ML20210P512

Responds to FOIA Request Re 770309 Div of Operating Reactors Memo 5 Concerning Issuance of OL Amend.Forwards Applicable Documents.Documents Also Available in PDR

ML20210P512
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/17/1986
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Pedro J NUS CORP.
References
FOIA-86-249 NUDOCS 8605130436
Download: ML20210P512 (2)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:,_ PDR-oI6 p nto UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION as x o W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5 l %..... j' Mr. Jim Pedro APR 17 W Licensing Engineer Licensing Information Service NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard IN RESPONSE REFER Clearwater, FL 33575-2094 TO FOIA-86-249

Dear Mr. Pedro:

This is in regard to your request, pt suant to the Freedom of information Act, to which the NRC asLAgned the above number. This is a partial response to your request. We will notify you upon completion of search for and review of any additional records subject to your request. X The staff has completed the search for and review of records subject to your request, and this is the final response to your request, o e The NRC has no records sub' ject to your request. Records subject to your request are available.f or public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, as noted on the enclosure (s). The PDR accession number is identified beside each record description. _X__ Records subject to your request are being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, in the PDR file folder under the above number and your name. These records are listed on the enclosure (s). We are enclosing a notice that provides information about charges and procedures for obtaining records from the PDR. Sincerely, i 66 Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration Enclosure (s): As stated 8605130436 860417 PDR FOIA PEDRO 86-249 PDR

4 b r 4 l 4 F01A-86-249 4 i j Appendix I j i 03/09/77 Memo for DOR Assistant Directors et. al. from Victor Stello, re: l D0R Memo No. 5: Issuance of Operating License Amendments, Including Revisions to Appendix A and B Technical Specifications (51 pgs.) k. I I a 6 4. j 3 T [ 3 4 t 4 i 1 i I. i l l 1 l 1 J j. ? -,,a,, .-~.... - ~.,,,,-.-,,-. -..-., -,,..--..,- -,, .-,,, -,-,,. n.. .,,---,,--..---,-.,.,--n,-,.,--

.(SCUciIt_i e-UNITED STATES [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON I 5 g W ASHIN GTON. D. C.'20555 k March 9, 1977 MEMORANDUM FOR: 00R Assistant Directors DOR Branch Chiefs D0R Project Managers D0R Licensing Assistants FROM: Victor Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors

SUBJECT:

00R MEMORANDUM NO. 5: ISSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING REVISIONS TO APPENDIX A AND B TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I. INTRODUCTION This procedure contains guidance for issuing amendments to operating licenses, including revisions to technical specifications, of nuclear power plants and to research reactors. Operating licenses of nuclear power plants now :nay include technical specifications as two appendices to the license: Appendix A technical specifications relate to health and gafety, and Appendix B technical specifications relate to environmentW1 impact. II. BACKGROUND-A ' Based on 10 CFR 50.59: 1. Licensees may make changes in the facility or procedures and conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report without prior Consnission approval unless such change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications or an "unreviewed safety question." 2. A licensee who desires to make a change in the facility or procedures or to conduct tests or experiments which involve an "unreviewed safety question" or to make a change in the technical specifications must submit an application for an amendment to the license. 3. If the amendment involves a "significant hazards consideration", public notice and an opportunity for a hearing must be provided prior to Comission action on the application for amendment. In addition,10 CFR Part 51 sets forth NRC policy and procedures for implementing the requirements of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in connection with the Commission's licensing and regulatory activities. Environ-mental impact statements are prepared,and circulated prior to any

1 ' March 9, 1977 major Comission action which significantly affects the q~uality of ' the human environment. Other actions may or may not require preparation of an environ-mental impact statement, depending upon the circumstances. In detennining whether an environmental impact statement should or should not be prepared for such action, the Comission is guided by 10 CFR 51.5 and by the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines, 40 CFR 1500.6.* If it is deterniined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared, a negative declaration (ND) and environmental impact ' appraisal (EIA) will, unless otherwise detennined by the Comission, be prepared. Guidance for making this determination and procedures to be followed are detailed in later sections of this procedure. /) ' g@ . Q h ( f -{ D g M k g\\. III. SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS It is neither possible nor desirable to provide a rigid formula which can be used to determine whether a proposed license amendment involves a significant hazards consideration. In some cases the collective judgment of senior staff members will be required before a decision can be made. For purposes of guidance, however, a proposed amendment can generally be categorized as involving a significant hazards consideration-if: (1) it involves a s.ignificant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, (2) it

.-.4 involves a significant decrease in a safety margin. These criteria must be applied using as a base what has been considered by the Comission in previous licensing actions in that specific case.

In evaluating a proposed license amendment, the staff must make two determinations. The first is whether the change involves a signif-icant hazards consideration. If it does, public notice and an opportunity for a hearing must be provided prior to Comission action. This applies to power, testing, research reactors and critical facilities. The second determination which the staff must make, of course, is whether the proposed amendment is acceptable and does not endanger the public health and safety. The first determination will fall into one of three categories: (a) it clearly involves a significant hazards consideration and should be pre-noticed at the earliest practical date, (b) it clearly does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and need not Each PM should read the CEQ Guidelines; Federal Register, Vol. 38, No.147-page 20550, August 1,1973. l [

i \\ , March 9, 1977 J 4 i -be noticed until after the' amendment is issued, or (c) there is un-certainty and normally the determination regarding pre-noticing will be deferred until the safety evaluation has progressed sufficiently to enable such a detemination. There are some cases where the timing of the amendment is critical and it might be most expedient to pre-notice at the earliest practical date even though it is not l possible to make a determination on significant hazards considerations. a Examples of license amendments which are more likely than others to i involve significant hazards considerations are listed in Enclosure 1. Types of license amendments which are not likely to involve significant hazards considerations are listed in Enclosure 2. For these types listed, the first determination should be made within a l 'few days of receipt of the proposed changes as to whether or not to i pre-notice imediately. As soon as this determination is made, the project manager should complete the determination form (Enclosure

3) and obtain the necessary concurrences.. However a determination i

need not be prepared when both the Branch Chief and the Project ) Manager conclude that 1) the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration and 2 processing the proposed amendment, including the SE and OETrev)iew of the amendment 1 3 j package, will be completed sufficiently in advance of when the i ~. licensee indicates he will need the amendment. This is so that it could still be prenoticed in the event final review of the amend-1 ment package indicates that a significant hazards consideration is l involved. This documents the staff intention regarding noticing of l the proposed change. i=- IV. REVIEW PROCEDURES 1 l A. Appendix A Type License Amendments - Power and Testing Reactors i j All Appendix A type license amendments require the preparation i of a safety evaluation (see fonnat in Enclosure 4). The i determination of ac.ceptability of an Appendix A type license i amendment involves an assessment of whether there is reason-able assurance that the facility can be operated in the manner j proposed without endangering the health and safety of the i public. This determination is made at the completion of the i safety evaluation and is documented in the SE. The scope and length of such a safety evaluation will be dependent on the significance and complexity of the amendment. In connection with any Appendix A type amendment, the pro-visions of Part 51 on environmental matters must be considered. i The cognizant ORPfi, in consultation with the EEB as appropriate. l and OELD, will make an appropriate finding regarding the k i i i i i L.

