecy"is mom ks Conaress' intect. Thus the Commission the nature of an economic emergency for Another comrnenter requests that the hmses.
exigent circumstanc,ee include instances
. has decided to adopt the thrust of these Two fundamentauy efferest (1) where a heensee e plant is shutdown comments and has changed $ 50.91(a)(5) approaches to amending a license arise and tlw hcum nwde an amndmenuo accordmaly. See also response to ha ene two daHerent types of startup and (2) involving significent f
comrwnt in section !!!F)(1.3) below.
hazards considerations. The commenter u Comment-4echon 5021(a)(5) emergency.
etetes that the Commission will decime (eFor a safety-mlamd maargency. 6e argun est boe soch casu enten delay to dispetise with ootice end conveent Administrati,ve Procedure Act and the and a significant Snancial burden on Commission a own regulations (to CFR licensees.
procedure. *'ifit determines that the 2.240) auhom Of not compel) the Response-As explained above, the I
bcensee has failed to make a tuaaly issuance of en imanediatal) effectwe examples were uneant merely se apphcation for the amendment in ordee order amending a license without regard guidance and were meant to cover (f~
On7cem to create the emergency and to take to whother the amendment involves drcumstances where a net safety d
fde significant hazards considerations and benefit might be lost if an amendment ter te u t tb wie ut se nwd 2 make a nadans a wm not luned in a umh mannnNe specify what is mea.nt by the term no significant hazarde consideratione or Commission agrees with the fkret ej "umel a h Aasfmase eatson.The provision died by the (b)Foren emergency"whosea read as also coverms those to provide a prior ShoDy-type of moties.
commenter that the examples should be a
commenser se clear enough.14 is prompt amendmetis regered to circumstances where there is a net 4
amtracted almost verbatam from the prevent the shartdown last act to prosed increase in safety or reliability or a 3
Conf Re The R 81 and 88 ety.aa signincant environentalbent.
U indic e t
" censee uld not be I""
3 able to take a"lvantage sun emergency As to the nrst point of the second comment. the Commission bebeves that itself* and thus that the Commission's ed yl
&am may be " exigent cateumstancu regulations "should inneare that the involves ra signiaeant hasards Web may invoin swup d a emergency situation" exception under considerstiens'.te) Whose asshutdown plant. In kwping with the j
section u of the conference apeement c,,,,,
thrust of the definition of "amergency I
g "will not apply if the bcausee ase failed immediately amasse,
I to apply for the license e=aad=est in a amendsnestis needed to pusted f situations." the " exigent circumosances" in i Io.81(a)(6) willinclude " stark
[
timely fashion."Eurthe
public health and safety, the up"and " increase in power levels,,. De To psevest abases af this preetstem,ete Cosumasetos een issue en kmmedistely discussion in section !!!! A) responde to conferees espect the Commission to efectwe order amendaag a lionsee the commenter's second point.
independrotle aseses the isommase's esseene regardless of whether the====d=an, For failure na Ille se appisseesen se5is6ently l' involwee e$d$ cant hasands M Ca6 casumenter states advance of the threasseed einsere erdaroung eensiderstens and wstest pesar astice eat te public motice procedures for of the facey.
and prior headas t circumstances should be no lbl Where as lassediately eEacttwo."
from ease for amesgancy IJCae mspf-One esausmester requests that NRC explain how it erill licanas amendsisetis needed. Ear e. i situeessa, a
. process an amendment request that lastanes, sely to preeest the shutdown Ttre sommenters oppose the ese of inwohree both se emergeng siteauca -
but not as protect pisblic health and releases er display advertioing in and a 7 =t hasard ases6dereuen.
safety, the Commismanmayissue endi siedia.ergoing that such notsore It suggests that. in this unlikely ease. the sa isumedastely esssties smeedeset -
usould eameasesarily elevate the Commisaias might issue an E===Aa-aaly seiyif the====d===<iareiras me departance of amendment requests.
/
effective arder under to CFR 2.304.
significant haaerds asesidestians.lf the Another comumenter recommende est Raspanse-Seace these is a poemhility amendenant dess levolvea eipiacant
- if fSC beBewee that it emot(seer s' g
Jer saniusion over &e meanias of..-..,
basseda emesidmumes the th=6-ion selease. it should ocmoult with the "emagamey",4 anal (s)(4) has been is required by law to provide 30 days..
en a proposed release before it
~
?
n--w--w
~~~-.r----
..m..-,w,-,,-m
-,..n n,~-e--m--m--
-e-m-n
---n~~-
.. - - _ ~
2
.i e
\\
f l
Federal Register / Vol SL No.'44 / Thursday. Iliarch 8. taas / Rules and Regulations 7757 i
acts. It also requests that NRC infoun circumstances coold arise during the procedures are the appropriate solution the licensee of the States's and the moanalcomuneet period If this were to when notice and beenng are statutorily l
public's commente and that it promptly occur, es noted h the notices it now required but time is of the essence.
forword to the hcensee copies of all issues. it will enpedits the processing of Two comunenters er, also concerned l
corrupondemos.
the amendment regeest to the entest it about the potential for deley h the new l
Two commenten also oppose the toll-can,if the request and the enigemey or notice procedures. one sequesting that i
free " hot-kne" in exigent carcumstances, emergency are sonnected As -
the rule indicate the normal time NRC arguing that the concept implies above, of course the r'a==iamien may needs to process rootine and emergency imminent danger or severe esfety siso issue an appropriate onier under le applications.
concerns which normally will not be CFR Part 2 if there is an launinent Aesponse-The interim final rules "i
present.One of these coaunenters danger to the public health or eefety.
preserve the option to publish individual or periodic Federal Register notices, or a requests. Instesd the use of mailgrams g g, N
combination of both.The Commission or owrnight express. It also recoeuneads if a hothee systemio Comments-One commenter requests stated in the interim final rules that the implemented, that the system should be (and another agrees) that NRC should periodic notices would be published at confined to extraordanary amendments clarify i 2.105(a)(4)(i}-which explains least every 30 days. leaving the option of j
involving unique circumstances.To how NRC may make en amendment more frequent publication if appropriate.
1 ensure accurate transcription of the immediately effective-4o state that Thoughit agrees that minor routine I
comments received,it suggests that the NRC will not provide notices of amendments could be published in its comments be recorded and retained.
proposed action on no signincast periodic notice and that non routine The othat commenter requests that hazards consideration omendment amendments could be published in copies of the recorded comments be sent requests received befom May e.1983 individual notices. it does not want to to the licensee.
(the effective date af the interim final establish by rule any particular mode of l
Another conunenter suggests that the rule). It suggests that the Conunission publication.
l rule specify the geographacal area to be should pubhshinstead notices of
%e Commission den not agree that a g
covered by a notice to the media.
Issuance of amendments pursvent to 10 day com nent period should be the Response-By definition.in i 2.103.
norm. It beheves that its system, which l
emergency situatione NBC does not Another comunenter suggests normaDy allows for 30 days public have time to issue a notice;in exigent expedited treatment for amendmet comment. is more in keeping with the circumstances. the Commission must act requests received before May 3.1983, intent of the legislation, which provided 4
swiftly but has time to issue some type when these slate to refueling outaga for a reasonable opportunity for pubhc 4
of notace: in most instances it will be a scheduled by licensees before that date.
comment, except in eme:gancy j
Federal Register notice requesting public Aesponse-The Conuaission has s;tueuons where there is no une 1
l 1(
comment within less then so days. but noticed amendment requests it received provided for public comment and in not less than two weeks. The before May 8,1983, along with its exigent circumstances where there is Commission, of course, needs the proposed determinations.
- less than 30 days provided.
p i
- 1. Notice and Consultation Procederse tion 6 has ban rifi
?
ey ter and to q c NRC l
cannot issue a Federal Register notice 2.2 Commens-One commenter any notice begins on the date of that for et least two weeks pubhc cornment proposes the following chang" notice li there is an initiat ind4vidual
~
in exj ent circumstances. then. with the (endorsed by another courinenter} to the
,,,3,, and a later periodic notka the g
g help of the licensee,it will issue some motice procedures to shorten the comment pemed begins with the Erst j
type of media notice aquesting public comment period and to aderify the e
comment within a mesonable ame. It method of publication:
FinaUy. the Commission does not a
{
will consult with the licensee se a Routine. minor amendmener should be agree that it should prescribe normal propowd nieew, on the geographical-publashed la the monthly Federal Register tune periods for processing routine and ama ofits coverage and as necesser7 es:npilation nad There should be no! and a mm. day esament
"8'*CY "9"* It' 'taff wi!!
and appropriate. may inform it of the pened ecceede process aH aquese se quWy se h can.
State's and the public's comments. If a hdividual Federal ReWeter esece la seedne he Commim6en W ht b M oystem of mal % rests or overnight asses. An hdtvkluelaseos should tw F
exprue le workohle. It will use that es' pubsebed bi 6e Fedusel Regisear for rogueses to hadle mquesta prompdy and that are motsemane, such as hr haiense, efficiently to insure that the staffis not opposed to a hotline: bowever,it will seen gearent mahSensem a mW the ese for a he energency w not rule out the use of a bottine. And ifit 7banequeses enund ein be pubhehed in me a gency mq dm use e bo$se.M may tape the monely aumpdeben, but the emesset posted yy c,,,, ens-One oosnamenter 9
converesuono and may trenocrhe thm.
should ma trem ihm doen of es inevhhasi est me censultenon proceden i.
as necessary and oppmpriate.and meF meses. As la to ease fee soudas meet Congre,interies final rules do not by the e
inform the liesseee of these.
emanchmente. we propose e sen. day esament howetbecause eey g.
that exigent circenstenose een eries encompose either sousme ersue.restine JJ Counsesnt-One seinmetr:er notes perted. in edgest stremassances, whiedi seeld lean tHe a State to decide whe6er M b
i after the " 1 : of a t'==='=='a=
sequeses, we peepose thatasume be r a.m.m a wants to consult se the itseasee e f
mottee edering a mennel public esament inewedually to the Padual ed that
====d==t mquest and NRC's a museenhis em-erpend es - sed peoposed deerndmeten. It seeks period en a psopened determinomon. It
k'88 ".m seasume theimets of the pesember = formal, ocWye senaultetion" (befem 0
requests that ha theos e-==*=-
6e- ****
NRC makes its propeeed dewrmination Analnale should snake einer that ei Me
===ter ergsee est supeested and publiebes a Federal R notice) i expaktod ashedele would be -
eseles prosederee weeld senery the through the "echahding of estabhshed per public econernes end leeuing assendssent.. statetory requirements, weeld ethnhete d'acussions between the Stote end the ne e,en J a large seses of deley,and wedd be NRC su the proposed determdnetion, i
r that emergency situations and malgent ! appresed try the coerte, esmos exposBted ' with the foregoing of such only spea
.~ ;.
. :.1
~ =
t
l 77S8 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 44 / nursday; March 6.1986 / Rules and Regulations r
i wntten waiver of the State"It also hazards consideration. the Commission not be the identifiabie recipients of seek: incorporation of the State's will pubbsh a notice of issuance of the benefits resulting from this more comments m the Federal Register notice amendment under 5 2.106. De licensee involved process and thus licensees along with an explanation of how NRC or any other person with the mquisite should not be assessed fees for i
resolved these. Fmally, it requests that interest may request a hearing pursuant expenses resulting from the pubhc NRC alwsys telephone State officials to this notice. Thus, implicit in i 2.106 is notice. State consultation, and other
+
I before issuing an amendment. rather the notion that a notics of issuance plated activities. Finally. it argues that than merely " attempting" to telephone provides notice of opportunity for a it is clear from the legislative history i
them as, the commenter states. the rule hearing. De phrase in 5 2.105 makes this behind Pub. L 97-415 that licensees are provides.
notion expbc L Finally, contrary to the not the prime beneficianes of this new I
Another commenter is satisfied with commenter's assertion, the Commission license amendment process.
k the notice and consultation procedures.
does provide prior rather than post Response-It is clear that the issuance i
statmg that "the regulations give the notice in exigent circumstances.
of a hcense amendment is a "special State no more authority m regulating the K Pmeedures to Reduce the Numberof benefit" for the licensee. and that the i
operation of the reactor then it had in Amendmeat, Commission is therefore authorized to the past. but they serve notice on the impose a fee to recover the cost to the reactor operator that the State is an Comment-One commenter suggests agency of confernns that benefit.
interested party in all nuclear operations that many of the routme matters which 3f,ssissippiPower & Light Co. v.
within the State."
require amendments should not be NuclearRegulatory Commission. 601 Response-The State consultation subject to the license amendment F.2d 223,227 (5th Ctr.1979). The notice procedures are well within Congress, process. It argues that greater use and consultation process established in intent.These procedures allow a State should be made of I $0.59 (involving the present rulemaking. together with all to take on as active a role as it wishes, changes, tests and experiments without other aspects of the no significant I
, consulting with NRC on every prior Commission approval, where these hazards consideration determination.
amendment request. if it wants to do so.
do not mvolve an unreviewed safety reflects statutory requirements that must On the other band. ifit wants to question or a technical specificataan be met in the issuance of a license conserve its resources and consult only incorporated in a license) for changes. amendment. Accordmgly.the NRC on amendment requests it considers involving routine matters by not placing P dd g pa gge important. It ma do that as well.The such changes into the technica!
(('nt pfoee'ed e
ste g system of forma consultation envisaged specifications and thereby avoiding the necessarily incurred by the agency on by the first commenter is contrary to the need to issue hcense amendments. Tw behalf of thelicensee.Thus the intent of Congress. as discussed in commenters aho generally endorse the Commission maY nclude these costs in i
section III(B) below.
Comminiorfs proposed rule (published its fu for luuing de amendment.
(
Finally,5 50.91(b)(3) of the interim
- on March 3C.1982 in 47 FR 13309) that While the Commission believes that final rule clearly states that before NRC would reduce the volume of technical the public as well as the beensee will issues the amendment,it will telephone specifications now part of an operating benefit from this clarification and the appointed State officialin which the hcense. thereby reducing the need to Improvement in the amendment process.
licensee's facility is located for the request license amendments.
the "special benefit" of receiving a purpose of consultation.ne Response-The Commission is Ccmmission believes that this last step reconsidering the proposed rule noted particular beense amendment pertains to the bcensee stone, and the is needed to ensure that the State indeed above. It may issue a Policy Statement Commission may therefore assess the is aware of the amendment request and in its stead, or another dEerent.
does not wish to be consulted about it.
simplified proposed rule, or both.
full cost of providmg it. Afississippi Power & Light. supra, at 230.
