r A . lA4 1 ' FO

TO ALL POWER REACTOR AND TESTING FACILITY LICENSEES

SUBJECT: NEW PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC NOTICE CONCERNINGISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING LICENSES (GENERICLETTER 83-19_)

On April 6, 1983 the NRC issued interim final rules (48 FR 14864) that

significantly Impact the way in which the licensee and the NRC staff processoperating license amendments. The purpose of this letter is to highlightthose requirements that directly affect licensees.

The changes to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 provide for:

o Definitive criteria for determining whether an application forlicense amendment involves a significant hazards consideration.A new 10 CFR 50.92 provides the standards for making a *no signifi-cant hazards determination".

o A new 10 CFR 50.91 requires notice to the general public and tostate officials concerning applications for license anendments.Of particular interest is the provision for prior public noticeof an opportunity for hearing and a thirty (30) day commentperiod for license amendments which involve *no significanthazards considerations.0 Also of Interest are standardsfor Issuance of license amendments involving 'no significanthazards consideration" under emergency or exigent situations.Changes have also been made to 10 CFR 50.58 and 10 CFR 2.105to reflect the new requirements for providing notice to thepublic and state officials.

We request that all power reactor and testing facility licensees review

the recent changes to 10 C&R Parts 2 and 50 concerning 'significanthazards considerations" as these considerations impact prior notice tothe general public and state officials. For your convenience, we haveprovided this material as Enclosure 1, herein. Enclosure 2 providesexcerpts from the subject rule changes which represent requirements, onlicensees.-for submittals of applications for operating license amendments.Enclosure 3 provides a list of designated state representatives who must

be provided, by licensees, with copies of license amendment applicationsand associated analyses concerning significant hazards considerations, 'pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1). -1

,l

8305020455

If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact C. Tramnell(301-492-7389).

Sincerely,

j stna. signe Ab

Darrell G.RPienhut, DirectorDivision of Licensing

Enclosures:As stated

h_ CIT

OFFICER ..9A...4h1t,SURNAMESk ..Qd ef.f.e.?

DATEk 4 Q100 ........NRC FORM 318 (1040) NRCM 0240

........................

........................

........................

........................

........................

........................

USGP0 1981-3359W

f,_A N1

a 'UNITED STATESe t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

00 w } WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

TO ALL POWER REACTOR AND TESTING FACILITY LICENSEES

SUBJECT: NEW PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC NOTICE CONCERNINGISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING LICENSES (GENERICLETTER 83-19_)

On April 6, 1983 the NRC issued interim final rules (48 FR 14864) thatsignificantly impact the way in which the licensee and the NRC staff processoperating license amendments. The purpose of this letter is to highlightthose requirements that directly affect licensees.

The changes to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 provide for:

o Definitive criteria for determining whether an application forlicense amendment involves a significant hazards consideration.A new 10 CFR 50.92 provides the standards for making a "no signifi-cant hazards determination".

o A new 10 CFR 50.91 requires notice to the general public and tostate officials concerning applications for license amendments.Of particular interest is the provision for prior public noticeof an opportunity for hearing and a thirty (30) day commentperiod for license amendments which involve "no significanthazards considerations." Also of interest are standardsfor issuance of license amendments involving "no significanthazards consideration" under emergency or exigent situations.Changes have also been made to 10 CFR 50.58 and 10 CFR 2.105to reflect the new requirements for providing notice to thepublic and state officials.

We request that all power reactor and testing facility licensees reviewthe recent changes to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 concerning "significanthazards considerations" as these considerations impact prior notice tothe general public and state officials. For your convenience, we haveprovided this material as Enclosure 1, herein. Enclosure 2 providesexcerpts from the subject rule changes which represent requirements, onlicensees, for submittals of applications for operating license amendments.Enclosure 3 provides a list of designated state representatives who must,be provided, by licensees, with copies of license amendment applicationsand associated analyses concerning significant hazards considerations,pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1).

d-N)l~

->

8305020455

If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact C. Trammell(301-492-7389).