7 = j 4 . March 9, 1977 i I i 1 j necessary environmental determination. Guidance for detemin-ing proper action pursuant to Part 51 for Appendix A type' license amendments is given in Enclosure 5. If an eniiron- + j mental statement or a negative declaration /EIA is appropriate, i OR will prepare the document with assistance as needed from i EEB and/or DSE. l The ORPM will indicate, when appropriate, in the description of the proposed amendment included in the form shown in Enclosure 3 whether the proposed license amendment (1) is a major action significantly affecting)the quality of the human environment (refer to 10 CFR 5 i i i quantities of effluents from the facility or change the authorized power. level of the facility (refer to 10 CFR 51.5(b)(2)) or (3) authorizes the dismantling or deconunissioning of nuclear power reactors or testing facilities (refer to 10 CFR 51.5(b)(7)). l If the proposed amendment involves such matters, the ORPM will describe these changes to the extent possible. The ORPM will take the lead in developing a coontinated schedule for comple-l tion of the licensing action including environmental action required by Part 51, and the safety evaluation. j Our procedures usually have the Safety Evaluation and Environ-mental Impact Appraisal as separate documents. However at times l it would be advantageous to prepare a joint SE and EIA. 1 .y 1 ' presents the fonnat that shall be used when the c. i~ Project flanager determines it is appropriate and elects to have joint Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal. When the combined format is used the Project flanager should ensure that the Discussion and Introduction are adequate and }^ acceptable for both a Safety Evaluation and an Environmental l Impact Appraisal, j 8. Appendix B Type License Amendments - Power and Testing Reactors 1 ) If an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required (refer to 51.5(a)), license amendments involving Appendix B { technical specification changes will re an environmental impact appraisal (EIA) quire the preparation of i and negative declaration (ND) conforming to the requirements of 10 CFR 51.7 (see format { in Enclosures 6 and 7) or a finding that no negative declaration l l is required. Some types of Appendix 3 type license amendments (see Enclosure 8) are more likely than others to require the l preparation of an environmental impact appraisal and a negative declaration (refer to 10 CFR 51.5(b)(2) and 51.5(b)(7)). Others 4 I 3 I i l

1 - March 9, 1977 which do not require an EIS (listed in Enclosure 9) might not. i require the preparation of an environmental impact appraisal and a negative declaration. It is emphasized that Enclosure 8 is neither all-inclusive nor absolute. It is included for guidance only and often the collective judgment of senior staff members may be required before a decision as to the type of environmental evaluation that is required can be made. A determination must be made on the acceptability of the proposed Appendix 8 type amendment. This involves an assessment of whether there is. reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated in the manner proposed without having a significant adverse effect on the envimnment. This determination is made at the completion of the environmental evaluation and the basis therefore is documented in an environmental impact appraisal conforming to 10 CFR 51.7 or in the letter (see Enclosure 10) or in the SE ( (Enclosure 4) transmitting the approved Appendix 8 type license amendment to the licensee. The scope of such an environmental impact appraisal will be dependent on the significance of the amendment but except for changes which are obviously trivial in their environmental effect there should be some explanation (in addition to the boiler plate legal findings) of the reasons why' the proposed amendment is acceptable. Normally a formal safety evaluation is not required for changes to envimnmental technical specifications. However, each .. a change in environmental technical specifica'tions-requires the findings necessary to support statements (2) and (3) in the t' Conclusion of the Safety Evaluation (see Enclosure 4). C. Amendments to Reseerch Reactor Licenses Proposed amendments to research reactor licenses, including I those changing the technical specifications, are reviewed in the same manner as discussed above. Due to the nature of research reactors, license amendments for these facilities will rarely require preparation of an EIS. However, pursuant to Section 51.5(b)(1), CP's and OL's may or may not require an

,7 Environmental Impact Statement. CP's and OL's generally require an Environmental Impact Appraisal and Negative

"~ Declaration which concludes that no EIS is necessary. Some major considerations in determining if it is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the humsn en-vironment are reactor type, power level of the proposed facility and its location. License amendments for research reactors do not require NO and EIA (10 CFR Part 51.5(d)(4)). The ORPM, in his review of any such amendments, should be prepared to include the appropriate l i

! March 9, 1977 evaluation of any environmental impacts that may require Connission evaluation. V. ISSUANCE PROCEDURES i Upon completion of the safety evaluation and/or preparation of an EIA.and NO, a license amendment and transmittal letter are prepared (see fonnat in Enclosure 11). Additional formats for other types l. of license amendments are'shown in the LA Handbook. As discussed in Section III, if it is detennined that there is a significant hazards consideration, or for other reasons, a notice of the proposed j license amendment (see Enclosure 12) is published in the Federal Register (" pre-notice"). If the amendment does not involve a i 'significant hazards consideration, public notice of the issuance of such an amendment is required for power and testing reactors, but this will be done after Consission action on the application 3 i (" post-notice"). This latter notice is prepared at the time the amendment is issued and is published as soon as practicable there-l after. No notice of issuance is required for a license amendment for a research reactor, unless the proposed action has been pre-1 noticed. If an EIS is required, notices of intent and availability I l must be issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51. The negative declaration, I as discussed in Sections III.A and III.B. may be combined with the i Notice of Issuance (see Enclosure 13) or issued separately, depending 1 on the timing (see Enclosures 14 and 7). E5 N VI. AUTHORITYFORAPPRbVAL j 1 A. Coordination with ELD } ~ All license amendments must be submitted to ELD for review and 3 concurrence. Material sent to ELD for concurrence will be re-i turned with either concurrence indicated (suggestions regarding changes may be included) or reasons for nonconcurrence. Where expedited action on concurrence is required, the amendment I should be sent directly to the Chief Hearing Counsel with a I routing slip explaining the need for expedited action and a "Special Service" sticker (see Enclosure 15). Amendments so i designated will be processed and returned within three working j days. In all other situations, the amendment should be sent to the Office of the Executive Legal Director for concurrence within ten working days. B. Signatures and Concurrences i License amendments involving a significant hazards considera-tion are signed by the OR Assistant Director unless there has been a hearing board decision. Amendments issued following a l I l i 1 I

j i, j March 9,1977 1 hearing board decision may be signed by the Branch Chief, OR. License amendments which do not involve significant hazards considerations, orders, or major policy issues (such as transfer i i of ownerships) are signed by the OR8C. All notices and letters l to licensees (except those letters confinning emergency 1 authorizations), may be signed by the cognizant ORBC. Nega-tive declarations are signed by the ORBC. The safety evalu-l ation and/or environmental impact appraisal is origir,ated by the PM and concurred in by the Branch Chief. l C. Coordination with IE l Until such time as rated power level (as defined in the facility technical specifications) is initially authorized in the ] Itcense, all license amendments involving power increases for j power reactors operating under partial-power licenses should be coordinated with IE. An Inspection and Enforcement sup-porting memorandum must be available for any amendment autho-i rizing operation at increased power levels where there were previous uncompleted items that are relevant to the safety of operation at the higher power level, f. D. Additional Actions j License amendments may warrant the following additional actions, i L depending on circumstances.