The rule has been changed in minor g z;,,,, g,,.
ways to clarify these pomte.
Af. Regionalization Comment-One commenter argues J. Notices an Emergency Situations or that hcensees should not be assessed 1 Comment-One commenter Exigent Circumstances additional fees to finance activities recommends that before NRC's Comment-One co nmenter involving no significant hazards headquarters transfers authority to the recommends that the Comminion conalderations determinations. It states Regions to process "routme" clarify that it intends to inue a " post that recently NRC proposed to amend amendments, there should be a clear notice" under $ 2.106 rather than a
- the existing regulations governing understanding among the licensee, the
" prior notice" under $ 2.105 when it has payment of fees associated with, among Region and NRC's headquarters about determined that there la an emergency other things, the processing of license the ground rules (1) on what would situation or exigent circumstances and' amendment requests. (Proposed rule:47 constitute " routine" versos "comple x" that en amendment involves no FR S2454 (November 22.1962): final mie: amendments and (2) on the ways in significant hazards considerstion. The 49 FR 21293 (May 21.1964).) De key which the amendments would be commenter suggests replacement of the element of the proposed changes related processed from the times they are phrase in i 2.105(a)(4)(ii) that "it will to sesessment of fees based upon actual requested, through notice and State provide notice of opportunity for a NRC resources expended.rather than consultation, to their grant or denial.
bearing pursuant to i 2.108" with the upon fixed fees for various classes of Response-%e Commission agrees.
words "instead of publishing a notice of amendments.De commenterudds that For the time being, though. and perhaps proposed action pursuant to this section, if the Part 170 changes are issued as in the future. NRC's headquarters will it will publish a notice of issuance proposed, after May 8.1983 -4he retain authority to process amendment effective date of the interim final rule *- requests for no significant hazards pursuant to 12.106". Response-%e Commluton ha\\.
i s not NRC resources expended as part of the consideration determinations. See.
(
eccepted the latter part of the notice and State consultation process generally. NRC Authorization Act for commenter's request. In an emergency would be financed by the requesting Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (Pub. L 96-
!!censee. It asserts that licersseea woald
$53. October 1964).
attuation involving no algnificant
~
e
. ~
f
~
Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 44 / Thursday. March 6.1986 / Rules and Regulations 7759 N. Exemption Requests g :esently issued biweekly-now provide application has been returned for such Comment-One commenteris an opportunity to mquest a heaans reasons. l.a because of the applicant's concemed that NRC might automatically widun thirty days.W Cominion also neshgence the applicant cannot use the consider exemption requesta se license utained the option ofissuing ladividual agency or emersucy pmmons of th
<I amendments. It believes that exemption notica, as,it sees fit. in the liaal sule.
rule for any subsequent appbcation for
. mquests need not automatacally be th Cornmission's procedures peovde the same amendment.
considered license amendmente, even that a person whose interest may be When the staff receives the though NRC has occasionally elected to affected by the proceeding may file a amendment request, se desenbed below, mquest a hesn,ve to intervene andas.See i2.105(d)(2). If emergency situation or exigent
,/
petition forlos it decides whe6er there is an notice such requests in the Federal 7
Register or has assigned license l
amendment numbers to the lesuing the staff does not receive any request circumstances. If there is no emergency.
documents, for a hearing on an amendment within it makes a preliminary decision-called Jtesponse-h Commission does not the notice period. It takes the proposed a " proposed determmation"--about automatically consider exemption action when it has completed its review whether the amendment involves no requests as license amendments. Most and made the necessary findings. lf significant hazards consionations.
are not amendments. If an exemption to instead it receives a mquest for a Normally, this la done before completion the regulations for a particular facihty heanns. it acts under new I mel, which of the safety analysis or evaluation. In i
also entails or requires an amendment decribes the proceduma and criteria the proposed determination,it might the Commission uses to act on accept the applicant's appraisalin to the facihty license. the amendment would be processed as a license applications for amendmenta to whole or in part orit might reject the smendment under the "Sholly" Operating hcus"-
applicant's appraisal but. nonetheless.
regulations and the requirements of the To implemet the main theme of ee reach the same conclusion.With respect regulations could not be avoided simply legislation, the Commission combined a to the proposed determination, the staff because an exemption is also involved.
notice of opportunity for a hearing with views the term " considerations" in the a notice for public comment on any dictionary sense, thsdia. as a sorting of III. Present Practice, and Modifications proposed determination on no factors as to which it has to make that Under the Final Rule significant hazards consideration.See detumination. In tMs sorting. the three A. NoticeforPublic Comment and/or i Est. New I 50.91 also permits the standards are used as benchmarks end.
mmii a n n
Opportunityfora Hearing diat h ' b ' b ifapp le. the ezamples may be used g
- 8" in the two interim final rules, the conduct and completion of any requimd Amendment'requeste ecceived before Commission adapted the' notice hearing where there has been a no May 8.1983 (the effecthe date of the procedune and criteria contemplated bY elsnificant hazards consideration
- intnim final rules) have been processed the legislation for no significant hazards determination.To buttress this point the in the ume way, ucept that heenan consideration determinations. In Commission has modified $ 50.5e(b)(6) have not been required to provide their addition it decided to combine the to state that only it on its own initiative appmin!s.
notices for pubhc comment on no may review the staffs final no At this stage.if the etaff decides that eigruficant hazards considerations with significant bezards consideration no significant hazards consideration le the notices for opportunity for a hearing determination. ms. 6 50.91 builds upon involved,it can leeue en individust l
- hs. normally, for operating licens*
amended i 2.105 providmg details for Federal Register nonce or het Ws amendments for facilities desenbod in the system of Federal Register notices.
amedmet la its puiodo-biwnb 6 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or for testing For instance, exceptions are made for j
facilities, the Commission provided both emergency situations, with no prior publication in the FederaUtegister.This prior notice of opportunity for hearms notice of opportunity for a hearing and periodic publication bate not only airendment mqueste for which the I
and prior notice of public comment.The for public comment, assuming no
' Commission la publishing a notice under Comminion also explained in the significant hazarde considerations. In interim final rules that while the sum, this system added a " notice fot
'l 2.105.11 also provides a ressenable substance of the public comments on the public comment" ander 9 50.91 to the opporturJty for public comment by nosi ficant consideration finding former system of" notice of propos.d lieting this and all araendment mquesta coul be litigated in a hearing, when one action" under $ 2.105 and "r:ot ce of mceived since the last such periodic is held. neither the Comminion not its
- issuance" 6 2.108.
notice and,like anindividualnotice.(a)
IJcensing Boards or Presiding Offloere Under this new system. the "
providing a description of the would entertain hearing requests on the Comminion mquine an applicant amendment and of the facility involved.
NRC staffe substantive findings with requesting an amendment to its (b) noting the proposed no significant roepect to these comments. It noted that operating license (1) to provide its hasards consideration determination. (c) i this is in keeping with the legislation careful appraisal on the sigmficant soliciting public comment on the j
which states that public comment hasards issue.using the standarde la determinations which have not been cannot delay the effective date of an g 30.g2 (and whatever examplea are previously noticed, and (d) providing for amendment.The Commission intends to applicable) and (2)Ifit involves the a 30< lay coinment period.
continue this practice, as fully described emergency or exigency provisions, to Out of a total of 2404 notices of no address the features on which the significant hasarde cocelderations the below.
With respect to opportunity for Commission must make its findings.
Commiselon received requests for hearing. the Commission amended (Both points are discussed below.)m hearings on 13 notices and comments on i 2.106 to specify that normally it could staff has frequently stated to applicants is notices. Out of a total of 3e notices of issue in the Federal Register at least that the Commission wants a " reasoned significant hazarde considerations, the
(
every 30 days, and perhaps more -
analysts" from an applicant. An Commission received requesto for frequently, a list of " notices of proposed insufficient or sloppy appraisal will be hearings on 3 notices and no comments.
actions" or requests to amend operating mturned to the applicant with a request Between Mey 8.1963 and September licenses. hee periodic notice *-
to do a more careful analyels. Where an 30.1985, the Commission published
- .e 4*
- - ~
-, -_-.- -_,. -,, -__-.- -, __, - ~. - _--_ _ _
4 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 44 / 'Itursday. March 6.1966 / Rules and Regulations 7/60 sarious t> pes of notices in addition to or For the purpose ofillustration, the been published. the periodic publication to the exclusion of Federal Register following table lists the Commission's does not extend the deadline date for notices (FRNs). Three were press monthly FRNs between May 6.1943. ud filing comments or providing an releases only; four were press releases September 30.1985, on determinations opportunity for a beanng.See and paid announcements; one was a about no significant hazarda 8 50.91(a)(2).
press release and an FRN; and one was considerations (NSHC). The f.nal rule
- ca,,.
a paid announcement only, clarifles that if an individual notice has l
s i
~%2 s
a 4
. p.
~
7.
l s
n
~ J.=
'k.
t o.
..r....... '.,-
(
p
,,~e*
- . + e.. *.
~. : mr
.s:-
n a.
a r
..s.s
. r;
..';..n 3 r..
~k'"*
- h.*.*1
' i-W z
l e
e I
es,.
.1
.u.p a
?.!'
.I e
"SEXlY" STATISTICS
?
Reiy 6, 1983 throusti Blueekly FIE4 Individust f194 Individust f194 September 30. 1985 Proposed NSC Proposed IG C SC Totals 1
. ; I ;:
4th FT 85 Total 4th FY 85 Total 4th W B5 Total 4th W 35 Total M
h FIEll(B (I)WilllID
- Sept. E to to Sept. E to to
%pt. E to to Sept. E to to 1985 W 85 date date 1985 W 85 date date 1985 W 85 date date 1985 W 85 date date
,i
, ;i 2
4.
~.
Ommassit beriodt,
ST 202 984 2155 2
5 47 249 0
6 10 34 39 293 1941 2440 0
,. ;. 39 ' days. -
,14eer than 40 daye p.
8bt fit ( '
_ 0 0
9 22 0
0 s
22
~~
.Nes.Italeese' e
1 5
s
~
1 *-
(12 Mei Isl Publ16 commente.
i
., 0 1
0 0
3 r 11 0
0 0
0 0-0 3
2 nt)
. received 0
0 14 c.
.c..
- [a,.~
(15 H94 h
h te for *
~
I 8'IL)
R i
.'hearldg O
i 1
4 0
0
'0-9 0
. 0 2
3 0
1 3 16 g
82 228 874 1847_
l t
Amdatmente leeued
- Ibtal'......................;..............'...............................
s
. (1 ) ' WI th 3 0 days rio t I ce............. U..............................................'......
Tis 213 530 1555 i
5 15 43 E2 _.
{
I
[ ( 2 ).' less t han 30 days or 10 PUrlG........................................................
- (3) - Hearing requested but final IMC detenninet ton made (50.91(a)(4))....................,
e o
e 10 i
('4)I Proposed IGC: heering requested heering compteted and amendnent iaqued.
7, E,
..( ' No final NSIC detenninuation ses rude because i.euring tese canpleted before
- s emendmen t me s needed......................... >.......................................... 8 0
1 1
G*
5 Docklog' (Applicellons received Witch were not tioticed. either in biweekly M4I or individually through 3
i septenber 30, 1945): 1 6 4101: 227 (luctudes items editch were prepared and epiTved for publication in l
- the next btweekly. lieve wbtch are li. nuncurrence, and Iteams for Witch additiosual ivfonnation une needed frun
' licensee.)
ent=6 cose nom y
E.
I i
1
a 7762 Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 44 / Thursday. March E.1985 / Rules and Regulations While it is awsiting pubhc comment.
disposition of the amendmentby notmg sense-ace section !!(F)(1.1) at, ave) the the staff proceeds with the safety its issuanor or denial as an individual Comminion would act under the s) stem anal) sis After the pubhc comment Federal Registes notice. As explained described above.
penod the Commission reviews the abon, even if the amendment request Another unusal case might occur comments. If any. considers the safety were to involve an emergency situation where the Coramission receives an analysis. and makes its decision on the and ifit were determined that a amendment request and fieds an exigent amendment request. !!it decides that no significant hazards consideration were circumstance. that in. e sitaation other.
significant harards conaderation is invoked the Commission would be than en emergency where swift action is ins oh ed. it either may publish an reqared to issue a notice proeiding an necessary.The legislation, quoted indnidual "sotice of issuance" under opportumty for a prior hearing. If the above. states that the Commission i 2.106 or. normally, a notice of inseance Commission were to determine.
abould establish critene which "take in its system of penodie Federal Register however, that there was an traminars into account the exigency of the need for notices. thus closing the pubhc record.
threat to pubhc health or salety. it could the amendment." The Conference As the Commission emplamed in the sssue en appropnete order under10 CFR Report, quoted above. poirs: out that preamble to the interan final rules. It part 2. as has bean =9d above. and "the confeseece agreement preserves for
. does not normally make and pubbsh a as is also discumed below.
the Commission substantial flexibihty to
" final determ: nation" on no signi$ cant Armther umamal case might arise:The tatlor the notim and comment hazards consideration, unless there is a staff may recene an amendment request procedures to the exigency of the need request for a hearmg as well as an NRC and End an emergency situation. mhere for the license amendment
- and that decision to make the amendment failere to act in a timely way would "the conferees expect the content.
immediately effective b(fore the resuh in derstma or shutdown of a placement. and timing of the notree to be heanng. In this regard. the staff need not nuclear power plant. In this case. also reasonably cakulated to aEow residents respond to comments if a heanng has discussed below in connectica with of the area surrounding the fachty an not been requested.
State consultation. it mey proceed to adequate oppwtuaity to formatete and if it recenes a heant:g request dunna issue the hcense amendment. if it submit reasoned comments "
the comment period and the staff has determines, armong other things. that no In the interim final rules the decided that no si6niScant hazards sigrn$ cant hazards consideration is Cornmission stated that extraordmary consideration is ernohed. it prepares a invoh ed. In this circumstance.the staff cases may anse. short of as emergency.