Sincerely,

Division o Licensing

Enclosures:As stated

Enclosure 3

State Designees

Alabama

Ira L. Myers, M.D., State Health OfficerState Department of Public HealthState Office BuildingMontgomery, Alabama 36130Tel.: (205) 832-3120

Arkansas

E. Frank Wilson, DirectorDivision of Environmental Health ProtectionDepartment of Health4815 West Markham StreetLittle Rock, Arkansas 72201Tel.: (501) 661-2301

California

Joseph 0. Ward, ChiefRadiological Health BranchState Department of Health Services714 P Street, Office Building #8Sacramento, California 95814Tel.: (916) 322-2073

Colorado

Albert J. Hazle, DirectorRadiation Control DivisionDepartment of Health4210 East 11th AvenueDenver, Colorado 80220Tel.: (303) 320-8333, Ext. 6246

Connecticut

Arthur Heubner, DirectorRadiation Control UnitDepartment of Environmental ProtectionState Office BuildingHartford, Connecticut 06115Tel.: (203) 566-5668

Florida

Ulray Clark, AdministratorRadiological Health ServicesDepartment of Health and Rehabilitative Services1323 Winewood Blvd.Tallahassee, Florida 32301Tel.: (904) 487-1004

. -2 -

Georgia

James G. Ledbetter, CommissionerDepartment of Human Resources47 Trinity AvenueAtlanta, Georgia 30334Tel.: (404) 656-5680

Illinois

Mr. Gary N. Wright, ManagerNuclear Facility SafetyIllinois Department of Nuclear Safety1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th FloorSpringfield, Illinois 62704Tel.: (217) 546-8100

Iowa

Thomas HouvenagleRegulatory EngineerIowa Commerce CommissionLucas State Office BuildingDes Moines, Iowa 50319Tel.: (515) 281-6592

Louisiana

William H. Spell, AdministratorNuclear Energy DivisionOffice of Environmental AffairsP.O. Box 14690Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898Tel.: (504) 925-4518

Maine

Wallace Hinckley, ManagerRadiological Health ProgramDepartment of Human ServicesState House, Station 10Augusta, Maine 04333Tel.: (207) 289-3826

Maryland

Robert Corcoran, ChiefDivision of Radiation ControlDepartment of Health and Mental Hygiene201 West Preston StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21201Tel.: (301) 383-2744

- 3 -

Massachusetts

Robert M. Hallisey, DirectorRadiation Control ProgramMassachusetts Department of Public Health600 Washington Street, Room 770Boston, Massachusetts 02111Tel.: (617) 727-6214

Michigan

Mr. Ronald Callen, SupervisorAdvance Planning and Review SectionMichigan Public Service Commission6545 Mercantile WayP.O. Box 30221Lansing, Michigan 48909Tel.: (517) 373-8690

Minnesota

John W. Fernian, Ph.D.Nuclear EngineerMinnesota Pollution Control Agency1935 W. County Road B2Roseville, Minnesota 55113Tel.: (612) 296-7276

Mississippi

Alton B. Cobb, M.D., State Health OfficerState Board of HealthP.O. Box 1700Jackson, Mississippi 39205Tel.: (601) 354-6646

Nebraska

H. Ellis Simmons, DirectorDivision of Radiological HealthDepartment of Health301 Centennial Mall, SouthP.O. Box 95007Lincoln, Nebraska 68509Tel.: (402) 471-2168

New Jersey

Frank Cosolito, Acting ChiefBureau of Radiation ProtectionDepartment of Environmental Protection380 Scotch RoadTrenton, New Jersey 08628Tel.: (609)292-5586

- 4 -

New York

Jay DunklebergerDivision of Policy Analysis and PlanningNew York State Energy OfficeAgency Building 2, Empire State PlazaAlbany, New York 12223Tel.: (518) 474-2178

North Carolina

Dayne H. Brown, ChiefRadiation Protection BranchDivision of Facility ServicesDepartment of Human ResourcesP.O. Box 12200Raleigh, North Carolina 27605Tel.: (919) 733-4283

Ohio

Helen W. Evans, DirectorDivision of Power GenerationOhio Department of Industrial RelationsP.O. Box 825Columbus, Ohio 43216Tel.: (614) 466-2743

Oregon

Donald W. Godard, AdministratorSiting and RegulationOregon Department of EnergyRoom 111, Labor and Industries BuildingSalem, Oregon 97310Tel.: (503) 378-6469

Pennsylvania

Thomas M. Gerusky, DirectorBureau of Radiation ProtectionPennsylvania Department of Environmental ResourcesP.O. Box 2063Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120Tel.: (717) 787-2480

South Carolina

Heyward G. Shealy, ChiefBureau of Radiological HealthSouth Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbus, South Carolina 29201Tel.: (803) 758-5548

- 5 -

Tennessee

Michael H. Mobley, DirectorDivision of Radiological HealthT.E.R.R.A. Building150 9th Avenue NorthNashville, Tennessee 37203Tel.: (615) 741-7812

Vermont

Richard Saudek, CommissionerVermont Department of Public Service120 State StreetMontpelier, Vermont 05602Tel.: (802) 828-2321

Virginia

James B. Kenley, M.D., CommissionerDepartment of Health109 Governor Street.Richmond, Virginia 23219Tel.: (804) 786-3561

Wisconsin

Clarence Riederer, Chief EngineerWisconsin Public Service CommissionP.O. Box 7854Madison, Wisconsin 53707Tel.: (608) 266-1567

ENCLOSURE 1.;. .