~c

{ 1. Antitrust - If the amendment results in a substantially j different facility from that subject to the existing license, an antitrust review may be required. Any i i i questions in this regard should be directed to Antitrust i and Indemnity Group or the Chief Antitrust Counsel in ELD. 2. Indemnity - If the amendment results in a change in power i level, change of facility location or name, a significant modification that involves issuance of a CP, or transfer i of ownership, the licensee's indemnity agreement may be j affected. Any questions in this regard should be directed 1 to AIG or the Chief Regulation Counsel in ELD. 3. Office of Public Affairs - Representatives of the Office of Public Affairs should be informed of the pending i,'3 issuance of amendments which increase or decrease the power level of a nuclear power reactor or where there has ) been extensive public interest. They should receive a I copy of any notice of a proposed action. A press release j may be appropriate. l l --vm,,w n ,~,---..~,w- -xmm n- ,.-wwwnw,---wnm,.,-,,-me>+,n,-,-~-w w ~,, e r ~ mr v, ~ e >,. nw r -, v- ,e-

T ' March 9, 1977 VII. EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION At times a licensee may find that he is not in compliance with a particular specification and cannot attain literal compliance imediately. He may have a technically sound rationale as to why compliance with that specification is not necessary in the interest of safety or the environment in the existing circumstances and he may propose an alternative to accomplish the objective of the specification in question, pending either its change or compliance with it. If the proposed alternative cannot be given prompt approv-al, so that noncompliance with a specification has occurred or will occur, suspension of plant operation is generally indicated, particularly if the specification is a Limiting Condition for Operation (LOC). Licensees should be strongly encouraged to only submit applications that permit staff review and evaluation in a nonnal fashion. However if the licensee truly has an emergency, he should contact the ORPM. A complication in those situations that require prompt attention may be that it occurs at night or on a weekend when the personnel who would normally be involved in approving the proposed alterna-tive may not be available. Power reactor licensees have been instructed to contact the PM or an Operating Reactors Duty Officer when the PM is not available. The individual receiving the oral or telecopied request (PM or ORDO) should obtain sufficient in-formation and supporting facts from tne. licensee.to determine whether or not there. is a significant hazards consideration' and i whether or not the proposed change could endanger the health and safety of the public or has the p'otential for significantly adversely ~ affecting the environment, and request the licensee to confirm the ." y' request and facts by a formal application for an amendment. If a determination based on the information provided cannot be made, authorization must be denied or postponed pending further evaluation. OELD does not participate in the emergency authorization procedure at this time. After resolving the request with the ADOR, the PM or ORDO prepares a written evaluation and signs it. If the Assistant Director is not available, the matter will be referred upward in the OR chain-of-comand until resolution is obtained. The ADOR may provide oral authorization to the licensee and indicate that the authorization will be confirmed in writing. Immediately upon granting oral authorization, the Chief, Field Support & Enforcement Branch, IE, should be notified. The AD then dispatches a TWX or telecopy as soon as possible which references the oral authorization and confirms it. The original signed TWX or telecopy is mailed to the licensee (see Enclosure 16). 0

. March 9,1977 i If the situation occurs during after-duty hours the approving official should document the facts and the authority given (in handwritten fom), telephone the TWX through Western Union,* and assure that copies of his handwritten notes are placed in the docket files and PDR the next working day. As soon as possible, the formal license amendment package, including the safety and/or env.ironmental evaluation and Federal Register notice, should be processed and the usual concurrences obtained, including OELD. The effective data for the formal amendment is the data of the emergency authorization. In making a significant hazards consideration determination under emergency authorization conditions, it is necessary to consider the

• time period for the requested change. A change that might involve significant hazards considerations over an extended period might not involve significant hazards considerations for the defined l

limited time period requested by the licensee. The time variable i must be considered in such cases. Emergency authorization cannot be given if it is determined that the change involves a significant g hazards consideration. VIII. NRC INITIATED CHANGES i Amendments to a license are usually initiated by a request or l ( proposal from a licensee. However, there may be situations wherein the staff must initiate a change. All such changes must be accom-plished by either 'a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR paragraph i 50.91 or an " Order for Modification of License" pursuant to 10 CFR paragraphs 2.204 and 50.100. The approach selected to initiate the change should be based on the urgency of the needed change, the j confidence that the details of the change and its effects are known. Licensee proposed technical specifications should be requested when changes are needed or to establish new specifications based on general guidance such as found in Regulatory Guides. The staff should initiate this by a letter to the licensee, which identifies i the needed changes, provides a basis or sample specifications, and l requests the licensee to propose specifications that are tailored See Secretarial Handbook - Send through FTRC (632-7934, 632-7944, 632-3626) or through Western Union charging to home telephone.

O . jo. March 9, 1977 to his facility and which meet the need identified in the letter. 7 is a sample letter used to initiate technical specifi-cations changes using this approach. The proposed change submitted by the licensee, if acceptable, will be processed following other sections of this procedure. An unacceptable proposal would require that a second letter be sent to the licensee. Enclosure 18 is a sample of such a letter which must reiterate our belief that the change is needed and also include specifications that we have prepared and plan to issue if the licensee does not infom us in . writing within the period indicated that he does not agree with the 1 course of action, and his reasons. When changes to the technical specifications have some degree of ' urgency or are well defined, the staff should initiate the change by a letter to the licensee which identifies the needed change and provides the exact specifications we intend to issue, and the supporting safety evaluation. Enclosure 19 i 5 a sample of such a letter. Note that the letter for this approach is very similar to the followup letter for the approach described above for less urgent changes. In either case, the exact technical specifications must be prepared by the staff, as well as the supporting safety evaluation. Agreement of the licensee must be obtained prior to issuing a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 and 50.91. Licensee agreement is assumed if he does not infom the staff in writing within the period specified that he does.not agree with our U proposed course of action. For a license amendment initiated in "U this manner that involve a significant hazards consideration, the Federal Register notice shall be published only after the period of time (generally 20 days) specified in the letter to the licensee has expired. An unacceptable response from the licensee requires either further communications with the licensee or issuance of an Order. j Hhen a safety issue is believed to require imediate implementation, or the licensee will not agree to desired technical specifications, an " Order for Modification of License" should be prepared pursuant 1 to 10 CFR 2.204 and 50.100. Procedures for preparing an Order are presented in the LA Handbook. Whenever possible, the Order should i be for an amendment to the license (e.g., a new or a changed technical specification); it should not establish requirements or limitations on the licensee independent of the license. Therefore, the Order i should have associated with it a license amendment number. Thirty I t I

4 . March 9, 1977 days is the usual period before the Order is made effective; however, the Order may be made effective immediately if justified by public health, and safety or interest. Enclosure 20 is a sample of a' letter that transmits such an Order. <T),,e Vic 1, t Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

' Listed on next page cc w/ enclosures: B. C. Rusche E. G. Case OR Technical Coordinators H. Shapar. ELD T. Englehardt. ELD M. Grossman, ELD F. Ingram, PA b l - i t s

f s UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566 September 19, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: 00R Assistant Directors D0R Branch Chiefs 00R Project Managers D0R Licensing Assistants FROM: Victor Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors

SUBJECT:

00R MEMORANDUM NO. 5: REVISION TO ENCLOSURE 12 h f 2. " Notice of Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License", has been revised to incorporate changes necessitated by recent amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 and to eliminate the need for a " waiting period" after the expiration of the notice period before issuance of the prenoticed license amendment. Amendments may not be issued if a petition to intervene has been filed within the 30 days. Since petitions may be mailed up to the 30th day, it g has been necessary to wait an additional 5 days to be reasonably sure that no petition has been filed. In some instances, waiting the extra I days may impose severe burdens upon the licensee and the public. A statement has been added to the Prenotice that requests a petitioner to promptly inform the Conrnission, by a telephone call via Western Union Datagram to the appropriate Branch Chief, of any petitions filed during the last 10 days of the notice period. This will allow issuance of the prenoticed amendment on the 31st day if no Datagrams are received and if there is no other reason to believe that a petition has been filed. Datagram is Western Union's new 24-hour message servit By merely telephoning the toll-free number and following the simple instructions outlined in the new Prenotice statement, a petitioner's notice of filing will be received by the NRC Message Center (P-814) and transmitted to the appropriate Branch Chief within minutes. Before issuing a prenoticed O L i n d,l / L R Q y 7 f