" final determination" on that issue might not necewarily be able to provide where a heensee and the Com:msmn which considers the request and the pnar notice of opportunity for a heanns muet act quickly and where time does pubhc comrnents. makes the necewary or pnor notice for public cornment; not permit the Commission to pubbsh a safety and pubhc health Sndings, and though it has not done this to date. it Federal Register notice soliciting pubbe proceeds to issue the amendsnent.The could issue an individu&l notice wth an comment or to provide the 30 days
(
heanns reques.t is treated the same way opportunity for a heanng after the entinarily allowed for public comment.
as in previous Commission practice, that amendment is issued (see i 1.196) or as As noted in the response to pubire is. by providing any requisite hearing has been the case thus far. it couki comments on the two interan Anal rules, after the amendment has been lessed.
provide periodic notice (the the Commission geve as exaraples two As explained above where the Commission's periodic Federal Regisler circumstances where expd result in a net j
edited action Commission has determined that no notice system notes NRC's action on the by the Commission wom signif: cant hazards ccmsideratian is ammircent request and proviches as benefit to safety. (See addit osal invohed. the legislation permits the opportunity for a heanns after issuanca). examples at !!(C)fta) ) For esample, a Commission to make an amendmerit in the preamble to the interies final licensee with a reactor shutdown for a i
immediately effeesive in advance of the rules. in cannectinn with amergency ahort time might niish to add some,
l ho! ding and cornpletion of any repired requests. the Cosunission stated that it cosiponent clearly more reBable than heanng. notwithstanc5ng the pendency expects its licensees to apply for license one procently installed or the licensee b : fore it of a request lor a 1 serms.
emendments in a timely feelsen.
- might wish to use a different method of The procedures just described have explaining thatit will decline to testing some system and that method been the usual way of hand lmg licanse dispense with astice and comment en would be better than one provided for in I
amendments under the irgerun Anal the se segnificant hazards cornsideration its technical specifications. In either rules because most of these determination fit determines that the case, the licenere mey inve to request amendments do not issvolve (1) ~
appleant has fated to make a timely an amendment, and if the staff l
emergency situations. (2) excent appleation for the amendment because detemines, among other things, that no j
circumstances.or (3) entail a of negligence or in order to create slee significant hazarda consideraison is determination that a significant haenads emergency so as to take advantage of involved. it may wish to grant the consideration is involved. As docussed
.the emergency provision. Whenever as sequest before the licensee resumes below, however, these three caseo and emergency situation is involved. the plant operation and loses the 1
other snomeDes could arine.
Commission expects the applicant to opportunity to improve the plant.
I 1he Commiselon noted in the interim l
For example, returvang to the initial explain to te why the emergesey bee receipt of an applicaten. If the sistf occurred and why the applicant could final rules that in circumstances such as were to receive en amendment repost '
not avoid it: the Commission will assess sie two lust described. it may see media l
end then determine tint a signitcant -
tie applicant's reasons for faikare to file other than the Fedecal Register to inform hazaeds consideration is involved.it an application sufficiently in advance of the public of the licensee's amendment i
wauld handle this amendment reqseet that arent.
by first issuing an indtvidual notion of An emnergencysitustienm4ht also,,
sequest..For example. it may use a local sewspaper published near the licensee's proposed action peoviding as 4
inceur during the normal 30' day facility which is widely read by the opportunDy for a price hearing under comment period. Depending upon the residents in the aree surrotedtng the i 2105. and afterwarch, as appaspeiste, type of energesey (safety-selated versas incility."Iha Ccanmission stated that in notifying the poblhe of the final emergency situation in the"Sholfy' -
absse instances it w1R provkle the public
-~
1 L
1 e
e
..-.\\......'.~......
l f
i Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Hursday March 6.1986 / Ru[es and Regulations 7763 a reasonable opportunity to comment on negligence or in order to create the
' cited earlier stated that the conferees the proposed no sigmficant hazards exigent circumstances so as to take expect that the procedures for State l
determination. It also stated that to advantage cf the exigency provision.
consultation would include the followirig ensure timely receipt of the comments. it Whenever a licensee wants to use this elements:
may also estabbsh a toll. free hotime, provision. it must explain to the staff the (ll ne State would be notibd of a j
allowing the pubhc to telephone their reason for the exigency and why the beenwe's roquat for en amendment comments to NRC on the amendment licensee cannot avoid it the staff will (21 ne Steie would be advised of b request.
assess the licensee's reasona for failure NRC's evaluanon of the emendment mquest.
This method of prior notice for public to file an application sufficiently in (3) The NRC's proposed deternunation on comment is in addition to any possible advance of its proposed action or for its whether the beense amendment involves no h
Individual notice of hearing. It does not inability to take the action at some later sisdcant hasards considerauon would be discussed with the State and the NRC's affect the time available to exercise the tune.
at determinauon would opportunity to request a hearing, though De staff could also receive an
{eunsforga the Commission may provide that amendment request with respect to (al m NRC would heten to and consider opportunity only after the amendment which it finds that it is in the public any coaunents provided by the State official has been issued. when the Commission interest to offer an oppcrtunity for a dotsnated to consult with the NRC; and has determined thet no significant prior hearing. In this cats,it would nae (s) m NRC would make a good faith hazards consideration is involved.
Its present individual notice procedure attempt to consult with the State pnor to
{
De Commission has modified slightly 2 aUow fw hear 63 nqunte. hthw inuing de beenu amadmet 8
the procedure discussed above. In or not a hearing is held. it would notify gg g,
g g
emergency situations the staff does not public bout h' procedures f r State consultation w6uld n an F
have time to issue a notice. In exigent not Register notice ofissuance of denfal circumstances. the staff has to act it should also be re-emphasized that (1) Gin & State e right to ato the swiftly but has some time to issue a these procedures normally only apply to propowd NRC determmanon; notice. usuali a Federal Register notice license amendments.The staff may.
121 Ghe b State e nght to a bearing on the.
NRC determination before the amendmefit requestmg pu lic comment within 30 under existing iI 2.202(f) and 2.204.
days but not less than two weeks.The make a determination that the public (31 Give & State the right to insist upon a becomu effecun; Commission, of course, needs the health, safety, or intenst requins it 2 postponement of the NRC determination or cooperstion of a licensee to make the order the licensee to act without prior tuvance of the emendment or system work and to act quickly.lf NRC adce fw pu c comment w (4Wu pmunt provisions oflaw dat is put in a situation where it cannot opputunity fu a hearing. In this case.
ruerve to tLe NRC exclusive responsibthey issue a Federal Register notice for at the staff would followits present for setting and enforcing radiological health
(-
least two weeks public comment,it will procedure and publish an individual and ufety requirements for nuclear power issue a media notice. It may consult with notice ofissuance in the Federal planta.
Register and rr, vide an opportunity for in requiring the NRC to exerclu good faith the hcensee on a proposed release and on the geographical area of its coverage a kuing on b uder.
In consultma with e State in detennmms wheau a tacanae amadant innhn n
.and. as necessary and appropriate, may The new system has changed only the sismficant heurde considereuon. the inform it of the State's and the public's Commission's. noticing practices, not its caferen recognin that e nry hmited comments. If a system of mailgrams or hearing practices.The Commission number of truly exceptional cases mey artse ovemighi express ia workaW. &e explained in the two interim final rules when b NRC, dupite lia good faith efforte.
Commission may use that as opposed to that it has attempted to provide noticing cannot contact a raponsible State omcial for a hothne: however, it has not ruled out procedures that are administratively purpous of prior consultatiort Inabihty to l
the use of a hotline. Ifit does use a sireple, involve the least cost, do not sonn!t with a nopensible siete omcial j
hotline,it may tape the conversations
- entall undue delay, and allow a following good faith attempts should not gnat b NRC from making effectin a and may transenbe them, as necessary reasonsble opportunity for public an amendment involving so sigmncant and appro riste, and may inform the liceme o thm.
comment: nevertheless. it is clear that hazards omoldwouos,if b NRC duma it they are burdensome and involve As with its provisions on emergency
,esource trapacts and timing deleys for j Pow',pdd("f'E"",f.'
,",f7
"F situations, the Commission explained in the Commission and forlicensees Co"8' ad Sees, at as use2) the interim final rules that it would use.
esting amendments.IJcensees can these procedures sparingly and that it uce these delays under the
.ne law and its legis!stive history were quite specific. Accordingly, the wanta to make sure that its licensees procedures by providing to the will not abuse these procedures.It Comminion their timely and carefully
- Commission adopted the elements stated that it will use criteria similar to prepared appraisala on the issue of
' described in the Conference Report l
the ones it uses with roepect to signiScant hazards, and the staff can.
quoted above in those cases where it em ency situations to decide whether further reduce delay by processing
. makes a proposed determination on no significant hazards consideretion.The it ' shorten the comment period and requesta expeditiously..
- Comminion' has decided to retain this e
change the of notice normally *.. Ma adecki.
- t....
provided. It stated in connection.
...,.s-procedure. Normally, the State As noted above. Pub.I.FF-415 * ' ~ - consultation procedures works as with requests indicating exigent requires the Commission to consult with follows. To make the State consultation circumstances that it especte its licensees to apply for license '
the State in which the facility involved process simpler and speedier.under the amendments in a timely fashion. lt will le located and to promulgate regulations interim final rules the Commiselon has which prescribed procedures for such.
required an applicant requesting an
(
.not change its normal notice and public comment practices where it determines, consultation on a determination that an amendment to send a copy ofits that the licensee has failed to use its amendment to an operating license appraisal on the question of no best efforts to make a timely application involves no significant hazards
. significant hazards to the State in which
' on~aideration.%e Conference Report.. the facility involved is located. (De for the amendment because of r s :.;;
c
'a.
.6*.
e
o
....a.
y...
.4 77s4 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursday, March 6.1986 / Rules and Regulations NRC cornpiled a list of State officials hearing. I set out my reasons for this by the Small Business Adtnimstantion at iho were designated to consult with it behef an my separate views on the 13 CF1t Part 121. Consequently, this rule
,n amendment requests involving no interim final rule so I wdl not repeat does not fall within the purview of the significant hstards considerations:it them here. See. 44 FR 14a64.
Act.
made this hat available to all its Second. the statement of hcensees with facihties covered by consideraboos does not clearly describe IJet of Subjecas 150.211b) or i 502.2 or with testing the asture of the staffs determination of. M CFA Aert2 facihties.)
whether there are "signicant hazards The staff sends ita Federal Register considerations." Faders to clarify thia Administrative practice and notace, or some other nouce is the case iseoein the intens fmel role led to procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct of ex23ent circumstances containing its much conaternation aban the material, Classified information.
proposed determmation to the State Commission considered the repair of the Environmental protection. Nuclear official designated to consult with it 1N1-2 steers genersson Th, materials. Nuclear power planta and together with a request to that person to Commission should cleariy state that the reactors. Penalty. Sex discrimma tion, contact the Commission if there is any deterramation should be whether the Source material Special nuclear disagreement or concern about its proposed amendment presenta any new material. Weste treatment and disposal proposed determination. Ifit dosa not or unreviewed safety iseues for M Cnt Parr 30 e
\\
hear from the State in a timely manner.
considerstics the issue is not whether it concludes that the State hee no the staff thinha that ultimately it will be Antitrust. Classified informa tion. Fire interest in its determination. In this able to cr=rimie that the amendment prevention. Incorporation by reference.
regard, the staff made available to the wiu present no additional risk to the Intergovernmental rela tions. Nuclear desi nated State officials a list cfits
- pubhc, power plants and reactors. Penalty.
F Project Managers and other personnel Radiation protection. Reactor sitma whom it has designated to consult with Regulatory Analysis criteria. Reportang and recordkeepmg these officials. Nevertheless. to insure The Commission prepared a requirements.
that the State re aware of the Regulatory Analysis on these Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of ameridment request and that it is res!!y amendments, when it issued the two 1954, as amended. the Energy not interested. the final rule has been intens fir.al rules. It is contamed in Reorganization Act of 1974. as amended, clarified to point out that the SECY-43-leB and it may lue examined
'and sectiona 552 and 553 of T tle 5 of the Commission wu! make a reasonable at the address imiicated in United Sastas Code notice is hereby effort to telephone the appropriate State " ADDRESSES" abeec. Experience to given that the following amendments to official before it issues the amendment.
date indicates that the staff resource 10 CHL Parts 2 and 50 are pubbshed as a '
la en ercergency situatson, the staff impacts predicted in the Analysis are document subjact to cod & cation.
(.nefore it makes a final determination oes its best to consult with the State low by aboct a facser of three.11us is expected to change as experience le PART 2--rut.ES OF PR ACTICE FOR about no magnificant heterde gained in irnplementing the fmal rule.
DOMESTIC UCENSING PROCEEDINGS considerstion before it issues an amendment.
Backfit Statement L The authority citetion for Part 2 is Fmally. in light of the legrvlative khder la CFR 50.160. the Enal rule is rwised to reed as follows:
. history though the staff gives careful not a bacidit and preparahon of a
^"8'"e Secs.1st m u Sin sea. en consideration to the commente provided beckSt analyss is not necessary
- **'"d'd (u m 2m 2231t sec in u to it by the affected te on the becense the finalrule hnposes no EN 3-fdSw em]st
- 'see question of no -
.spahazards.,
requirements en bcausees beyond those amended (42111C seet). 5 UAC. 551 consideration. the Saate camtmaattesa already imposed by theinterun fasi advisory to the f% ~~=- the rules.
Sec w tta niso W W under mee n at nsta104 m u34nomenenen
""*"*'"P""
making the final administretive decision Paperwork Reduction Ad Statement.
est es?.va, es amended (42 m 2r1 aus2. mal nu. tu3. 2u4. Zus). sec 20:.
on the amendment regweet; a State
- This fiset rule ameads informaham Pub.L es-teo as Stat est es amended (42 carmot veto the C.-.sn/s proposed collection requirements subject to the USC 4:32k ser. set. es Stat.1248 (et USC or final determination. State Paperwask Reduction Act oflogo (44 sertL secesse 2 to2. tim.1104. 2.tes.1721 consultstion does not after present U.S.C. 3501 af arg.).1hsee requirements slee immed under esca. tet. tes.104.106, tas, provisions aflaw thus seeerve to the were approwd by the Office of m as saat est eer, m ese.esa es Comraission exdusive moyensibihty for Management and Budget under approva!
- "d'd Ha U.sn tin 22n tr><. 2m setting and enforcang rediologicat heelsh numboc asso-cott.
Q22ss nzak 2.tas asued und and safety requirenman for masbe' g
Power plante.
Regulden riesgruppream sectionstms also taed under -
sas. 234. es stat ess, es Stat. 444. as amended Separate Tlews af r%--g 6 88 I 87 (42 UAC 2238,2282): sec mL M Stat.1348 Flexibimy Act of1980 (Act). 5 U.liC.
tag gsc seseg sect 6 e. geos.geos also 805(b). the Commisalon certifies that this J.ed under sec. tat. Pob. L n-tee, as Seet.