148t64 Federal Regse| Val. t8, No. 87 / Wednesday, April B. I083 / Rules and Regulations

10 CFR Part 50

Standards for Determining WhetherUcense Amendments Involve NoSignificant Hazards Consideratons-AoENcr. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Interim final rule.

suumr. Pursuant to Public law 07-415, NCR Is amending Its regulations tospecify standards for determiningwhether requested amendments tooperating licenses for certain nuclearpower reactors and testing facilitiesinvolve no significant hazardsconsiderations. These standards willhelp NRC in its evaluations of theserequests. Research reactors are notcovered. However, the Commission isreviewing the extent to which and theway such standards should be appliedto research reactors.EFFECTIVE OATE: May 1983. TheCommission specifically requestscomments on this interim final rule byMay 6L ,13. Comments received afterthis date will be considered if it ispractical to do so, but assurance ofconsideration cannot be given except asto comments received on or before thisdate.ADDRESSES: Written rcomments shouldbe sent to the Secretary of theCommission. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, D.C. 20555Attention: Docketing and ServiceBranch. Copies of the documentsdiscussed In this notice and of thecomments received on the proposed ruleand interim final rules may be examinedIn the Commission's Public DocumentRoom at 1717 H Street, NW.Washington. D.C.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACr.Thomas F. Dorian. Esq.. Office of theExecutive Legal Director, US. NuclearRegulatory Commission. Washington,D.C. 2055. Telephone: (3M) 492490SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIWC

IntroductionPursuant to Public Law 07-415. NRC

must promulgate. within 90 days ofenactment, regulations which establish(a) standards for determining whetheran amendment to an operating licenseinvolves no significant hazardsconsiderations, (b) criteria for providingor. in emergency situations, fordispensing with prior notice andreasonable opportunity for publiccomment on any such determination.and (c) procedures for consultation onany such determination with the State Inwhich the facility involved is located.

Proposed regulations to specifystandards for determining whether

amendments to operating licenses orconrstruction permits for facilitieslicensed under i 1 5I2D(b) or 5022jincluding testing facilities) Involve nosignificant hazards considerations (item(a) above) were published for commentin the Federal Register by theCommission on March 28 19 0(45 FR20491). Since the Commission rarelyIssues amendments to constructionpermits and has never issued aconstruction permit amendmcentinvolving a significant hazardsconsideration. It has decided not toapply these standards to amendments toconstruction permits and to handle thesecase-by-case. This Is in keeping with thelegislation which applies only tooperating license amendments.Additionally. these standards will notnow be applied to research reactors.The Comnmission is currently reviewingwhether and how It should apply theseor similar standards to researchreactors. In sum. the interim final rulewill amend Part 50 of the Commission'sregulations to establish standards fordetermining whether an amendment toan operating license Involves nosignificant hazards consideration

The rule takes account not only of thenew legislation but also the publiccomments received on the proposedutle. For the sake of clarity, affected

prior legislation as well as theCommission's regulations and practiceare discussed as backgroundinformation.

Simultaneously with the promulgationof these standards In I 50.0Z theCommission is publishing an Interimfinal rule which contains criteria forproviding or. In emergency situations,for dispensing with prior notice andreasonable opportunity for and publiccomment on a determination-aboutwhether an amendment to an operatinglicense Involves a significant hazardsconsideration (item (bJ above). This rulealso specifies procedures forconsultation on any such adetermination with the State in whichthe facility involved Is located (item (c)above). The rule appears separately inthe Federal Register.

These regulations are Issued as final.though in interim form, and commentswil be considered on them. They willbecome effective 30 days afterpublication In the Federal Register.Accordingly, Interested persons whowish to comment are encouraged to doso at the earliest possible time, but notlater than 30 days after publication, to."permit the fullest consideration of theirviews.

9

Background

A. AffeedLegislation Reulations andProceuese

When the Atomic Energy Act of 195(Act) was adopted In 1954. It containedno provision which required a publichearing on issuance of a constructionpermit or operating license for a nuclearpower reactor In the absence of arequest from an interested person. In1957, the Act was amended to requirethat mandatory hearings be held beforeIssuance of both a construction permitand an operating license for powerreactors and certain other facilities.Public Law 65-258 (71 Stat. 5M)amending I 1B9a. of the Act.