D 1 2-license amendment on the 31st day, telephone the Message Center (X27371) for confirmation that no Datagrams have been received. M VictorSteki,J ctor Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Revised Enclosure 12 to DOR Memo No. 5 cc w/ enclosure: i H. Denton E. Case l T. Englehardt, OELD r M. Grossman, OELD J. Brilliant, TB R. Boyd D. Vassallo (4) DPM LA's (, DSE LA's 9 1 6 4 e k

j

Enclosures:

1. Examples of Appendix A Type License Amendments That Are Likely To Involve Significant llazards Considerations And Should Be' Pre-Noticed Prior To Safety Evaluation. 2. Examples Of License Amendments That Are Not Likely To Involve Significant Hazards Considerations And Should Not Be Pre-Noticed Prior To Safety Evalution. 3. Determination Of Proposed Licensing Amendment. I 4. Safety Evaluation By Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. S., Guidance For Determining Proper Action Pursuant To Part 51 For Technical Specifications Changes. 6. Environmental Impact Appraisal. l 7. Negative Declaration Regarding Proposed Changes To The Technical i, Specifications. l 8. Examples Of Appendix B Type License Amendments For Which Negative I, Declaration And Environmental Appraisal Are Required. 9. Examples Of Appendix B Type License Amendments That Are Not Likely (, To Require A Negative Decaration And Environmental Impact Appraisal. ,,,-;d

10. Example Of Letter ~ Evaluation In Lieu 0f' Negative Declaration And

~ Environmental Impact Appraisal.

11. Amendment To Facility Operating License

12. Notice Of Proposed Issurance Of Amendment To Facility Operating License.

13. Notice Of Amendment To Facility Operating License And Negative Declaration.

14. Notice Of Issuance Of Amendment To Facility Operating License.

E i 4 m

Enclosures:

(Cont'd)

15. Sample Routing Slip For Special Service.

16. Sample Letter For TWX Or Telecopy Of En,ergency Technical Specifications Changes.

17. Sample Letter To Initiate Licensee Proposed Technical Specifications Changes.

18. Sample Letter Reiterating Need For Changes.

19. Sample Letter Submitting Staff Initiated Changes.

20. Sample Letter Transmitting Order For Modification Of License.

21. Safety Evaluation And Environmental Impact Appraisal By The Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

h 0 9 4

I ~ EXANLES OF LICENSE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS AND SHOULD BE PRE-NOTICED PRIOR TO SAFETY EVALUATION

• 1.

Increase in authorized maximum power level (not previously evaluated by staff). 2. Any relaxation of safety limits. 3. Any relaxation of limiting safety system settings. 4. Any amendment resulting from a Section 50.59 plant modification, test or experiment or Tech Spec changes that involves or results from an unreviewed safety question. 5. Any relaxation in limiting conditions for operation not accompanied by compensatory changes, conditions, or actions that maintain a connensurate level of safety, as demonstrated by a previous safety analysis. 6. Any plant modification or other change that involves a new and different kind of accident not included.in the envelope of, accidents c_ n y considered previou' sly. 7. An extension of the term of the license (license renewal) l

• See Section III of this procedure for guidance in special circumstances.

O l l l

EXAMPLES OF LICENSE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT LIKELY TO INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS AND SHOULD NOT BE PRE-NOTICED PRIOR TO SAFETY EVALUATION 1. Any change that is limited to Appendix B Environmental Tech Specs. 2. Any purely administrative change to Tecn Specs (e.g., any change to Admin. Controls Section or Definitions, or correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature). 3. Any change to Tech Specs resulting from a Section 50.59 change, test, or experiment that does not involve or result from an un-reviewed safety question. 4. Any change proposed by licensee that constitutes an additional limitation, rt.ctriction, or control, not presently included in the Tech Specs, unless the change results from an unreviewed safety question. 5. Any changes resulting from a core reloading so long as no fuel assemblies significantly different from those used and analyzed for a previous core are involved, no changes are made to the bases for the Tech Specs, and the analytical methods used to demonstrate ~conformance with the bases are unchanged or are methods already found acceptable by the NRC. u r -! ? 6. Any increase in power level relieving an earlier restriction which was imposed because the plant construction was not yet completed satisfactorily. 7. Any change resulting from the application of a small refinement of a previously used calculational model or design method. B e

S DETERMINATION OF PROPOSED LICENSING AMENDMENT Licensee; Request for: (short description) Request Date: Proposed Noticing Action: ( ) Pre-Notice Reconmended i ( ) Post-Notice Reconmended I ( ) Determination delayed pending completion l of Safety Evaluation Basis for Decision: Proposed NEPA Action: ( ) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Required b , E n, ; ( ) Negative Declaration (ND) and Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) Required ( ) No EIS, ND or EIA Required ~ ( ) Determination delayed pending completion of EIA Basis for Decision: _j Concurrences: 1. PM(s) 2. (Branch Chief) 3. (Assistant Director) 4. (ELD) ]

' g# %,*g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g f j - WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 e \\,...../ SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. TO LICENSE NO. BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-293 Introduction By letter dated December 14, 1973, Boston Edison requested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. j DPR-35 for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The proposed changes involve: l 1. Eliminating surveillance requirements on systems or components during periods when they are not required. 2. Allowing the removal of more than two control rod drives at times when there is no fuel in' the reactor' vessel. 3. Deleting the suppression pool water volume requirements when there is no fuel in the reactor vessel. 4. Increasing the allowable total leak rate' specification for testable penetrations and isolation valves to 60% of L to (45) and 60% L to (23), respectively. Discussion These changes were originally proposed by the licensee during a meeting held between the licensee and representatives of the Regulatory staff on May 24, 1973, in Bethesda and have been the subject of additional discussion between the staff and Boston Edison since that time. The first change proposed by the licensee would in effect waive the requirements for periodic checking, testing, and calibration of in. struments and equipment during those periods in which these instruments, equipment or systems were not required to be operable. This waiver was also requested in-BEco's letter dated December 14, 1973. The licensee pointed out that it is not possible to conduct certain of the specified tests when the reactor is shut duwn ard the reactor vessel head has been removed; e.g., the weekly tests for HPCI and RCIC operability. Nor are there any functional requirements on these two systems during the i w 4

i 2-described condition. The licensee agreed to check, test, or calibrate i the instruments and equipment prior to declaring them operable or as soon as practicable thereafter. Changes 2 and 3 above are for a relief from restrictions 'which have relevance only when fuel is present in the reactor. Change 4 asks that the technical specifications relating to the limits I established for the allowable total leak rate associated with leak tests of testable penetration and isolation valves be changes to reflect conformance with Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 which was published subse-i quent to preparation of the present Pilgrim Technical Specifications.