I do not approve h Comensaisn's rule does not have a sigraficant osa, as easeded H2 tis C essat secuen.
trone. 231e also immed ander s UAC see. ' s final reguishees WW the economic hapactom a substantist "Sholly Ameedment"Ihave two mejer numberof amaDentities.This ruim sections 2.sse.17ea 27to eleo issued under 5 concems about the malm.
affocas emir the lacensing and apesatien USC 557. Section 2.rso also leeued under First. I believe tire t Coeyess dsd not of nuclear power plante and tasting sec.m as stat saa, n amended H2 Uac
' itend that the ShaUy provimien be used facihdies. The=== pan== that essa thmee %adn s 5Cj tio an g
approve litaase amendaments to allow plants de met feu withis the seppe of the taer steo teemed under s USC 55s and sec.
.e expanelen af apons fuel asesega.
definitiam of "small samtams" set inrth in as. Putm L es-ass. 71 siet. srs. se amerated.
whether by se==r1=g or by other means. the Act orlar the Small Busmane Size 142 LISC mes).Subpert K nine teemed ender Prior to the assaplethos el any regneeted. Standards set out la regadatians lemund sec. tes. es sana. ses H2 USC 22sel: sec u4.
m d
O 5
e I
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursday *, March 8,1986 / Rules and Reguistions 7765' Pub L 97-423 98 Stet. 223o(42 ESE1msek Sectiors to.54L Soft and last also foseed as described in i 5091,it mey reduce Appendia A aleu issued under sec.a. Pub. L under Pub.1.97-411 se Stat. 3c73 642 LISE the period provided for pubhc notrce staao, s4 SieL 1473 (42 uit 21353 2239) Sectos sa7e alsoinesed under sec.
and comment.
8' l-
- 2. In i 2.10$s paragraphs (a)(4). (a)(Sk a,8'
- ggg, (4' Both in en emergency ettuation and 3
in t :e case of exigent circumstances. the 5
and (d)(2) are revised to read as follows:
954. as amended (42 U.S C 22341 Sections se towo sc2 also inued under sec.see, as Commission will provide 30 days notice 12.us muce of proposed accon' Stat oss (e2 uS C 223ej of opportunity for a heartag, though this 1
l (a),.
y or,he p.rpo og,,c. 323. es Seet. ess. se notice may be pubhshed after issaance (4) An amendrnent to an operating aswnded IC ES C 2:731. Il sate (a). (bl.
of the amendmentif the Commissaon f
license for a facility licensed under end (et San aan saa 3c.54 and gasota) determines that no significant hazards 5 5a21(b) or i 50.22 of this chapter or for are tsaved under sec.1stbs se Stat sea, se consideration is evolved.
a testing facihty, as follows:
estended (C U.S C 23ot(b)) ll SQL30(b) ed
- g,, g j
(i)If the Commission determines (el and 5054 ore leaved under sec.1su. as stadas k i M to hnnme Stat sa as amended (42 um 22ntan and under i 50.58 of this chaEter that the il sc 5ste). 30.59(bt 50 70, so.71.sc72, no 7s whether a significant hazards amendment involves no significant and 50 ?s am lanued under sec toto.as Stat conalderation is presented by an harards consideration, though it will eso. es emended 142 U.S C 220f fort.
amendment to aa operstmg hcznse for a provide notice of opportunity for a For the purposes of e c. 2:3. se Stet.ssa. 82 facility of the type described m heanns pursuant to this section. it may amended 142 USC 227sk 44 as tolet (b).
I 50.21(b) or i 503. or which is a meke the amendment immediately and ich so n so.m sees.me. and sano(e) testing facility, and ma make the effective end grant a heermg thereaften u""U S tl h amendmentimmediate y effeebve.
s" ame notwithstanding the pendency before it ICI **d 80'58 * 'aed under sec. tali. ee (ii)If the Commissron determines Stat 949. as ereended 142 usst 2201(t)). and of a request for a heanng fmm any under i 50.58 and i 50 91 of this chapter ll 50 55ie). So.59(bk Sa7a Sart. 50.72. and person,in advance of the holdmg and that en emergency situation exists or 5o.78 are issued under sec tato 08 Stat.aso, completion of any required beanng s
that exigent circumstances exist and se amended [n U.S C 22D1[e4 where it has determined that no that the amendment involves no signiDeant hazards consideration is significant herstds consideration,it will iSa57 iAmended) involved.
provide notice of opportunity fer a
- 5. In i 50 57.' paragraph (d) is removed.
(6) No petition or other request for hearmg pursuant in i 2.106 (if a hearing
- 6. In i 50.58. peregraph (b) is revised mww of or burig on the HaEs is requested. it will be held after to read as follows-e gnificant hazarda conaidersbon l 50.54 Hearinge and report of the determination will be entertained by the Advisory Committee en fleester Conunission.The sta!!'s determination (6) An amendment to a licerrse safeguards.
la final, subject only to the C
specified in peregraph (a)(5) of this Commissioo's diectetion. on its own section. or en amendment to a ib)(1)The Commission willhold a 6nitiative. to review the determination.
construction enthonzstron granted in haanns after at least 30 days' notice and
- 7. Section 5a91 is revised to read as proceedings on en application for such a publication once in the Federal Register followa:
license when such an amendment on each application Int a construchon i e Neuce for m m state would authorire ections which meY permit for a production or utihastion significantly affect the health and safety facihty which is of a type dacraed in
'fhe Commission will use the of the pobhe:or i M(b) or i tom, er for a testag following procedates on an application 3
- facility, (d) * * *
(2) When a construction permit has requesting an amendment to an
- 12) Any person whose interest may be been issued for such a facility following operating license for a fecibty bcensed 7,
affected by the proceedmg may file a the holdans of a public hearing. and an under i 30.21(b) or i 50.22 or for a request for a heenna or a pettnen for application is mede for an operating a testing facihty:
leeve to intervene if a heenns has license er for en assand-=> to a (a) Notice forpuHic comment.
already been requested.
construction permit or operating Econse, (1) At the time a licsasee requests an the Corm-ia==n may behl a heartag amendment,it meist prende to the after at least aikisys' notica and
. Commission its reasoned analysis, setng
~..
Il2.aos.a.aos t--wl pobkestion once ki the Federni Regimese, the standards in I saa2, about the issue.
- 3. Subpert C (4 l 2.300-2.3095 is or in the abeamcm asa requese theeeler of no significant hazerds consideration.
removed by any person whose interest may be (2)(1) The Comstiamon may pubbah in effected, may issue an opereting hoense the Federal Register under i 1105 an pART 50.-0000ESTIC LICENSING OF or an asneistment to a construction Individual motice of proposed action for PRODUCTION AND t#TILIZATION g c,ap,,,,dng hcesse wtabase a an amendment for which it makes a l
nearing.upam so deyo' notine and propoemd determinataan that no FACILiflES-
- 4. The authority citation for Part so is publication ance in the Federal Raglelse signme=at hazards mnsideration is revised to read as follows: ~
afits intent to do so.
Involved, or, et least once ewy 30 days.
(3)If the carnrrmaelen Bada.in an publish a periodic Fedesal Register AMr Sece. in m.m m. in'an emergency sitmetime. as defined in naalce of proposed ar*6a== which i
- =,';",e ne==,,i' a = =,=. = l i =.aei.e eigniacanih rd.
idenoses -ch amendmannesuea and 5
223e. 22ct): secs. am. se2. ass. es stat. tm2. - application for an amenchnent to en, each amendment proposed to be leaved consideretion is presented by an fer U.S C 2123. trze. 2mm. 2222. 22:2.2230 shace the last such periodic nealce. er it l
1ase. tan a minnend fe2 USC sost. ses2.
opereting license.it may dispamme with mey publish both each mottoes.
atest unless oeheewee aseed-.
. pubuc notice and casament and ammy
- (ii) For each amendment proposed to-Sectise sa7,elas neued wuSer Pub.l.e6 issue the amendment.lf the Commissics be issued, the notice will (A) conteln the j
eat. sec.1o. e2 Stat. assa laa U.Sc. seHk finds that exigent cirtinnetascas entst.
etaf!'s proposed determinetion, tmder n
~
U66 Federal F.egister / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursday. March 6.1986 / Rules and Regulations l
8 the standards in i SO 92. (B) provide a provision by failing to make timely situation, unless it finds an imminent i
I brief description of the amendment and application for the amendment and thus danger to the health or safety of the of the facihty involved. (C) sohcit public itself creating the emergency.Whenever pubhc. in which case it will issue an comments on the proposed an emergency situation exists, a licensee appropriate order or rule under to CFR g
determination. and (D) provide for a 30-requestmg an amendment must explain Part 2.,
i day comment period, why this emergency situation occurred (b) Store consultation.
(m) The comment penod will begin on and why it could not avoid this (1) At the time a licensee requests an the day alter the date of the publication situation, and the Commission will amendment. it must notify the State in of the first notice, and, normally, the assess the licensee's reasons for feuing which its facihtyis located of its request 1
amendment will not be granted until to file an appbcation sufficiently in by provi.dmg that State with a copy of its after this comment period expires.
advance of that event.
(3)The Commission may inform the (6) Where the Commission finds that opp 3 cap and its reauned ana1ys pubhc about the final disposition of an exigent circumstances exist. in that a id in ca e on the amendment request for which it has licensee and the Commission must act h'd
'ppI ta n U mke ava0 ail made a proposed determination of no quickly and that time does not permit C
n de significant hazards consideration either the Commission to publish a Federal licensee the name of the appropnate by issuing an individual notice of Register notice allowing 30 da s for State official designated to recelse such issuance under i 2.106 of thit chapter or pnor public comment, and it a so amendments) by publishing such a notice in its determines that the amendment involves penodic system of Federal Register no significant hazards considerations.it (2) The Commission will advise the notices. In either event. it will not make (i)(A) Wdi eitherissue a Federal State of its proposed determination and will not publish a final Register notice providing notice of an about no significant hazards determination on no significant hazards opportunity for hearing and allowing at consideration normally by sendmg it a consideration.unless it receives a least two weeks from the date of the copy of the Federal Register notice.
request for a hearing on that amendment notice for prior public comment or (3)The Commission wil! make request.
(B) Will use local media to provide available to the State official designated (4) Where the Commission makes a reasonable notice to the public in the to consult with it about its proposed fmal determination that no significant area surrounding a licensee's facility of determination the names of the Project hazards consideration is involved and the licensee's amendment and of its Manager or other NRC personnel it that the amendment should be issued.
proposed determination as desenbed in designated to consult with the State.The the amendment will be effective upon paragraph (all2) of this section. '
Commission will consider any issuance even tf adverse public consultmg with the beensee on the comments of that State official. lf it does comments have been received and even proposed media release and on the not hear from the State in a timely if an interested person meetmg the geographical area ofits coverage:
manner. it will consider that the State provisions for intervention called for in (ii) Will provide for a reasonable has no interest in its determination:
12.714 of this chapter has filed a request opportunity for the public to comment.
nonetheless. to ensure that the State is i
for a hearing. The Commission tieed using its best efforts to make available sware of the application, before it issues
. hold any required hearms only after it to the pubbc whatever means of the amendment. it will make a good issues an amendment. unless it communication it can for the public to faith effort to telephone that ofhcial.
determines that a significant hazards respond quickly, and. in the case of (Inabihty to consult with a responsible consideration is involved in which case telephone comments, have these State offical following good faith the Commission will provide an comments recorded or transcribed. as attempts will not prevent the opportunity for a prior hearm' g.
necessary and appropriate; Commission from making effective a (5) Where the Commission fmds tha*.
(iii) When it has issued a local media license amendment involving no an emergency situation exists,in that release, may inform the license of the significant hazards consideration.)
failure to act in a timely way would public's commente, as necessary and (4)The Commission will make a good
, result in derstmg or shutdown of a appropriate; faith attempt to consult with the State nuclear power plant. or in prevention of (iv) Will publish a notice of issuance before it issues a license amendment either resumption of operation or of under i 2.106:
' involving no significant hazards increase in power output up to the (v)Will provida a hearing after consideration. lf. however. it does not plant s licensed power level. It may issuance. if one has been requested by a have time to use its normal consultation lasue a Lcense amendment involving no perso, who satisfies the provisions for procedures because of an emergency significant hazards consideration intervention callad for in i 2.714 of this situation. It will attempt to telephone the without prior notice and opportunity for chapter:
Sta oflicial bil a hearing or for public comment.In such (vi) Will require the licensee to a[p]n p
a situation, the Commission will not explain the exigency and why the following good faith attempts will not publish a notice of proposed licensee cannot avoid it, and use its prevent the Commission from making determination on no significant hazards normal pubhc notice and comment eHective a heenu amndmet involving consideration, but will publish a notice procedures in paragraph (a)(2) of this no significant hazards consideration. Lf i
of issuance under i 1106 of this chapter, section if it determines that the licensee the Commission deema it necessary in 1
providing for opportunity for a hearing has failed to use its best efforts to make an emrgecy situation) and for public comment after tasuance.
a timely application for the amendment (5) After the Commlulon issues the ne Commission exoects its licensees to in order to czvate the exigency and to
. requested amendment. it will send a apply for licavase amendments in timely take advantage of this procedures.
fashion. It will decline to dispense with (7) Where the Commission finds that copy of its determinston to the State.
notice and comment on the significant hazarda conalderations are (c) Coreats about State consultorion.
determination of no significant hazards involved. it will issue a Federal Register (1)ne State consultation procedures
. (
consideration ifit determines that the notice providing an opportunity for a in paragraph (b) of this section do not licensee has abused the emergency... -
prior hearing even in an amergency.
- sive the State a right:
d
O a
Fedecal Register / Vol. 51. No. 44 / 'nursday. Mardt 6.1986 / Rules and Regulatione n67
/
(i) To veto the Commission's proposed For the Nacjear Regulatory Ce==-
amendment Due constderation sbeen or final determmation; Samuel l. Quilk.
yven to the comments receive (ii) To a hearing on the determinatior Secneravyfor de Canmiassen A number of commenters et ed that before the amendment becomes
[71t Doc. so-esd Ried S.4.es, ses anl the leakage associated with vetory l drain systems is the result inadequate effective; or maansa coon re.aws (iii) To insist upon a postponement of 1, J orimproper maintenance d/or -
the determination or spon issuance of wrvicing. Proper malnk ce would the amendment.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION eliminate leaks except those (2) These procedures do not alter resulting from debris tr pped in the Federal Aviation Administremon flush valve, and that of problem present provisions oflaw that reserve to I
reetn nd en o ga o si America. represer ng operators of health and safety requirements for go ei.e no s_nes_,,_an;4. m'as-42sel Boeing Model 727 airplanes, noted that nuclest power plants.
in the preamble o Amendment 3S-106
- 8. Section 50.92 is revised to read as Airworthine Directives: Boeine (30 FR 8828.