The 1957 amendments to the Act wereInterpreted by the Commission asrequiring a "mandatory hearing" beforeIssuance of amendments to constructionpermits and operating licenses. See. eS.,hearing Before the Subcommittee onLegislation. Joint Committee on AtomicEnergy, 67th Cong., 2d. Sess. (April 17,1962), at S. Partially in response to theadministrative rigidity and cumbersomeprocedures which this interpretationforced upon the Commission (see, jointCommittee on Atomic Energy StaffStudy, "Improving the AEC RegulatoryProcess", March 1961, at 49-50), section189a. of the Act was amended in 1962 toeliminate the requirement for amandatory public hearing except uponthe application for a construction permitfor a power or testing facility. As statedIn the report of the joint Committee onAtomic Energy which recommended theamendments:

Accordingly. this section wlU eliminate therequirements for a mandatory hearing, exceptupon the application for a construction permitfor a power or testing facility. Under thisplan, the issuance of amendments to suchconstruction permits. and the Issuance ofoperating licenses and amendments to suchconstruction permits. and the issuance ofoperating licenses and amendments tooperating licenesM would be only after a so-day public notice and an offer of hearing. Inthe absence of a request for a hearing.Issuance of an amendment to a constructionpermit, or issuance of an operating license, oran amendment to an operating license, wouldbe possible without formal proceedings, buton the public record. It will also be possiblefor the Commission to dispense with the Sa-day notice requirement where the applicationpresents no significant hazards consideration.This criterion is presently being applied bythe Commission under the terms of AECRegulations 50.59. H. Rep. No. 1966 .thCong.. 2. Ses.. at .

Thus, according to the 1962amendments. a mandatory publichearing would no longer be requiredbefore issuance of an amendment to a

Federal Register I Vol.8. No. 67 / Wednesday, April 6. 1983 rRules and Regulations 14865

construction permit or operating licenseand a thirty-day prior public noticewould be required only If the proposedamendment involved a significanthazards consideration." In sum, section

es9a. of the Act, now provides that.upon thirty-days' notice published in theFederal Register, the Commission mayissue an operating license, or anamendment to an operating license, oran amendment to a construction permit.for a facility licensed unde? sections 103or 204b. of the Act. or for a testingfacility licensed under section 104c..without a public hearing If no hearing isrequested by any interested person.Section 289a. also permits theCommission to dispense with suchthirty-days' notice and Federal Registerpublication with respect to the issuanceof an amendment to a constructionpermit or an amendment to an operatinglicense upon a determination by theCommission that the amendmentinvolves no significant hazardsconsideration. These provisions havebeen incorporated into {l .105, 2L06.50.58(s) and (b) and 50i1 of theCommission's regulations.

The regulations provide for priornotice of a "proposed action" on anapplication for an amendment when adetermination Is made that there Is asignificant hazards consideration andprovide an opportunity for interestedmembers of the public to request ahearing. See II 2L1O5(a)(3) and 50.91.Hence. If a requested licenseamendment is found to Involve asignificant hazards consideration, theamendment would not be Issued untilafter any required hearing Is completedor after expiration of the notice period.In addition. I 50.8b) further explainsthe Commission's hearing and noticeprocedures. as follows:

The Commission will hold a hearing afterAt least 30 days notice and publication oncein the Federal Register on each applicationfor a construction permit for a production orutilization facility which Is of a typedescribed in I 50.21(b) or 1 50.22 or which Isa testing facility. When a construction permithas been issued for such a facility followingthe holding of a public hearing and anapplication Is made for an operating licenseor for an amendmnent to a construction permitor operating license, the Commission mayhold a hearing after at least 30 days noticeand publication once in the Federal Registeror. in the absence of a request therefor byany person whose interest may be affected.may Issue an operating license or anamendment to a construction permit oroperating license without a hearing, upon 30days notice and publication once in theFederal Register of its intent to do so. If theCommission finds that no significant hazardsconsideration is presented by an applicationfor an amendment to a construction permit oroperating license. It may dispense with such