j Evaluation Our evaluation of the four proposed changes is as follows:

l l (1) In reviewing the request eliminating surveillance requirements on systems or components when they are not required to be operable, we concluded that it was never the intent of the 4 Commission to require that an item of equipment or a system be i maintairied in an operable condition when the reactor is in a - mode or condition in which~ that equipment"or system is not. 4 '~ ' ~ required to serve any safety related function or protection against any accident condition. In fact, this intent is illustrated by several of the notes to the tables in Sections 4' 4.1 and 4.2 of the Technical Specifications. Therefore, we conclude that the addition of the definition " Surveillance 4 Interval" to the Technical Specifications does not reduce the safety provisions for restoration of inoperative equipment to j 1 be acceptable as stated. This definition is added to the Technical Specifications by addition of page Sa. With the addition of the definition for " Surveillance Interval" as described above, the Regulatory staff concludes that it is appropriate to add the definition " Surveillance Frequency" to clarify our' intent with regard to the frequency and timing of inspections and tests' to be conducted by the licensee. This definition of Surveillance Frequency is consistent with that i given in other Technical Specifications recently issued; e.g., Peach Bottom II and III, Browns Ferry and Cooper. Therefore, this change is a further step in seeking uniformity and clarity in the Technical Specifications for operating BWRs. We con-cluded that this change does not modify the safety provisions of the Technical Specifications and is therefore acceptable. 4 This definition is included on the new page Sa. t -w%,- -+.,,w e ...-e. .a--w.---s .e ww-----.-wr,,w- - - -er--v- =gr.-=w

• +m+.,

-wu. re v -y, ,~,3 yy.-ve--r--1 y w-e-. e m-c -m,,-r-e--

(2) In reviewing the request to allow removal of more than two control rods when there is no fuel in the reactor vessel, we concluded that neither the control rods nor the control rod drives serve as a safety objective when no fuel is in the reactor vessel, and the requirements on control rod opera-bility are not appropriate for the stated condition. There-fore, we have'added a sentence to Technical Specification i 3.3.F stating, " Specification 3.3. A through D do not apply when there is no fuel in the reactor vessel." This addition satisfies the above request and recognizes that it is not the ) intent to require that equipment be maintained in an operable i condition when its operation can serve no safety function. This change is implemented by a revision to page 86 of the Technical Specifications. j l (3) Our review of this proposed change deleting the suppression pool water volume requirements when there is no fuel in the I reactor vessel concluded that there are no safety requirements i for maintaining the suppressian pool flooded or cooled to 90*F as required by this specification when there is no fuel in the reactor vessel. Under this condition there is no requirement for the primary containment (or containment pressure suppression r 37 system).to be maintained. _This is illustrated by specification y 3.7.A.2 which requires the primary contaiiiment integrity to be , ~ T y maintained only_when "... fuel is in the reactor vessel..." Similarly, there is no requirement for the suppression pool to serve as a heat sink for condensing discharged steam from the i ADS relief valves, the RCIC turbine, or the HPCI turbine as illustrated by specifications 3.5.E.1, 3.5.D.1, and 3.5.C.1 which require the respective subsystems be operable only ...whenever there is irradiated fuel in the reactor vessel..." Also, there is no requirement for the suppression pool to serve as a source of emergency cooling water during a loss-of-coolant accident unless fuel is in the reactor vessel. This . 4.- is illustrated by specifications 3.5. A.1, 3.5.B., and 3.5.C.1 which incorporate the above quoted phrase. We, therefore, A& - conclude that the requested change does not compromise any safety requirement and have revised specification 3.7.A.1 on page 152 to make it conditional upon the presence of fuel in the reactor vessel. (4) We conclude that the total leakage rates for all testable penetrations and isolation valves should be raised to 60% to be ' onsistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, c and to be consist' nt with the requirements in other recently e issued Technical Specifications. In reviewing this matter, we further conclude that this modification does not increase the allowable operational leak rate and that the protection provided by the containment remains unchanged. The revisions to the Technical Specifications are shown as indicated on page 154 and 155 {

i \\ 4 Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types (r total amounts nor ad increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this de.ermination, we have further concluded that the amendment favolves an action which is insignificant from the stand-point of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declarption and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.* Concfusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant in-I crease in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety I margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consider-i ation, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety i of the public will not.be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. ,t

1. 'l *,

Alternative Conclusion (If Action Has Been Pre-Noticed) We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance ttat the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amend-ment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Date:

• Insert this paragraph only if appropriate i.e., no negative declaration or environmental statement needed.

4 - ~ ,,--,,.,..v.,, , - m -..r,-

i I i GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING PROPER ACTION PURSUANT TO PART 51 FOR TECH SPEC CHANGES For license amendments for power and test reactors the requirement of i Part 51 are met by one of three kinds of action, depending on the nature of the change. These three kinds of actions are as follows: (1) Action 1 involves a major action which could significantly affect the quality of the human environment or such other actions which may be determined by the Commission. Then an Environmental Impact Statement, a detailed statement, must be prepared by the Comission pursuant to NEPA and 10 CFR Part i 51. Includes proper notices of draft statement, public coment, i and final statement; similar to new CP or OL environmental i s tatement. t I (2) Action 2 does not involve a major action significantly affect-ing the quality of the human environment but does involve a change in type or quantity of effluents or decommissioning or change in facility, or such other action determined by the i Commission. Then a Negative Declaration, a formal statement, published in the Federal Register, that the Commission has e...n determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement must be prepared. This statement requires a written " environ-mental impact appraisal" as a basis. (3) Action 3 involves matters not covered by Actions 1 and 2 and requires a finding that'no negative declaration is required. This finding is incorporated in the letter transm.itting the license amendment or the safety evaluation to the licensee. In deciding which of the three actions is appropriate, the PM considers the nature of the change. If it is obvious that the amendment does not significantly change (increase) the types or amounts of effluents or significantly increase the authorized power level or involve a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, then Action 3 is appropriate. There is no fixed definition of the word "significantly" in Part 51 since this will. vary from plant to plant. For example, an increase in discharge water temperature of 3*T could be insignificant for one plant, yet be very significant at another location. The determination of significance is a judgment decision. I ,,,,.__,._m.,,y_

For purposes of environmental considerations, " effluents" from a power plant. include discharge of radioactive liquids and gases, chemicals, heated water, and cooling tower plumes. In some cases, noise could be considered to be an effluent. For amendments involving changes to Appendix A technical specifications, the ORPM decides first whether the amendment involves any action which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment or would involve any increase in the types or amounts of effluents, or ag in-

rease in authorized power level.

If none, Action 3 is appropriate. If there are any, the ORPM should consult with the EEB to determine whether such action or increase are considered significant. If not, Action 3 is i still appropriate. If yes, then the ORPM must prepare a negative i declaration and an environmental impact appraisal, or an environmental i impact statement consistent with Part 51. I Examples of changes to Appendix A technical specifications that could result in Action 1 or Action 2 are shown below: (1) Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement: . An increase in authorized power to a level significantly higher than previously evaluated in a NEPA review. ~ . Conversion from once-through cooling to cooling towers, or

?rl vice versa.

(2) Re. quiring a Negative Declaration and Enviro.nmenta,1 Impact Appraisal: .Either of the two examples in (1) above (if the facts of the situation, as documented in an environmental impact appraisal, support such a finding). . An increase in discharge water temperature or flow rate, if judged to be significant. O ~ 1

N UNITED STATES / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f j WASHINGTON, O. C. 20566 z \\,...../ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFiTC 0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISION COMPANY QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 2 ~ DOCKET NO. 50-265 4 l Description of Proposed Action By letters dated December 13, 1974, December 20, 1974, February 10, 1975, March 10,1975 and April 8,1975, the Commonwealth Edision Co. (CECO) submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications Appendix A to License No. DPR-30. The proposed changes were requested to incorporate limiting conditions for operation associated with fuel assembly specific ~ power (average planar linear heat generation rate) resulting from the application of the Acceptance Criteria for core refueling using 8 x 8 fuel. The licensee's response of March 14, 1975, I concerning the ECCS Acceptance Criteria stated that there would be no environmental impact associated with these proposed changes. We have independently reviewed this matter and the conclusions are set forth below. 1 The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 located in the State of Illinois, County of Rock Island, at power levels up to 2,511 megawatt thennal (MWt) using a full core of 7 x 7 fuel (containing U-235). The proposed change to incorporate the ECCS Acceptance Criteria in conjunction with a partial core refueling using 8 x 8 fuel does not result in an increase or decrease in power levels of the unit. The restrictions on heat generation rates will require careful control of fuel operating history. However, there should be not reduction on total burnup resulting from the revised ECCS evaluation methods. Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action, the action does not affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in the Consnission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 dated September 1972.