' M.1965) the FAA follows:
teodel 727 Ser Airplanes -
stated that it ould not issue ads as a aetwcv: Federal vlation substitute fe enforcing maintensnce i 50.e2 seauence of amemament.
Administration [F
). D(7T.
rules. H is eternent is preceded in that (a)In determining whether an acT10cc Phal rule.
Preamble the following statements:
amendment to a license or construction g
g permit will be issued to the applicant.
sussesAar:his am ent adds a new FAA by Federal Anataan Act tustify the Commission will be guided by the airworthiness directive
)that broade ng the regulation [Part 39] to make considerations mhich govern the requires periodic inspe ne of the any un are condition, whether mulung from issuance ofinitial bcenses or forward laestory drein o em and memt nce, design defect or otherwwe the construction permits to the extent corrective action. If necess. on all prop aubject of an AD. At the same time the app?icable and appropriate.If the Boeing 727 airplanes. This
'on is Ag, ey,, cognizes that use of ads to correct application involves the material necessa'y because ice formed im per or inadequate maintenance on the alteration of a licensed facility, a leaking strain systems. when it esses of particular persons of organizations construction permit will be issued from the airplane, can cause to ould impose en unreasonable burden on the before the issuance of the amendment to or loss of an engine.
et mejonty of persons who comply with the the license. If the amendraent involves a OATS: Effective Apr014.tese, regulatiore and property maintain their
(
significant hazards consideration, the A00asssts:he app!! cable service 81'Cr*fL" Cornmission will give notice ofits information may be obtained from the While it is correct that proper proposed action (1) pursuant to i 2.105 Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, aintenance will prevent the unsafe of this chapter before acting thereon and P.O. Box 3707. Seattle, Washington ndation addressed by this AD from (2) es soon as practiaable after the 98124.This in'ormation may be it is cleet from the large examined at the FAA Northwest application has been docketed.
- Mountain Region.17900 Pacific High aT a ber ofincidents involvmg numerous (b)The Commission will be ope tors that the maintenance particularly sensitzve to e license South. Seattle. Washington, or the defici ncies that result in the unsafe l
amendment request that involves Seattle Aircraft Certincatie Offi condit n are not the sort of isolated i
irreversible consequences (such as see solo East Marginal Way South. Se ttle, incident for which the issuance of an S
that permits a sign 25 cant increase in the Washingtu.
AD woul be inappropriate. Rather. this amount of effluents or radiation endtsed P08tPunTnta aeronsaaricas
. is precisel e sort of situation which by a nuclear power plant).
Mr. Robert McCracken. Aaroep 1 Amendment 9-106 was intended to
~
(c)De Commission may make a final Engineer. Systams and Equipm address by b adening the scope of the Breach. ANM-120S. Seattle applicability e AD pmcess: namely, determination, pursuant to the Ceruncadom N talephoo M 421-widespread an=nen deficiencies procedures in i test that a proposed 2947. Mailing addmaa: FAA.
resulting in unas condetions.
amendsment to en operating hcense for a Aircrah Nw&wed ne Boems Casa ny soggested est facility bconsed ender I 50.21(b) or M untain Region.17900 Highway this AD should appl only to atrplanes
( 303.2 or for a testmg facility evolves M
ea a.
en with unruodzned Mo a touet tank no significant hazards consideration. If 9818 &
flush valves.The FAA as determined operation of the fee 0ity in amordence supptaamarrasy A
that the number of"blo ice" incidents ne PmPmd unendment wonM proposalta asund Part of theFederal (where ice composed of I vatory waste no.
(1) Involve a migrrthantlacreasein
- Aviation Regulations de as water leaking from the '
lorydrain airworthiness directa which requires systems ~and freezing on outside of
.the probabt!!ty or consequences of an periodic ins the forwasd the airplane has dislodsed d accident previously evaluated; or
. lavoratory la sys and carrective impacted with the airpione f or with (2) Create the pessibility of a asar or ; action,if ascassary, aR Boesas Model buildings on the ground). In ed ' tion to different kind of acaident from any.
T27 airplanes wee liabad in the the two inrol-nts of eagme loss
- accident previoissly e,aluated; or.
Federpl Register ao 21.1885480' referenced in the Noti:e. provide sufracient evidence of system (3) Involve a slysificant redscsies in a FE425e2).
.: The comment ye od for the NpRM.
malfunctions with maMed and mangin of safety..
n.
which soded Deces aber e.1305. allerded unmodtfied flush valves to warrant Deted at Won.N.mm den interestad persons an opportunity to
. oomplete system leak checks on a Feb:very rue,.,,,, ge,,,,,,,,,,,, y,.
participate in the, making of this periodic besia.
ee r
-n
,w, w,,
o Attachm:nt 7 Integrated Schedules INTEGRATED SCHEDULES (f10HAN TilADANI - NRC)
A LARGE NUMBER OF POST-TMI REQUIREMENTS DICTATED A NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED o
APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES WHICH MET THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES.
o IOWA ELECTRIC PROPOSED A 5 YEAR PLAN WHICH INTEGRATED THE COMPLETION SCHEDULES FOR THE DAEC HARDWARE, PROCEDURES, AND STAFFING MODIFICATIONS itEETING THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE BUDGETARY AND MANPOWER RESOURCES ON MAY 3, 1983 NRC APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 91 WHICH INCORPORATED A o
CONDITION IN THE DAEC LICENSE REQUIRING IOWA ELECTRIC TO FOLLOW THE MUTUALLY AGREED INTEGRATED SCHEDULES PLAN ON MAY 9, 1983 NRC ISSUED GENERIC LETTER NO. 83-20 TO INFORM THE INDUSTRY o
OF DAEC PLAN AND INVITE OTHER UTILITIES TO ADOPT SIMILAR PLANS AGAIN ON MAY 2, 1985 NRC ISSUED GENERIC LETTER N0. 85-07 SEEKING INDUSTRY o
VIEWS ON INTEGRATED SCHEDULES SINCE THE ISSUANCE OF THE DAEC AMENDMENT NO. 91 THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL o
STATEMENT OF POLICY AND PLANNING GUIDANCE HAS REPEATEDLY REITERATED THAT THE INTEGRATED SCHEDULES BE FOLLOWED (COMMISSIONI 1986 STATEMENT IS PROVIDED IN THE HANDOUT) o OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE DAEC PLAN HAS BEEN VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ASKED IOWA ELECTRIC TO PROVIDE A UTILITY'S PERSPECTIVE OF EXPERIENCE WITH Tile PLAN.
e IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AllD POUER C0fPAtlY
~
INTEGRATED PLAN METHOD FOR SCHEDULING WORK BASED UN:
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 10WA ELECTRIC REQUIREMENTS AVAILABLE RESOURCES DAEC LICENSE CONDITION REPORT / NEGOTIATE SCHEDULES WITH NRC INCREASES COMMUNICATION WITH NRC n.-
f INTEGRATED PLAN METHOD FOR SCHEDULING WORK BASED UN:
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1
IOWA ELECTRIC REQUIREMENTS AVAILABLE RESOURCES DAEC LICENSE CONDITION f
REPORT /NEGOTI ATE SCHEDULES WITH NRC INCREASES COMMUNICATION WITH NRC
- ~,
--n,.,
HISTORY POST-TM1 ACTIVITIES FIRST SUBMITTAL TO NRC MAY 1982 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT NOV 1982 AMENUMENT 91 ISSUED MAY 1983 AMENDMENT 125 ISSUED JUL 1985
.O OBJECTIVES ENSURE EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION OF PLANT MODIFICATIONS INCREASED LABOR EFFICIENCY INCREASED PLANT SAFETY FEWER MISTAKES PROVIDE BASIS FOR:
SCHEDULING NEW WORK ADJUSTING CURRENT WORK SCHEDULES LEVEL 00T EXPENSES SUPPORT 10WA ELECTRIC'S BUUGETING PROCESS l
. - =.
LICENSE AMENDMENT INTEGRATED PLAN A LICENSE CONDITION SCHEDULES ARE NOT A LICENSE CONDITION' SCHEDULE A DATES MANDATED BY NRC RULES, ORDERS, OR LICENSE CONDITION DATE CHANGES REQUIRE PRIOR NRC APPROVAL IAW EXISTING NRC PROCEDURES SCHEDULE B
~
REGULATORY ITEMS WHICH RESULT IN:
PLANT MODIFICAT10NS PROCEDURE REVISIONS CHANGES IN FACILITY STAFFING PERCEIVED PROSPECTIVE NRC REQUIREMENTS MAJOR IELP INITIATIVE ITEMS IELP MAY CHANGE SCHEDULE B DATES WITHOUT PRIOR NRC APPROVAL 4
IELP WILL INFORM PM WHEN CHANGING SCHEDULE B (WRITTEN NOTIFICATION)
IELP CHANGES WILL BE EFFECTIVE UNLESS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED BY IELP SEMIANNUAL UPDATES
e 86 Of O
89 W
g lI 1l lI I I i lI I I
! I l Attachmeat 4 lI I I
- "ycle to -
nG.85 4240 Cycle 8
- - Cycle 9 W
W noveeer 4, 1985
~W SCNtoult A
- Prior to Cycle 9 Startup/10 CFR 50.48
& nG.851338 to meC Uperade Fire Protectton Alternate Shutdoun Capaallt,ty (10 CFR 50.48 Appendia Al r Prior to Cycle 9 Startus/10 tre 50.62
& MG-85 4480 to N#C ATW5 Rule Comollance (10 Cia 50.62)
SCHt0Ulf 8 appengga g
-e January 1,1986/ Technical Specification Ch'ange (RTS.II5C)
(Note 1)
Masonry Walls BN 8011 e Prior to Cycle 10 5t ertup/
NG.85 4481 to naC Isoroved Reactor Vessel Water Level lastrumentatton
- June 30,1986/MG-85 4250 to nec Nitrogen inerting System pedification (GC 5!L 402) t.ernene, e.soonse cacaot t et les_
Uupolement & to hu4 u-s Jij Detalled 15.colameat 1) teon
--* April 30,1986/NG 851539 ta haC
$umery aeport Suneittal segulatorv Gutde 1.97_
- Peter to Cycle 10 5t artus/
NG.85.aa81 & NG.85 4 388 to neC Upgrade It Power Supplies
- Prior to Cycle 10 5tartup/
NG.85 4481 to WC aeroute Cable for Olvisional 5eparation
- Prfor to Cycle 10 5t artup/
NG.85-4481 to NAC Upgrade instrumentation to Category 1 ltLP Initiative it ems _
* May 31,1986/IELP Initiative Construct Data Acoulsttton Center Facility
- Prter to Cycle 10 5t actuot itLP Initiative Relocate $POS VAX Cosonter
- 6 senths after Cycle 9 Startup/
ItLP Inttlet tve Upgrade Plant Process Computer (PPC)
- Prior to Cycle 10 5t artuo/
Relocate PPC VAX Coaouter ILLP Initiative Lew-level sadweste Processing and Storace Factitty
-- e March 31,1996/IELP Init f atIve Storage Portton
- July 31,1966/ttLP Initiative Processtag Portion (cmoutertred utstory & Matateneace Planntag system (CNAMr$)
- June 30,1986/ttLP Initiative Soft are Develosament
- March 31, 1987/ttLP Initiative Equipment Data Collection
- September 30,1986/ttLP Initiative inP0 fraining Accreditation Phase !
- Septeeer 30,1986/ttLP Initiative Training Facility foretae uneet ecolace=ent r Prior to Cycle 9 Startup/l!LP Inttistive Replace *.on Pressure '8*
- Prior to Cycle 10 5t artuo/
neplace Los Pressure 'A' ILLP Initiative
- Dece%er 31,1986/f tLP Initiative Radiation tasasure Manageneat Systen r Ceccaber 31,1987/ttLP Initiative salsace of Plans ISOP) Instrument Calibration
- Ju e 1,1987/ttLP Initiat tve n
Po er DistrtDutton to New Factittles
- Prior to Cycle 9 Startup/itLP Initiative Cry. ell.$tese funnel MVaC Modifications (note 2)
Install New Ausillary fransfomer March 31, 1986/ICLP lattistive Essential Bus Pu o Sequencing Modification Annual _ projects /ItLP Initiat ive m
Fire Protection ( Agt Aenval Projects)
Plant inttlated Modifications (Annual Projects)
- N IG5CC Resolution leglement Hydrogen Water Cheetstry Austilary Po.er unge 4e (note j)
$POS tanance*ents fraining Simulator note 1: Scheoute to be provided January 31, 1966, as descrieed in letter NG-85.aB01.
First outage tescected duratton > 5 days) af ter Aortl 15, 1986.
Note 2:
note 3: Potential itLP inttistive stem. Schedule not yet cereatn.
SCHEDOLE B SCHEDULE B SCHt.UULE A (llEGULA10ltY )
(IELP ITEriS)
NU. OF llEMS ITEMS NU. OF ITEMS ITErlS NO. UF ITEtts llEMS
<1,
-f DATE IIEMS COMPL.
AUDEU ITEMS CurtPL.
AUDEU litMS CurtPL.
AUDEU f
5/05/83 11 NA NA 16 NA NA 7
NA NA J
11/05/83 3
8 0
25 5
14 14 0
7 s
5/05/84 5
0 2
21 4
0 16 1
5 11/02/84 5
2 2
22 1
2 25 2
11 S/05/85 5
1 1
21 2
1 27 0
2 11/04/85 2
5 0
8 18 S
2S 4
2 f
a t
ITEMS RESCHEDULED SCHEDULE A NONE SCHEDULE B (REGULATORY ITEMS)
-60 DAYS E0P IMPLEMENTATION HEAVY LOADS (NUREG-0612)
+ 2 MONTHS
+16 MONTHS APPENDIX I TIED TO REFUELING OUTAGE PLUME MODEL TIED TO REFUELING OUTAGE MET SYSTEd SBGT OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION
+18 MONTHS SBGT OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION
-18 MONTHS APPENDIX J MODIFICATIONS
-18 MONTHS
+10 MONTHS DCRDR SCHEDULE B (IELP INITIATIVE ITEMS)
+54 MONTHS SIMULATOR
' RELOCATE SPDS VAX COMPUTER
+24 MONTHS RELOCATE PPC VAX COMPUTER
+50 MONTHS RADWASTE MODIFICATIONS
-12 MONTHS DATA ACQUISITION CENTER
+24 MONTHS
+ 8 MONTHS UPGRADE PPC TURBINE WHEEL REPLACEMENT A
-18 MONTHS TURBINE WHEEL REPLACEMENT B
-18 MONTHS INP0 TRAINING ACCREDITATION I
- 3 MONTHS TRAINING FACILITY
+ 6 MONTHS LOW LEVEL RADWASTE FACILITY
+ 7 M0nTHS l
M
.., ~
I t
4
~
MECHANICS OF OPERATION INTEGRATED PLAN DATA BASE
- ESTIMATE OF ALL DAEC WORK OVER NEXT FIVE
- WORK BROKEN DOWN INTO MONTHLY INCREMENTS B ENGINEERING MANHOURS (COMPANY & LOANED NON-ENGINEERING SUPPORT MANHOURS CRAFT MANHOURS CONSTRUCTION NON-MANUAL MANHOURS OUTSluE CONTRACTOR $
MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT $
UUTAGE / NON-0UTAGE UN-SITE / OFF-SITE DEVELOP MANHOUR HISTOGRAMS SCHEDULE REVISIONS iilLESTONE HONITORING
1 I
1 i
l l
l
. &.=a; 1
""~ ~
.%.,~,..,:.=.: =.6r.; -_- -.
we a -.,. t1,
- * * = ' ~ ' '
.'.'~- } is *e M:.g.g,Nu-ex,,,s_.
__.D m.
.w 4--e
' c *,.! 2"'.- ~. r v_ M.f.,."..-.e i
g-
-O
__,,,*n__
p n-...
s-
. r.;f.e4LKe'.*M' ' rtu,..a -. %
.w=.= D...;.+ A T.
- + a
== M?. *.
-s
...<. u.L
=-
a~G i
- . T
- ts.
~.u
.::;... a ;a _' - -- -
.e..
n... w. ~ e" L
__w-K **,, *
- .L:~2^*
p-..,-A;:;;',i~..u.x
.....% ' ' - -$s.
s*
.~=~__y*
^===> -,.. _. ~.
O m
--m.g., b;,,,,, "'~ -....^ ~~~bh;4'
ri M %. Mr. *~-* ~~ ~ ~ : M..*~.' *:*.
-=.; w g
Z l
n;;,,,,
T_.- - -m 4=A.
.4 _f
.m.
._.....;..,. rg" w g.,. y...
.. -_e._g. -f P
}f
.w. e.
. ~.. -.
4 n
n-
=., wen.... _.= n
- .,~..
O
- 4 -.., u.. o -..,. -
3
-.e.
g O
V-E'.n
.k, - w, - _
.... gf _~_. _. _ _
y*
7 ='~ ** L L--
g& y n,...,.,-
W%, m _4.
.. ;g..,,,,.,.,,
o y
o - --
tw -..:
4.'" g, h
=
x
.{,.
.],
..a.....
- k. 7 _. *e.
g
.w_.
e3.
J
- - ~ ~
w
..:s.h. _- u.,.
2 -a.
1,gg.
g g
h s ;.c,f,,,,,,,,,.
g N w, ;-,, - -. - - _.,,_.
vs
.,,g g=
g.g.
- w
. - s-x O ZO
~
m~
N w
a.
.. u o.o ~
W &n m.so.. ~.,.' --.,,. _.---r'.o.
.'.e, r
O g
T M a..
-,a j...,
p"*
1 es.
- -- - + um 6 u.
- - - _, _ ; _... -. g~
G.,
-m -..m
' W.
.* & Wit,. t > J.:
- 5.,.' _.;._.,w2 >-.
O
~
.~=wi-. Q y --- w _ p _:p ;-
,8 E
)
D Q..
Oo 1
- d.
- .;,.,L
- ,.".*j" Q :(.,J J.T i, Z*
.ll i'..e,
I o2n3
. 3 ~_ :
- M.
v.+-
- a,
.e-N 4
__ f*
W< %#
- m.....,:. n-a..-
~~,--'s
.--. ~. -
~u~.-=::....
x*
g rr7nsL:=r?.- W2 I* mmc %==u== aeo gre.<W'-.--"***
w -"
ym.
M.',ar. in,m 4 e.4.%.
esya y
i.x. p.m 3 voumae -
._-r s
m C :
umn_.
,p px-0* M
- W'
,. a' L'O s.% #i~i'm >....,, m.~.
&_ 'm
_rw s m..
w (o g
- .ms..= -
-r s
- a. m n amm - -
- dJD.Y~.-UDM-_.:U,E.e"-.Was b
.=,.
ts F a 'a w2_;u_xsA.M.e.M.su. p.,s : w a#,sav"" D*
f.3 3.
Z S M uD.-.+.; 3._
.-r n-..
L.
.a __
?"* -
s.1-r m. a C g,n 4 RPM f an m.c w m. ~ ~ er'-
_ o.
-E a, -_-
y
~
f***
e =w =m - m W.%.;&...cc.: t _1stK.>'.s.'.T. ~s.~.
..' i
'..a.a. 3 c
.... ~
.... % w.
1
_. T.,,a....,.-
3*w.--
ir==-
han e_
1 e.;:- - =,. _ _ _
e w e, ~rx.,_,g,,m_- _. -rwea ^.-
ar.
cT-=
.I i
)
6 1
I O
O O
O C
- C (C
't O
O O
O O
C C
<C
'C W
b to E3 4
rm N
~
W$ NU
l i
i O
4 T
L.!M-__.'
-...~T
__ T
_ Y_
T g
1
_L _ _. 1 '
W C ai t.a1
. -.. A s
w-_
_. _ L.
- -- 1 w
\\.b o :i... i e a
.&___.-.....r N
sw.-
~
-.m..Z.
.=
> - y ans An.4.es h
I Z.T.". 1 -' -_ - -
1
._,m 1_ - -
,....~.
.. ~..
o 1~.Y s.lsi._a n. ~. m
.L.. _.
i T
-~
.-s.r a.
T Z
-. m er- % x w _. m. 2 a w,c a g f s
,m...,
=
~
9 ~~"~--~9-~
, y
. L.
Vd- '. a t' _ -
't a...
e ik Z g _. _. g g.A,L-y_ am m _
- - - - 7
.._ i
,---w a
n.4..,*
.e m.
[tr
~
-e y.
'[
h~,.
[.. -.
h..,.3..-=.
..~... ~
- [
-l
..e-a e
Q. ' w..
w.. - -. e.
~
.........a.-....s q=
w
., ~
..a.. y a.
a.-
G.
- 4.. -
4 Q
D
.:v
??
2
=. *
.~.m.a & a$.-.me '.--.e
. t o'
^
q
?K-k.Ce *.*e4
? -.
-+
l L.
- A
..J 2.
L 7
A m
F....,' l -...., -
L 4.
- q C
f Sun. g,.
Z s ~~ j
.a
']f,-- a*.,__.~.~.~.s,.
- ~*r 5
.,..a.-
so.
g.,,.,.
.g i
i.
- ik bYm7@-_.~ _ _ _ _ _ _ C M:
- Y 5.e' e4 @ tre.@.. j -'"
D g
g O
b db
_m-g P
i o
1 n s m..
..n
.n _
-.s-.>
...o
.... f a
a-47 rF
=. _..,.
.4
_ 4 -
-4
- .. a.
e a -
.a
.. - a _.-....~.... 4 G
,j 4__
.,-_4 g
d,
<Yi
.a A...
J A
E t':-.
_...m
..o a...
a
=-.2.....
R
.n 4
_...e. n
.j lt, y-
. _ ~. _.
-,m.~
d N M Y N M. m< k. %.4
-m..
}<--
T b 1[NMf-..,-
NN I N.~,i' A.-.- m. <
- e.,.. ; 1.~> ~.,,_. a..... m..t.
w, s
~
y_-
i...
.s
(.,'.9".._t..%. ~me
.= J.%'s ? G4:n s2
- g' <.. s
..m.
/..,--.
d
..,.+.a+=.-
,. %*.y.f.*. n 6
[a.; _ -. M, Al /#,,'et >$li.am R.O.T4 i n=- ? b..'.5 '
hr
. 1.s
==
~ n.. <. s....:..-. ~em
.~~*s.*w
% fan dM_'%.adr4%e. !M* W 'N P ' N. ecd =eC w = E"
~
_E.d.*. isi.aG5cs4
- m.za.at-w==- m w w
-.ess. - - --
p
. n..#
~
v...J..... w n...n : 5..m m m_,. ~ %.*.
,a
,a.
w
".f t.
s.t ech 7
4 Z
m.m..are. -,
- .i-
.. r e 9.T e -
s
{
Me. b*J
=.D_.h[E E.* -
e r.
.N, %..
~,.. m
. - -..-__-p
& sO 8
.em bh I
eet I
I I
b b
o
- e e
o j
o o
o o
o r.
N c.
eu 5
w era I
l
(
I l
l N3M,LN3"lVNDO3 I
~
i DE R
EG E
VD B
OU M
RB E
P V
PD O
AG N
N T
DE R
E EG E
LE SD B
OU t
E RED L
PB U
0 V
NHP J
PD O
CU PG N
S N
t ELE UT Y
CDA A RED M NHPCU J
i;I I S
,l l
i I
t D
K_'
O K
O N
Y T
EI h
CL RIT UBS OAE SLT EI RAV A
S E
EL SU S __
I D VE ll
,;I EH A_
RCS S.
D E
E
/ _
T S
3 _
ANA RAB 2
GLA EPT 1
_ T A
N D
S T
U I
y T _
N ET O
MU L _
EP k"'1 1
,I I i GN AI
'il
,I NAM S
T C
WE EJ NOR P
1
4 SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS MANAGED BY LICENSING GROUP
- PRIMARY PURPOSE TO ENSURE NRC REQUIREMENTS ARE IMPLEMENTED IN A CONTROLLED MANNER
- SCREENING PROCESS USING ROUGH ESTIMATES
- DETAILED PLANNING DONE BY OUTAGE / MAINTEN PLANNING GROUP APPROXIMATELY UNE MAN-YEAR OF EFFORT TO M
- INTEGRATED PLAN COORDINATOR
- TASK COURDINATORS
- COST CENTER SUPERVISORS
- OUTAGE / MAINTENANCE PLANNING GROUP
- MANAGEMENT REVIEW l
I
6 ADVANTAGES IMPROVED COMMUNICATION WITH NRC IMPROVED COMMUNICATION WITHIN IELP MORE FLEX 1BILITY FOR MEETING NRC REQUIREMENTS r
IMPROVED PLANNING OF UUT AGE WORKSCOPE A
i I
,.._-,r
,.,,.a
j#"" *%,
UNITED STATES 3'
' 7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
.i wasmNGTON, D. C. 20555
/
May 9,1983
(
TO ALL OPERATING REACTOR LICENSEES AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANT MODIFICATIONS i
(GENERICLETTER83-20)
On May 3,1983 the Consnission issued Amendment No. 91 (Enclosure 1) to the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) operating license. This amendment incorporates a license condition which approves Iowa Electric Light and Power Company's " Plan for the Integrated Scheduling of Plant Modifications t -
for the Duane Arnold Energy Center."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's statement of policy and planning guidance for 1983 endorses the concept of establishing implementation schedules for new and existing requirements which reflect the importance of the safety requirement to the public health and safety and the licensee's
, ability to complete the necessary engineering, evaluation and design.
( represents the first step towards development of an industry-wide pmgram to establish realistic schedules for implementation of safety improvements, both utility-initiated and NRC-required, at operating reactors.
. is pmvided for your infonnation and possible use. Although this enclosure represents an approach which is acceptable at present to the NRC, other approaches may be acceptable and will be considered if you elect to adopt such a^ plan.
Please contact your Project Manager if you have any questions on this matter.
$1ncerely, I #
}
l
. Eisenhut, rector Division of Licensing i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: w/ enclosure j
See Next Page
(
l 1
l
j.=mog p
je UNITED STATES g
!y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{.p[3 s.. c, g yj j wAsmNG TON. D. C. 20555
(
(,;
/
I'.ay 3, 1983 Docket No. 50-331 Mr. Lee Liu President and Chief Executive Officer Iowa El'ectric Light and Power Company P. O. Box 351
. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406 Dear Mr.
Liu:
The Comission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 91 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 for the Ouane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC).
This amendment, incorporates a license condition in response to your application dated November 12,.1982, as revised in subsequent discus-sions between the NRC and your staff.
(
This license condition requires Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (IELP.) to foll'ow its " Plan for the Integrated Scheduling of Plant M.odifications for the Duane Arnold Energy Center" (the Plan) and the terms therein for modifying the schedules.
The revised Plan has been discussed with your staff and is enclosed as Attachment 1 of Enclosure 2 to this letter.
t Iowa i.lectric's Integrated Scheduling Program has been the subject of extensive discussions between the NRC and your staff in an effort to define an acceptable approach for implementation of this unique program to establ.ish realistic schedules for modification of the Duane Arnold facili ty.
Iowa Electric is to be commended for its initiative in developing such an integrated program for scheduling safety modifications at the OAEC.
We hope that the resultant improved control and manage-ment of available resources will facilitate more systematic and timely implementation of such modifications.
We believe these discussions have been most productive and, as noted in the enclosed'avaluation of your proposed program, conclude that your program is acceptable.
However, the implementation of this program re-presents only the first step towards development of an industry. wide program to assure that necessary safety issues are implemented in a timely fashion at all operating reactors.
As experience is gained with your program and that of others, program changes may be necessary to
(
incorporate additional or modified features which will enhance program effectiveness and assure fimely implementation of safety issues.
As
_ cactr An
,-**Yyur S
b v
Mr. Lee Liu (
discussed with your staff, in view of recent staff actions and the necessity of awaiting final staff review in a number of areas, the schedules contained in your November 12, 1982 application may require some revisions.
Copies of the Program Evaluation and Notice of Issuance are also en-closed.
- incerely,
~
V
- l S/!!
sehu)t,1 fS S.
rector Division of icensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. 91 to DPR-49 2.
Program Evaluation 3.
Notice cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
(
f e
4 o
4
[e* " 4
,o, UNITED STATES
,ejg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- \\,
.-/. I W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM
(
EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RE.GULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 91 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-49 IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER DOCKET NO. 50-331 1.0 Iotroduction By letter dated May 28, 1982, Iowa Electric Light and Power Company (IELP) submitted a request (initial submittal) for approval of a five-year integrated program for implementing self-imposed and NRC-imposed modifications of the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC).