_. _ _ Enclosure 6 Toward the end of core life, reactor reactivity decreases. As noted in our Safety Evaluation Report relating to the 8 x 8 reload, the licensee has not yet properly analyzed these conditions and has consequently not i been authorized to operated to end of core life conditions. When properly analyzed, operation to end of core life may be appropriately authorized. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Ac_ tion Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are j those which may be associated with incorporation of the ECCS Acceptance j Criteria and utilization of nuclear fuel for this facility. f It is particularly noted that in the absence of any significant change in power levels, there will be no change in cooling water requirements -l and consequently no increase in environmental impact from radioactive effluents and themal effluents for nonnal operation or post-accident conditions which in turn could not lead to significant increases in ~ radiation doses or thermal stress to the public or to biota in the environment. For nonnal operating conditions, no environmental impact other than as described in the Comission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for. _E% Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 dated September 1972, can be predicted for the proposed action. The Comission's calculated releas6s for radioactive effluents, both gaseous and liquid, i are based on expected release rates to the environment and are quantified 1 on the basis of the total quantity of nuclear fuel within the reactor. The estimates of radionuclides and release rates will not be affected by the proposediction, and since the total quantity of nuclear fuel is unchanged, no increase in the calculated release of radioactive effluents is predicted. Consequently, no increases in radiation doses to man or other biota are predicted. Conclusion On the basis,of the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than has already been predicted and described in the Connission's FES for Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2. Having made this conclusion, the Connission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate. Date: L ( \\ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENCMENT TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF LICENSE DPR-(NAME OF FACILITY) (DOCKET NO. ) I -l The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) is considering the issuance of an Amendment to Facility Operating License No. issued to [name of licensee], for operation of the [name of facility] (the facility) located in [ location]. ( The amendment would revise the provisions in the Technical Specifi-Mi cations relating to [ describe changes being made], in accordance with r the licensee's application for amendment dated i The Comission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the proposed amendment and has concluded that an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant* environmental impact attributable to the proposed action. The environmental impact appraisal is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the [ local PDR]. A copy may be obtained upon request addressed

• Use if appropriate L

l to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, D.C.

20555, Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactors.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ( name ), Chief Operating Reactors Branch # Division of Operating Reactors l i i k l .~ W r I

i EXAMPLES OF APPENDIX B TYPE LICENSE AMENDMENTS FOR WHICH NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL ARE REQUIRED Section 10 CFR 51.5.b.(2) of Part 51 states that issuance of an amendment to a construction permit or full power or' design capacity operating license for a nuclear power reactor, testing facility,. .. or to a license to manufacture that would authorize a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of effluents or a significant increase in the authorized power level; ? would require the p, reparation of an environmental impact appraisal and a negative d'eclaration. Some examples follow: t _i 1. Operation with increased concentrations of total free and i combined chlorine. { 2. Changeover to closed cycle condenser cooling system. 3. Increase in condenser cooling water differential temperature - increase in maximum discharge. temperature..

.:. 2:

4. Delete requirement for minimum 60-day holdup of radioactive gaseous wastes. l 5. Incorporation of modified radioactive waste treatment system into original system. Section 10 CFR 51.5.b(7) of Part 51 states that amendments or orders authorizing the dismantling or decommissioning of nuclear power reactors or testing facilities would require the preparation of an environmental impact appraisal and a negative declaration. O e n-- w y- ,e-,

i i EXAMPLES OF APPENDIX B TYPE LICENSE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT LIKELY TO REQUIRE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL i Section 51.5.(d)(4) of Part 51 states that unless otherwise deter- ' mined by the Commission, an environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuances of amendments which are not covered by paragraphs 51.5.(a) and 51.5.(b). Such actions might include the following: i I 1. Definition of environmental sampling locations and change in sample types. ~l 2. Deletion of environmental monitoring requirements shown to be j unnecessary... increasing sampling in other areas. + 3. Back-up procedure in case of thennal monit;oring network failure - P n= u change sample preservation procedures re EPA approved procedures. 4. Clarification of intent - maximum temperature across condensers. l .{ 5. New submittal date for report on evaluation of effects of shortterm exposures to temperatures and salinities that might be experienced under emergency conditions. 6. Any purely administrative change to Tech Spec (e,.g., change position of Manager of Power Supply to Vice President (Power Supply) to reflect upgrading of company's corporate structure. 7. Changes in Reporting Requirements. l In these cases'an environmental evaluation will be included in the i letter transmitting the amendment to the licensee. The 1e'tter will include a brief description of the changes and probable impacts and j a conclusion as shown in Enclosure 10. ) h l

b UNITED STATES jg' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 e 49.....,o EXAMPLE OF LETTER EVALUATION IN LIEU OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL 0 Docket No. (ADDRESS) Gentlemen: The Comission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. to Facility i License No. for the - (name of facility) This amendment con- ? sist of changes to the technical specifications in response to your l request dated This amendment revised the provisions in the Technical Specifications relating to (description). We have evaluated the-potential for environmental impact of plant opera-w, tion in accordance with the enclosed amendment. The amendment applies to administrative details, to the environmental sampling locations, and to sampling frequencies. 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 stand-point of environmental imoact and pursuant to 10 CFR 5 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact s'.atement, negative declaration or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment. Since the amendment applies only to administrative details, to the environmental sampling lccations, and to sampling frequencies, it does not involve significant new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Comission safety review of the facility. It does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration. We have also concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by this action.

. 0-A copy of the related Notice of Issuance is also enclosed. ~ , Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No, to DPR 2. Notice ,i. I cc: See Attached List y 1. i e l .5 __. ii I 1 I ,,,n,,- ~q --y.,-m-- -g w

e UNITED STATES j g

• g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 e \\,...../ 1 (NAME OF LICENSEE) DOCKET NO. (NAME OF FACILITY) AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. License No. f 1. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has found that: 1 A. The application for amendment by (name of licensee) (the i licensee) dated , complies with the standards and .l requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Comissica's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; ( B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions (()the Act, and the rules and regulations of. g, the Comission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities au-thorized by this amendment can be conducted without endan-gering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be {gducted in compliance with the Commis-sion's regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR rart 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. F. Publication of notice of this amendment is not required since it does not involve a significant hazards consideration nor 2.106(a)(2).$2}icenseofthetypedescribedin10CFRSection amendment of (1) For some amendments these findings may not be necessary. (2) Required, as appropriate, for amendments to research reactor licenses.