The basic objective of Iowa Electric's (the licensee) program is to enable the utility to obtain b.etter control and management of available resources and to perform required activities in a manner which would enhance. plant safety by (1) improved control of safety
(
related modifications and (2) more prompt implementation of these modifications.
On August 11 and August 12, 1982, a meeting was held with IELP and its contractor, Technology for Energy Corporat; ion (TEC), to obtain additional information regarding IELP's submittals and discuss in further detail the licensee's program.
This meeting focused on discussing points identified in a preliminary review of the licensee's proposed program and obtaining additional infomation regarding the details of the methodologies and assumptions used in developing the IELP program to detemine the reasonableness of the schedules proposed by the licensee.
As a result of these discussions, the licensee simp.lified and streamlined its submittal.
Iowa Electric requested in a November 12, 1982 application that a requirement to follow its " Plan for the Integrated Scheduling of Plant Modifications for the Duane Arnold Energy Center" (the Plan), which was
' submitted with the November 12, 1982 application, be added as a condition of the operating license for the DAEC.
Further discussions between the NRC and IELP identified additional areas where further clarification of and revisions to Iowa El.ectric's November 12, 1982 submittal were desirable.
The licensee agreed to revise its Plan (Attachment 1) accordingly in response to staff corrments.
(
2.0 Program Description o,s rle
~&llYff},
The progran developed,by Iowa Electric utilizes a computerized scheduling technique which integrates the engineering, procurement, and installation of planned NRC required modifications, and resultant.
rqlBnR GEerator retrainins recuiremerits, with Iowa Electric's own
l' t
2-C requirements for plant modifications, maintenance, refueling, and operations. The computer model used by the licensee identifies critical paths and considers the interrelationships among projects and the constraints imposed by engineering support and site manpower "limi tations. The program proposed by the licensee appears to be capable of adapting schedules' in the event of unforeseen delays in i
procurement or installation, strikes., changes in fuel cycle schedules, e tc.
In addition, the program has considered the necessity of coordinating plant modifications with revisions to plant operating procedures and operator retraining.
The licensee's program, as originally presented, proposed implementation dates as program goals and provided for semi-annual reporting to the NRC of utility progress with regard to implementation of each of the NRC required items nd identification of project schedule slippages.
One critical assumption made in the IELP proposed program is that "NRC would not require additional plant modifications during its five year period." However, Iowa Electric has incorporated into its program t
currently proposed NRC requirements which are likely to be approvad for implementation on operating reactors.
Proposed requirements (or re-quirements planned but' not finalized, such as an upgraded suppression pool temperature monitoring system) were included for implementation in f.
the IELP program in anticipation of NRC recuirements for these items.
In addition, the licensee assumed for purposes of its program that the guidance contained in SECY 82-111 concerning Emergency Response Facilities would become requirements.
Iowa Electric indicated in its May 28, 1982 submittal some of the boundary conditions associated with its program.
For example, the prograin assumes in-house engineering support of some 50 personnel, which necessitated deferral of several lower priority design intensive work items.
A peak site day-shift manpower loading of some 555 personnel (1985) was set based on worker efficiency, craft availability, and effective management of these resources on-site.
The assumed in-house engineering support of 50 personnel 'does not include some 148,000 man-hours of engineering support outside of IELP's Mechanical / Nuclear Engineering Department during the five-year period of interest. Assuming approximately 1800 man-hours per work year, i
this is equivalent to an average of about 17 additional man-years per year over the five year period.
Although not specifically accounting for future new requirements (other than those currently envisaged in its present proposed program) the utility's program is structured so that additional required plant h
modifications can be integrated into the overall program to identify the impact of such new requirements on the overall schedule.
(
ee
~
r
(
The Plan submitted by the licensee identifies two cate ories of modifications.
Schedule A identifies schedules for modifications established by existing Rule or Order.
Schedule B identifies schedules for completion of:
1) regulatory items (of either a generic or plant specific nature) identified by NRC which would result in either a) plant modifications, b) procedure revisions, or c) changes to facility staffing requirements and which have an implementation date commi.tted to by Iowa Electric, and; 2) items perceived by IELP as prospective NRC requirements, and;
- 3) all major DAEC tasks resulting from mandates of agencies other than NRC and IELP initated system upgrades for availability improvement.
3.0 Evaluation 3.1 Implementation Since any major new requirements could result in significant schedule modifications, IELP suggested in its initial submittal that this program not be implemented by Order or License Condition.
Rather, the licensee suggested that it " report semi-annually to the NRC as to its progress with regard to
(
the NRC required items, and as to any slippage which threatens to delay completion of such items beyond the goals specified..."
Such a program would not provide for sufficient accountability and leave
- NRC with no means of having assorance that NRC-identified regulatory issues are satisfied insofar as completion dates are concerned, short of revoking approval of the ' program and subsequent issuance of Orders.
In subsequent discussions with licensee representatives, they indicated that an Order or License Conditicn would be acceptable, provided that this Order or License Con-dition made provisions in some fashion for flexibility in the event that certain requirements could not be done in a timely fashion due to circum-stances beyond Iowa Electric's control.
New requirements would be incor-porated into the licensee's program after appropriate implementaion dates have been established.
The licensee's November 12, 1982, submittal (as revised) incorporates an application for amendment to incorporate a license condition requiring that Iowa Electric follow the Plan and permitting the licensee to make changes to the Plan and its schedules for certain category of items in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. We have reviewed the licensee's Plan and have determined that:
- 1) Changes to schedules for completion of modifications imposed by Rule or Order (Schedule ' A' completion dates) will continue to be sought through the exemption or Order-date extension process (For example, Iowa Electric's existing request for exemption from the schedular requirements of 10 CFR 50.44 regarding
(
hydrogen recombiner capabi.lity.) 2) Schedules for completion of other modifications (Schedule 'B' completion dates) are identified and provisions are made in the Plan to re' quire the utility to provide the NRC with prior written notificatiory of changes to schedule B completion dates to* provide the opportunity for further explanation or discussion of such changes.
- 3) Provisions a~re made m
p,'
e 4-in the Plan for incorporating new or anticipated regulatory items into
(
Schedules A and B as these requirements are identified by,NRC and/or formalized by Rule or Order.
The licensee's proposal to incorporate a condition into the DAEC operating license which requires Iowa Electric to follow the Plan prevides an appropriate mechanism to assure that NRC is informed as to whether required safety modifications are performed in a timely manner. At the same time, the Plan provides a suitable mechanism for changes to completion dates (due to unforseen circumstances) for modifications not imposed by Rule or Order and for keeping the NRC informed of 'such changes.
Thus, the degree of flexibility needed to assure effective program implementation is provided while at the same time assuring that NRC's responsibilities are not compromised.
Numerous modifications, principally NUREG-0737 items, not specifically identified in the IELP program initially submitted, were considered by the
-licensee as part of its " base load" of work requirements and grouped together as one or two -line items in its forecasted work requirements.
The licensee identified in its November 12, 1982 submittal each planned NRC-required modification as an individual line item for inclusion in the implementing vehicle.
Semi-annual reports of utility progress towards meeting NRC required modifica-tions would be provided as proposed by the licensee.
Findings:
(
TheproposalbyI'owaElectrictoaddalicensecenditionrequiri$gtheutility to follow the Plan provides a suitable mechanism for implementation of IELP's integrated plan.
Completion dates imposed by Rule or Order are unaffected by the Iowa Electric preposal.
As new requirements are identified and/or formalized by the NRC provisions are made in the Plan to incorporate these into Schedule A or B, as appropriate.
Provisions are made in the Plan to permit the licensee to develop new dates for other modifications (Schedule B) and to keep the j
NRC informed of such changes.
Each planned NRC required modification is individually identified in the Schedules.
- 3. 2 Procosed Schedules Attachments 2 and 3 provide Iowa Electric's revision of its initially proposed schedule to include dates for completion of all presently known IELP-planned and
.NRC-required modifications over the next five years.
For modifications imposed by Rule or Order (other than the schedule requirements of the Interim Hydrogen Control Rule) the utility proposes completion by required dates.
~
With respect to NUREG-0737 items, the utility also proposes completion of all HUREG-0737 items originally scheduled for completion by 1/1/82 before startup from its 1983 refueling ou.tage as' required by Order issued on March 14, 1983.
This is acceptable,in view of the responsible ' efforts demonstrated by the
(
licensee and the unfoneseen circumstance responsible for the delay.
The licensee has shown that adequate compensatory measures are in place.
The following discusses the acceptability of other completion dates proposed by IELP.in its program.
- ^
s
.t,
(
With respect to items covered by SECY 82-111, schedules were developed before these items were approved by the Comission for implementation on operating reactors.
In view of the responsible efforts demonstrated by the licensee, and the lead times necessary for bidding, procurement, and installations of these work items, the schedules proposed by IELP appear. reasonable.
Other NRC-identified' modifications whose proposed completion dates extend as late as 1986 are essentially limited to modifications associated with the issue of " Control of Heavy Loads." The licensee is conducting an extensive evaluation of this issue to determine the need for modifications to make the DAEC polar crane single-failure proof, demonstrating its responsible effort towards resolution of this issue.
4 As a compensatory action until mcdifications to this crane (if any) are completed. Iowa Electric has made procedural revisions and improvements to provide an increased level of safety. We find that the necessity for conducting detailed engineering evaluations of potential modifications to the polar crane justifies a 1986 schedule for these modifications.
i Certain schedules for completion of modifications to the Duane Arnold facility are keyed to completion of required NRC staff reviews that would result in sub-sequent approvals. For example, the schedule for certain modifications re-quired by 10 CFR 50.48 is determined by the date of completion of the staff review.
In addition, certain modifications which will be necessary aV
'to satisfy the licensee's proposed radiological effluent technical speci-
~
fications, have been proposed to be completed by the licensee on a tchedule determined by completion of the staff review of this issue.
Completion dates for such items are identified in Attachment 3.
In view of the necessity of awaiting completion of staff reviews on these issues, this is acceptable.
j.;
Finally, it is recognized that with issuance of Generic Letter 82-33 pertaining to SECY 82-111, the schedules contained in the November 12, 1982 application may require some revisions. Additionally, the licensee is awaiting final staff action on the review of Iowa Electric's exemption requests associated with Appendix R. requirements. However, a schedule update will be provided in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Plan.
Findings The completion dates for modifications proposed by the licensee in its November 12, 1982 submittal show IELP's responsible efforts towards satisfying NRC requirements. Where the dates proposed by the licensee extend more than about three years in the future, initial action will have been taken by the licensee to provide a high level of safety. Modifications which l
extend into 1986 or 1987 are of such a nature that full compliance could not reasonably be expected to be attained much sooner. Dates for completion of modifications not yet detemined d"e to the necessity of I
i awaiting staff approval will be included in the licensee's plan after the requisite staff reviews are complete.
(
l l
i
. )
Based upon our review of the information contained in IELP's submittals, the dates proposed by the licensee in its November 12, 1982 application appear reasonable.
4.0 Sumary Based on the considerations addressed herein, we find that:
- 1) The proposal by Iowa Electric that its plan be implemented by a License Condition requiring the utility to follow the Plan is acceptable.
- 2) The licensee's proposal that changes to implementation dates imposed by existing Rule or Order will continue to be sought through the exemption or order date extension process is acceptable.
1
- 3) Schedules for new requirements should be established for the DAEC on a plant specific basis.
- 4) Based upon our review of the dates proposed by the licensee in its November 12, 1982 submittal, the dates proposed by the licensee appear reasonable.
- 5. 0 Environmental Consideration G
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having.
made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the
~
issuance of this amendment.
6.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase ir, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered 'by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common '
i defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
r 1
Date: May 3,1983 ' "-
principal Contributor: Kenneth T. Eccleston i,
. n
Attachme#t 1 Plan for the Integrated Scheduling of Plant Modifications for the Duane Arnold Energy Center
(
Introduction I.
Iowa Electri-c Light and Power Company (IELP) has developed a comprehensive program which will enable the Company to effectively manage implementation of certain modifications which have been required, or proposed by, the NRC, as well as other measures to enh~ance plant safety and reliability which have been identified by the Company.
A description of the program, identified as " Integrated Program for Modifica-tion of the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC)," was submit-ted to the NRC on May 28, 1982, by Iowa Electric letter LDR-82-0140.
This program was developed to coordinate and schedule all necessary work at the DAIC, whether mandated by NRC or identified by IELP and others.
The program objectives are to (1) conform to regulatory requirements; (2) provide sufficient lead times for modifications; (3) minimize changes for operators; (4) assure training requirements are fulfilled; (5) effectively manage financial and human resources; and (6) specify the framework for changes to developed schedules.
(])
This program reflects that fiscal and manpower resources are finite and that a limit on the onsite manpower is neces-sary.
The program integrates all presently planned work at DAEC over a nominal five year period to ensure that in-dividual tasks are effectively scheduled and coordinated.
It provides a means.for new requirements to be accommodated taking ihto account schedule and resource constraints.
The purpose of this document is to describe the plan used to implement the program (the " Plan").
It describes how the program functions, mechanisms for changing the Plan and updating it, and the interactions of NRC and licensee staffs under the Plan, and its associated schedules.
II.
Summary of Program Development The program is based on a computer generated listing of over 600 items of prioritized work.
The listing takes into account projections for budgets *and site manpower and engineering support requirements for five years, on an item-by-item basis covering all plant modification activities.
It represents a total DAEC work list and commitment list I
which is regularly modified and updated to meet chtnging conditions, including new NRC regulatory requir,ements.
The final product of this program is the development of schedules I
as discussed below.
e n a
ge e
e
m--
.. III. Scheduling
)
Upon completion of the complete work listind, IowE Electric determined that detailed and integrated schedules were required for the major work items.
Upon completing the comprehensive listing of,majcr work items, the tasks were organized into Schedules A and B using critical path methodology (CPM) fo_r selected work items. CPM schedules identify critical paths in the work effort for each task, which in turn, enables prompt ad-aptation of schedules to meet contingencies such as strikes, delays in procurement or installation or modification of fuel cycle schedules.
Both Schedules are briefly described below:
Schedule A -
All items which have imple-mentation dates mandated by NRC rules, orders, or license con-ditions.