4 .. 1 2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph of facility Operating License No. DPP.- is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and i B, as revised through Amendment No. , are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in y accordance with the Technical Specifications. ) 3. This license amendment is effective as of the date of its issuance. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION , Branch Chief

• i for Division of Operating Reactors

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance:

• Branch Chief if no significant hazards considerations or amendments of minor actions Insert license technical specification paragraph r; umber; e.g.,

2.C.(2) m

UNITED STATES !!UCLEAR REGULA'0PY CO N SSION D3CKET t;9. NAME OF LICEl;SEE { f/ NOTICE OF PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPErJJING LICENSE n The United States Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. issued',to name of licensee (the licensee), for operation of the facility name ' located in location The anen'dment would revise the provisions in the Technical Specifications l relating to describe changes being made I in accordance with the licensee's application for agendment dated Frior to issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Ccmmission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the, i -:&J ~ Act) and the Ccm:nission's regulations. (1) "g],],.1f f. et w, s, ~ 'By (30 days after publication in FR), the licenscej may file a request- .l for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility u] pperating license and any person whose interest r;.ay be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding mu,st file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a. hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Codission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. ,1f a. request (1) if the proposed amcr.dcent is inciuded in pre-notice packt.ge, add the following to the end of tnis paragraph: "which are set forth in the proposed license acencment." e 9 e

1 ' Enclosure 12 l_ g [ 4 ~ for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, 1 the Ccmission or an Atc=ic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the C-Mion or by the,Chairran of the Atomic Safety arx! Licensing Board Panel, will rule onJthe request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designited . Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an ~ ~ appropriate order. ! As required by 10 CFR 52.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall, ,3 set forth witih par'ticularity the interest of the petitioner in the' proceeding, Y and how that interest ray be affected by the resu'lts of the proceeding. Tne ptition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be'permicted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the [ nature of ine petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party'to the l' proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial,- O or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any. order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. Tne q a petitica should al,so identify the specific aspect (s) of the sucject ratter of the proceeding as to stich petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a pletition for leave to intervene or who has been a X$ r party ray amend h&s petition 4 ut su::h an amenced petitibn must satisfy the b specificity requirerents described above. Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference CL-scheduled in the proceeding, she, petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene stich must inclu6e a list of the contentiong which are sought to be litigatad in the ratter, and the bases for each contention set M forth with reascnacle specificity. A A petitioner wtra fails to file suen a 14m6ud nu wdaan. _ m9

---

w

gY-k supplement which satisfies th'ese requirements with respect to at least one I contention will not be. permitted to participate as a party. t. ]j Those.perni.tted t'o ir.tervene beccme parties to the proceeding, subject i to any limitations in the or' der granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, inc1'dding i ', the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. A request for a hearing or a petition for lea've to intervene sha,ll be [ filed with the Secretary of the Ccmmission, United States Nuclear Regulatory' Commission,5lashington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service' lf' cr, cay be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N'.W., Washington, D.C. by the above date. Where petitions are filed i during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner or representative for the petitioner promptly so inform the , ( (o000 [ ~ Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6 CD

c..e l

Mo0 (in Ilissouri (6 342-4GC0J). The Western Union operator should be given 4 Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Branch Chief's name (petitioner's name and telephone number); -(date petition was mailed); (plant name); and'(publ.ication date and page msnber of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice). A copy of the petition should also ~ be sent to 'the Esecutive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and to licensee's attorney's name and address , attorney for the licensee. f e

f. l \\ ~ Nontimely filings of petitions for leav.e to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitioris a'nd/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a detemination by the Co.nnission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and licensing Board designated to rule on,the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the' ~ granting of a late petition and/or request..'That deteminati will be based, ,.upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 12.714(ayi)-(v) and l' $2.714(d). For further details with respect to this action, see the application fc amendmenidated , which is available for public inspection at the Co aission's public Document Roem,1717 H Street. N. W, Washington, D. C., and at the 1ccal PDR i Dated at Bethesda, Paryland this day of-19 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CDP. MISSION =" Chief Branch l Division of Operating Reactors O e S W e

l 3 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPetISSION DOCKET NO. (NAME OF LICENSEE) f NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMEN 0 MENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE i AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 t The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) has issued i i f.rendment No. to Facility Operating License No. issued to [name of licensee], which revised Technical Specifications for opera-tion of the (name of facility) (the facility) located in [ location]. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance. - The amendment pennits l [ general description of changes made] The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and. i the Comission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appro- ) 1 priate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license l amendment. [ Prior public notice of this amendment was not required l since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards considera-tion] or [ Notice of Proposed Issuance of Amendnent to Facility Operating License in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL - REGISTER on (F. R. citation). No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following notice of the proposed action]. 4 i .,,,m- -,._.-y r ---.wy- ,-.r,.--,,cw ,y--,,,p., ,.-,v.g

_ = - i . ' 3 i The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revis'ed Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ-mental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted be-cause there will be no environmental impact attributable to the action 'other than that which has already been predicted and described in the l Comission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility, dated [ appropriate date). E i For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the applica-ii tion for amendment , (2) Amendment No. to License No. (3) (the Commission's related Safety Evaluation]* and (4) the Connission's Environmental Impact. App.raisal. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Connission's Public Document _ l Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. and at the (location of i local PDR). A copy of items (2), (3)* and (4) may be obtained upon request addressed tJ the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactors. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ( name ), Chief ( ) Division of Operating Reactors

• May not be required for license amendments involving Appendix B technical specification changes only.

7 .,,.-.----e.

i . 4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. (NAME OF LICEllSEE) i NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has issued Amendment No. to Facility Operating License No. , issued to (name of licensee], which revised Technical Specifications for operation of the [name of facility] (the facility) located in [ location]. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance. E,q The amendment permits [ general description of changes madel f The application for the amendment complies with the standards and g requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's rules and regulations. The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. [ Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration] or [ Notice of Proposed Issuar.ce of Amendment to Facility Operating License in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on (F. R. ci-tation). No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following notice of the proposed action. I 4-- c -m i,

[The Commission has determined that the issurance of this amendment will not result in any signit.': ant environmental impact and that pur-suant to 10 CFR 551.5 (d)(4) an environmental impact statement, or r.egative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of this amendment.] or (In connection with issuance of this amendment, the Commission has issued a Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Appraisal.] [ For further details with repsect to this action, see (1) the appli-i cation for amendment dated , (2) knendment No. to License } No. (3) the Connission's related Safety Evaluation, and

• 1 (4) The Commission's Negative Declaration dated (which is also being published in the Federal Register) and the associated Environ-mental Impact Appraisal, All of these items are available for public

-1 m inspection at the Connission's Public Documer.t Room,1717 H Street, j N. W., Washington, D. C. and at the (location of local p0R). A copy of I itens (2) an d (3) (or (3) and (4)] may be obtained upon request addressed i to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.

20555, I

Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactors. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ( ), Chief ( ) Division of Operating Reactors NOTE: For use when no environmental findings is required or when a negative declaration is issured separately. Omit when there is no Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Statement.