Schedule B -
Regulatory items (of either a generic or plant specific nature) identified by NRC which have im-plementation dates committed to by Iowa Electric and which would result in either a) plant modi-fications, b) procedure revisions, or c) changes in facility staf-fing requirements; or items perceived by Iowa Electric
. as prospective NRC requirements; or major DAEC tasks resulting from randates of agencies other than NRC and IELP-initiated system upgrades for availability improvement.
l.
Schedule A dates may be modified only with the prior L
approval of NRC, in accordance with existing NRC procedures.
Changes in Schedule B dates require written notification to NRC as described in Section V.
Schedules 'A and B, taken together, provide a basis for assessing the overall effects of changes to schedules and a departure point for discussion between NRC and the licensee regarding such changes, as dis-cussed below.
IV.
Schedule Modifications l
An important aspect of Iowa Electric's planning effort is the recogniticin-that the attached schedules will need to be e
(~
modified at times to reflect changes in regulatory re--
quirements, to accommodate those activities that -Iowa Electric finds necessary to improve plant efficiency and reliability, and to take into account delays resulting from events beyond IELP's control.
It is important that the procedure used by Iowa Electric for changing the schedules be documented.*/ In addition, the NRC must play a role in the oversight of the scheduling process (and must, in fact, judge the acceptability of proposed date changes in Schedule A).
Accordingly, it is important that the NRC's role, and the interaction between the NRC and IELP, be clearly defined, as discussed below.
V.
IELP Responsibilities The integrated schedule requires that IELP monitor the progress of all work undertaken, manage its activities to maintain the schedule, and act promptly to take necessary actions when a schedule change is needed.
A.
Periodic Updatine IELP will updat.e Scheduleh A and B semi-annually and submit the revised schedules to NRC, beginning six months following NRC
, concurrence in the Plan.
In addition to updating the schedules.
IELP will:
Summarize progress in implementing NRC requirements concerning plant modifications Identify changes since the last report Summarize the reasons for schedule changes associated with regulatory requirements.
B.
Changes to Schedules Changes to the schedules may arise from a variety of reasons, such as new work activities; modifications in the scope of
- /
Schedules A and B will contain sufficient detail to identify those items with completion dates keyed to
({;
fuel cycle outages.
In such cases, a change in outage period shall not be considered a schedule change.
l i
L_.
4 in the Plan for incorporating new or anticipated regulatory items into l
Schedules A and B, as,these requirements are identified by,NRC and/or formalized by Rule or Order. The licensee's proposal to incorporate a condition into the DAEC operating license which requires Iowa Electric to follow the Plan provides an appropriate. mechanism to assure that NRC is informed as to whether. required safety modifications are performed in a timely manner.
At the same ttime, the Plan provides a suitable mechanism for changes to completion dates (due to unforseen circumstances) for modifications not imposed by Rule or Order and for keeping the NRC informed of such changes.
hus, the degree of flexibility needed to assure effective program implementation is provided while at the same time assuring that NRC's responsibilities are not compromised.
Numerous modifications. principally NUREG-0737 items, not specifically identified in the IELP program initially submitted, were considered by the licensee as part of its " base load" of work requirements and grouped together as one or two line items in its forecasted work requirements.
The licensee identified in its November 12,1982. submittal each planned NRC-required modification as an individual line item for inclusion in the implementing vehicle..
Semi-annual reports of utility progress towards meeting NRC required modifica-tions would be provided as proposed by the licensee.
Findings:
O Th.e proposal by Iowa Electric to add a license condition requiring the utility to follow the Plan provides a suitable mechanism for implementation of ICLP's integrated plan.
Completion dates imposed by Rule or Order are unaffected by the Iowa Electric proposal.
As new requirements are identified and/or formalized by the NRC provisions are made in the Plan to incorporate these into Schedule A or B, as appropriate.
Provisions are made in the Plan to permit the licensee to develop new dates for other modifications (Schedul,e B) and to keep the NRC informed of such changes.
Each planned NRC required modification is individually identified in the Schedules.
3.2 Proposed Schedules Attachments 2 and 3 provide Iowa Electric's revision of its initially proposed.
schedule to include dates for completion of all presently known.IELP-planned and NRC-required modifications over the next five years.
For modifications imposed by Rule or Order (other than the schedule requirements of the Interim Hydrogen Control Rule) the utility proposes completion by
^
required dates.
With respect to NUREG-0737 items, the utility also proposes contpletion of all
~
NUREG-0737 items originally scheduled for completion by 1/1/82 before startup from its 1983 refueling ou.tage as required by Order issued on March 14, 1983.
,~
This is acceptable in view of the responsible efforts demonstrated by the licensee and the unforeseen circumstance responsible for the delay.
The licensee has shown that adequate compensatory measures are in place.
The following discusses the acceptability of other, completion dates proposed by IELP.in its (MIPCmo
. 3 change for an item in Schedule B (as defined in Section III above),
it will provide the flRC written notification thereof, including the reasons =the~refoF4M an92c6mpdnsatbryLactions~ ivistituted;;4f.!
(.
I = 'het 2 pr'ovided -70= days 4 n 2a6vDff, s ueh M6 ti Mca11on' will '.be. prev 4ded t
by'-IELP 1:3^pNmpHf'es:Sc-ttssblie e 41RC2ma'yrtequeit: Yurtherle glanation or disciissi6n een6eFn1np~suren24haMe. 'In 'thisteven% discuss funstwill r
be 'iriitiatef 4/iWitthe NRC Wdj t Mith'a~gM :i HeReser W Ifl.P.1:hir.ges2< n
.._ scheduled = dates utH:.bestifect@ure unles484bitSuerttfyA04.ifjtt:4yf ELP.
u
~~ t I*:w 912T
.9121 yd be::lmdua A sIubedo2 bealys1 YI'.~.: Nk S".1
'YA*W at 8 siubedo2 ni aspasde pal: Iuast yns to DRM in Section V.B above, $1b geh Y tNe jbed-d As pointed out ules are inevitable.-
Action gegu gg,d by g a y g c.yg ed. 3 below:
0 1 'YS" UE" *dT N.*.*d.'.5cN$'Ife*StNd#3bd_ _iAIN...$ EisaEN5. u"zs, v,sm doldw asu22?
, s.,
b O
.k-
- 1 t
e:es:ic:55 at SD.caQ9n 9f}tcatnesIHasistep.t;y%qegp y
k.G t) 11f At:.
a gesoyrce pya1 Lihyng.
0fe@5bH W9Hd, t9,59?STdeS $&h6Q->tQ
~. &..
3 sd: ens 1 tn9Hfhdn p$ ppg pfe wgppgge.pgegrg~;2 -' f A eiutsd32 c:
3 3
g S20;0,4 c:
bfu o w n : E *a e n M r N..r q u t;y y g Irg Q;,ed:
tdw ms,co erubedaz befe, etnt is++
r.t s
d JrE q
e A
- t zegn provide.., at hM? BPM sk3
.t o,..h C-
-s, s ni bsB~ic an
- 3 9.w Jss.... u f :c 2 bez.rv rea tr D@
3.
NRC consideration of IELP che'., in non-Schedule A items is covered by V.B.
a..__,_,_,,..,.,._,_...
~
- s
- lisari ns 5 ed: :sde s:inecos: DE% sdr bns seane-li sdT 3:is:5RCIOrigi33ted: 6bece5-4S'chedule= A): bcc s urut s:2ues:
- ne=bnems sancoLL s :lmdua bns anch:solhlbc= beaa:c::
Isdts resogrtsete2.bss:fcgn11FRCs.nquilstppy,+ptgLpnpic ;
ydmay. sudU i::ps.esd s any5ee6Mpry3 rigi,ini.rpper._t;wietJb5dd.xed date or (2) establish a firm date for a previously',ih nti-fied regulatory requirement.
In taking any such action the NRC, to the extent consistent with its overall regulatory responsibilities and, unless public health, safety, or interest require otherwise, will take into account the impact of such action on IELP's ability to comolete effectively the items on Schedules A, and B, and, in consultation with IELP, will try to minimize such impact.
Although any formal regulatory action taken by the NRC will be effective in accordance with its terms without inclusion in Schedule A, the NRC and IELP recognize the desirability of incorporating such action into Schedule A, particularly in order to incorporate at the same time any other appropriate changes f
in the total integrated schedule program.
Accordingly, once such formal regulatory action is taken (or er.rlier, if
(
l
I practicarble), the NRC will provide IELP a reaschable op-
,)
- por.tunity to propose overall changes in the total integrated
, schedule program which would most ef fectively accommodate r.
Nsuch requirements.
Any resulting changes in items in
~
,rschedule A will be approved by NRC in accordance with
' :! established procedures, and will thereupon be reflected in a revised Schedule A submitted by IELP.
IELP will inform the NRC of any resulting changes in Schedule B in accordance
,.. a.L.ith Se..ction V above.
=...
z..
C.* ~"h,W-MRC Issues TSchedule ~B)
The NRC may, from time to time, identify new regulatory issues which may result' W-4)- plant modifications, b) procedure revision or development, or c) changes in facility staffing reisdrernents/ Tor issues as? to which NRC requests scheduling Ihf6%itt.fpn? thes.e issues may be included in Schedule B in accordance witW'thedhuj:ommitment 'devehYhed in discussions between IELP and the NRC st'a'f.f./ ~As' Yo'r the case of NRC-originated changes to Schedule A itenis, 'th'e NRC' wi11' provide IELP 'a' reasonable opportunity to propose
, Sveqall cha_nges in the. total integrated schedule program which would
_ ]hMt~effectlysly accommodate such-issues.
Any resulting changes in
~1htegrated program schedules wi1T thereupon be reflected in a re-vised Schedu1e B submitt'ed %y IELP.
~
- n..
=.
G VII. Modifications to the Plan The licensee and the NRC recognize that the Plan itself may require future modifications.::iaccordingly, IELP will draf t proposed modifications and submit a lice..se amendment
. app 12i6e::i5<in 'foi: approval of the proposed changes.
The
~
l
. S;'Icha'nges" wit 1 h made effecti~ve-upon amendment issuance by
-::: pac,y Er:.
sn: n: :
s-nz..
a l
y : c : r i :; s : 1. & :e c.
- 2
- -
.M
- ?g-e:# ' -
=
rout ?
- 'u-
..::a :::. :.:..
e:.s:1 s:i: y ' a.. : : s t t.= t : - : --
l
,9 / H.: n,
- m. ; ;
c :.,.: -r,;
(
- s..:01 ync..;.:n-::
m.
ni sul::shhs e 1 :*
s..:
.s-
,A e:ubsd:E s.1
- c
- a.::..
- .:::i.: :u e. e:.:.
- nics
- og:c:ni 1: 7:.::::r:;2si Sn s:..-:-. e i or :s5:: ::.:::1. :.: ;. :s;, A s.. i:
ESpCid s:$2:q::qq:
't.-~~~
-' E i J;
- f 9-j s.~.
,.:Enli ::-
- 1.* * :
- * :.11
- i. '
th.:s::: -
. w : t.:..
e g,
r\\
O l
f Q;y SCHEDULE A sa g
as I
as i
es i
of f
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
'l I
I I
I I
I I
I OUTAGES 34 "UEL CYCLE 7
>=4 FUEL CYCLE g
&E4 FUEL CYCLE 9
>E MARKI el Meloe*
W 1
bl Minot c) Plent Unfque Analyole a
I dl SPTMS
- O 4
H RECOMSGNER INete II 2
1 EOUlPMENT QUALIFICATION
- i 2
APPENDIX R ALTERNATE
- SilUTDOWN NUMEG ST37 el H.B.3 PASS
- W 4
bl H.K.3J7 Commen
.---e Referewe* Level i
i cl H.D.3.4 C.wel Room' W Habiletnitty
'I dl H.F.1.1 and H.F.1.2 W
i Accident Monitoring Note 1. IELP letter. LDR-s2-0ES. deced March 18. 1982 t
requeste esemption from thle dele.
i
- Completion date Isaked with end of refueling outage.
l i
scHeuutt0 '* W Attachmer.t 3 '
ft o o 1 c.f 2 gl I
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
I I
,l i
i i
i i
i OUTAGES E4 FUEL cvCLE 7 734 FUEL CYCLE 8
- E4 FUEL CYCLE 9,
iE CRDR ITEMS AND SHORT.
TERM
- ENHANCEMENTS l
SPTMS UPORADE' O
I CLASS A MODEL 0
0 l
CRO NOZZLE,C<1ACKING*== - e INete u APPENDIX l b"-"*""~"*""*"""4 MASONRY WALLS COMPLETE INete 29 1
CONTAINMENT PURGE Er==.-- e INote 31 VENT RPS MG
--e IComplete with eecepalen of opprewel of Techalcol Speelfleetten Changel DETABLED CROR O
O
~
MET SYSTEM TO SPDS*
O O
i APPENOlX A lOther Then INete el Alteenete Shutdown)
SPOS*
O NUREO,8737 i
C el8.C.I. EOP e*
<l
,t SDV LONG TERM MODS
- O*
1 SPOS UPGRADE' O
i PROCEDURES V PROCUREMENT AND INSTAtt ATION OF REACTOR IIE AVV LOADS SUILDING CRANE
- Completion date unbed wlah end of esfueling outage.
o
,. y "I'
SCHEDULE 8 S3 1
84 l
85 l
es t
87 3
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I OUTAGES.
E4 FUEL CYCLE 7 7E4 FUEL CYCLE a
?E<
FUEL CYCLE 9
>E CoseSTRUCT ERF/PP O
COtePUTER f ACILITY 8tELOCATE VAS COe4PUTER C
UPGRADE PLA8)T PROCESS ComeruTER erPCl -
RADtRFASTE 84000FICATIONS O
8 DEW FACILITIES OINPOl O
DESIGN INSTALL Sta4ULATOR OPQTENTIAll
4-------4 stPS IAssALOS TRIPl G> -- - - - - -e IPOTENTIAU Note 1. Eselsneced eseemee 94each 1983 leeuence of DAEC IIcones amendment.
lappa.. a= embsusetted August 29,1979 with later revlelone.) Final implementeilen to he 10 enenette feitoudng NRC appeevel of Technical Specificetten change.
Note 2. **m bened espose IELP embmittet. Final schedule le i;: _" : espen NRC review and appeevet of subenittet.
l Note 3. Scliedigte shouse eney these needlAcettene resolved for DAEC. Final schedule dependeset espose NRC/IELP seeolvalen of outetending leaves.
Note 4. To be cosapleted 9 sueenths after NRC octe en esempelen request.
l Note S. AR work eessepleted except procurement and installation of Reector Building Crane. IReactee Sweding Ceene Deelen Completodi l
.