. 5 .6 f t B ROUTlHG AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP " ~ = roov .su ,,.a.i.,s. u ; i ..a c. ..ree. e ... f..LS P..A A l ..es .ua r... .g.,

• '." '.O.

i ...,. m i .s namAnss .jih.?Q % WJe.(.s% yC6/*'f-k? ISRECIAE,t. 9 r (#=.1.SEltVICEs o-c.sc * -.. 1 + " ;i x < - t 2 Provide justification for needing Special Service. Do NOT use t'is forse as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, n disapprovals, clearsaces, and sassilar setsoas F R0as 07.ac...ths. er.c6 8.* 8 ti nb eu s OPTIOI4AL F0tal 43 .----a as.-eas .ee 3841-888 aueuer see7 esa ripesse t ascrses se a-st.aes 1 1

_ 6 SAMPLE LETTER FOR TWX OR TELECOPY OF EMERGENCY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (Date) Docket No,. (Address of Licensee) 1 Gentlemen: This confirms our telephoned authorization given today (date) for a change in Technical Specific'ations for the (name) facility as requested i by (your method - e.g., TWX or telecopy) on (date). Facility Operating License No. DPR-(XX) is amended on this date (same date as above approval) j by making the following technical specification change: Paragraph 3.A.2.a to read: The franis is operational during the wolligog at temperature equal s_. to or less than 212*F. For the period from 8:00 a.m. January 31, ~ 1975 until 8:00 a.m. February 2,1975, the franis may be eperated at temperature equal to or less than 220*F. Copies of the license amendment, our evaluation and Federsl Register Notice for this technical specification change will be sent to you when completed. Sincerely, , Assistant Director Division of Operating Reactors 1 n

SAMPLE LETTER TO INITIATE LICENSEE PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGES [e nn UNITED STATES 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM:sslON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20sse Enc 1osure 17, j j e A .a / Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 f Wisconsin Electric Power Company Wisconsin Michigan Power Company ATTN: Mr. Sol Burstein Senior Vice President 231 West Michigan Street Miluaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Gentlemen: 5 We are developing standard technical specifications and have completed 4 the section on " Administrative Controls", a copy of which is enclosed. i 3 i We have reviewed the present section on " Administrative Controls" in your Technical Specifications for Point Beach Units 1 and 2. We have also i reviewed technical specifications that you have proposed during the past j year on minimum crew size and the definition of "abnonnal occurrence". i Based on our review, we have detennined that the administrative controls / for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 should be revised to be consistent with. I the fonnat and c9ntent of the standard section.- S' The standard section incorporates the recommendations of the recently issued Regulatory Guide 1.16, "Raporting of Operating Infonnation Appendix A Technical Specifications" Revision 2, of which a copy is also enclosed. Regulatory Guide 1.16 describes the infonnation that is needed to permit assessment by the Commission of safety related activities during the operating life of facilities. Accordingly, you are requested to s 'iit by December 1,1974, a proposed change to the section on " Administrative Controls" in your Technical Specifications and proposed changes to any other parts of your Technica? Specifications that must be changed for consistency, such as the definition of "abnonnal occurrence". Pleaise' provide justification l for any departure from the standard section~on " Administrative Controls" or Regulatory Guide 1.16. ~ Sincerely, { j George Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

See next page 7 j i ~ ,m.__. ..y._. ,,__m._, ,,.,,.,_,,y_, ,,.,._,,.,.__.,,_,,,.,a

1. ,.. _ _ _. _ _...,,,,,_.,..y,__m

_,._-..,w_3,

SAWLE LETTER REITERATING NEED FOR CHANGES [ UNITED STATES y . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 g '+, *.... p! 8 Docket No. 50-313 1 Arkansas Power & Light Company ATTN: Mr. J. D. Phillips Senior Vice President Production, Transmission and Engineering Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Gentlemen: l Our letter to you of January 10, 1975 discussed a need for additional i Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance Requirements (SR) in the Technical Specifications related to the filter systems installed at Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 (ANO-1). We requested that you submit an application for amendment to your license that would change the Technical Specifications relating to these installed filter ~ systems. Your letter of February 7,1975 stated that you did not consider it appropriate to incorporata such changes in the Technical Specifications for, ANO-1. ! WM.e Because of the potential adverse effects on public health and safety which could result from an accident while operating with the present requirements on the installed filter systems, we believe that appropriate changes to the Technical Specifications are needed to assure that the installed filter systems at ANO-1 will function reliably, when needed, at a level of efficiency at least equal to that assumed in our accident analyses for the plant. The basis for this position is provided in our Safety Evaluation, a copy of which is enclosed. Accordingly, unless you infom us in writing within 20 days of the date of this letter that you do not agree with this course of action, including your reasons, we plan to initiate steps to issue the enclosed change to the Technical {f Specifications of ANO-1. j Sincerely, i Karl R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

1. Proposed Changes to Technical 1 Specifications ~ 2. Safety Evaluation l i i j

4 ~ ~ SAMPLE LETTER SUBMITTING STAFF INITIATED CHANGES j# '? UNITED STATEC r g

• g NL*CEEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON O

WASNINGTON!D. C. 20555 ja s '4 '4 +

• • • • • 9 Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. J. S. Abel

.J Nuclear Licensing Administrator - Bdiling Vater Reactors Post Office Box 767 i Chicago, Illinois 60590 8 - Gentlemen: f RE: DRESDEN 2/3 ,1 Cracks have been detected in the collet housings of the control rod drives at Dresden Unit 3, Browns Ferry 1 and Vermont Yankee. The problem appears to be a stress assisted corrosion problem that may be generic to most boiling water reactors. In light of this experience, we believe that appropriate changes to technical specifications for this type reactor are needed that will prohibit extended operation with immovable rods. Accordingly, unless you inform us in writing swithin 20 days of the date of this letter that you do not agree with this course of action, including your reasons, we plan to initiate

teps to issue the enclosed changes to the technical specifications or your facility. A copy of our related safety evaluation on this matter is enclosed.

Sincerely, Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors s

Enclosures:

1. Technical Specification > 2. Safety Evaluation

SAMPLE LETTER TRANSMITTING ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF LICENSE f umiso STATES 1 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON s wAsmucrow. o.c.20sss e $(, jf 0 g Docket No. 50-(Address of Licensee) i j Gentlemen: -i The Commission has issued the enclosed Order for Modification of License j which orders a change in the Technical Specifications of Facility Operating i License No. DPR-for the (name of facility) The enclosed Amendment No. ___ to the license incorporates the ordered modifications. The Order (description) 7 ~ -~; 1 A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. The Order is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Sincerely, , Chief Operating Reactors Branch # Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

1. Order for Modification of License 2. Amendment No. 3. Safety Evaluation -ws-y e

t N UMTED STATES G j g 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s wAsmucrow, o.c.2oses r 1 %,,**.**,/ SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION , SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-NAME OF LICENSEE NAME OF FACILITY DOCKET NO. 50-E [ Introduction i! i } Discussion I. ( I-Safety Evaluation Conclusion on Safety II-Environmental Impact Appraisal \\ Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration Date: a+- n-,,-e-

UNfTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. ~ NAME OF LICENSEE NOTICE 0'F PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE The United States nuclear Regulatory Co=ission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. . issued ',to name of licensee (the. licensee), for operation of the ' located Yn ~ . facility name location The amendment would revise the provisions in the Technical Specifications relating to describe changes being made in accordanc'e with the licensee's application for amendmer.t dated Prior te issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will [' j g _,- have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the i p Act) and the Cc=fssion's regulations. (1) 'By (30 days aftir publication in FR), the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuanc'e cf the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this t proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petitionefor leave to intervene. ~ Red uests for a. hearing and petitions i for leave to intervene shafl be filed in accordance with the Condission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. ,If a. request (1) if the propcsed amer.dment is included in pre-notice package, add the following to the end of this paragraph: "whicn are set forth in the proposed license amencment." e e e .--y .ee -, -+ -,-

I ~ e Conclusion an We have concluded, based on the con iderations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendnent does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences o -^" "-- ' eva.l ude clyt and does not involve a significant ggf previousi in a afe argi the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consi eration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, an.d (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 co mon defense and security or to the health and safety of f' the public. I t i-an ate; des o& a +ye MGerew from e-any estuded previousQ, l g.s ~ t i i ( . _ ~ ,}}