notice and publication and may Issue theamendment

Thus. It is very Important to note thata determination that a proposed licenseamendment does or does not present a"significant hazards consideration" hasInvolved the hearing and attendantnotice requirements. Consequently,under Its present rules the Commissionhas generally coupled its determinationabout whether It should provide ahearing before Issuing an amendmentwith its determination about whether Itshould Issue a prior notice. and thecentral factor in both determinationshas been the determination about "nosignificant hazards consideration." Ithas been charged that in practice thishas meant that the staff has sometimescoupled the decision about the merits ofan amendment to the decision aboutwhen it should notice the amendment.Le., whether It should glve prior noticeor post notice. Additionally, there hasbeen some concern that the Act and theregulations have not defined the term"significant hazards consideration" andthal they have not established criteriafor determining when a proposedamendment involves a "significanthazards consideration." Section 50.59does set forth criteria for determiningwhen a proposed change. test orexperiment involves an "unreviewedsafety question," but It Is clear that notevery such question involves a"significant hazards consideration." Inany event. the Commission's practicewith regard to license amendmentsInvolving no significant hazardsconsideration (unless. as a matter ofdiscretion, prior notice was given) wasto Issue the amendment and thenpublish In the Federal Register a noticeof issuance. See I 2.16. In such a case,interested members of the public whowished to object to the amendment andrequest a hearing could do so but arequest for a hearing did not by itself.suspend the effectiveness of theamendment. Thus both the notice andhearing. If one were requested. haveoccurred after the amendment wasIssued.

It is very important to bear in mindthat there Is not Intrinsic safetysignificance to the -no significanthazards consideration" standard.Whether or not an action requires priornotice, no license and no amendmentmay be Issued unless the Commissionconcludes that it provides reasonableassurance that the public health andsafety will not be endangered and thatthe action will not be inimical to thecommon defense and security or to'thehealth and safety of the public. See.'-eg.1 50.57(a). Also, whether or not an

amendment entails prior notice. noamendment to any license may beIssued unless it conforms to allapplicable Commission safetystandards. Thus. the "no significanthazard consideration" standard hasbeen a procedural standard only,governing whether public notice of aproposed action must be provided.before the action is taken by theCommission. In short. the "no significanthazards consideration" standards hasbeen a notice standard and has had nosubstantive safety significance, otherthan that attributable to the process ofprior notice to the public and reasonableopportunity for a hearing.

B. The Sho!ly Decision and the NewLegislation

The Commission's practice of notproviding an opportunity for a priorhearing on a license amendment notInvolving significant hazardsconsiderations was held to be ImproperIn Sholly v. NAC, 651 F.2d 780 (1980).rehearing denied. 792 F.2d 792 (1980).cart grnted 1015 Ct. 304(98l1(Soil01y). In that case the US. Court ofAppeals for the Distrct of ColumbiaCircuit ruled that. under section ~la ofthe Act. NRC must hold a prior hearingbefore an amendment to an operatinglicense for a nuclear power plant canbecome effective. if there has been arequest for hearing (or an expression ofinterest in the subject matter of theproposed amendment which Is sufficientto constitute a request for a hearing). Aprior hearing, said the Court, is requiredeven when NRC has made a finding thata proposed amendment involves nosignificant hazards consideration andhas determined to dispense with priornotice In the Federal Register. At therequest of the Commission and theDepartment of justice, the SupremeCourt agreed to review the Court ofAppeals interpretation of section 189aof the Act. The Supreme Court hasremanded the case to the Court ofAppeals with Instructions to vacate it ifIt Is moot and. If It Is not. to reconsiderIts decision in light of the newlegislation.

The Court of Appeals' decision didnot involve and has no effect upon theCommission's authority to orderimmediately effective amendments.

without prior notice or hearing, whenthe public health, safety. or interest sorequires. See, Administrative ProcedureAct. Section 9(b), 5, U.S.C. I S5(c).section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act.and 10 CFR 2.202(f) and 2.204. Similarly.the Court did not alter existing law withregard to the Commisssion's pleadingrequirements. which are designed to

1U&8: Federal Regiter / Vol 48 No. 67 I Wednesday, Aprl 0, 1983 1 Ruies and Regulations

enable the Commission to datermtewhether a per on requesting a hearingIs, in fact, an "interested person" withinthe meaning of section 189a..-hat ,whether the persoDjhos demontratedstanding and Identified one or moreIssues to be litigated. See, BPI v.AfomkcEtnery Commrssfon, 02 F.d 42, 428(D.C. Cir. 1074) where the Court statedtht, "Under Its procedural regulations ItIs not unreasonable for the Commissionto require that the prospectiveIntervenor first specify the basis for thisrequest for a hearing."

However, the Commission believedthat legislation was needed to changethe result reached by the Court In Shoafbecause of the Implications of therequirement that the Commission ta requested bearing before It could Issuea license amendment Involving nosignificant hazards consideration Tecommission believes that, since mostrequested license amendments involvingno significant hazard consideration areroutine in nature, prior hearing on suchamendments could result Inunwarranted disruption or delay in theoperations of nuclear plants and couldimpose regulatory burdens upon It andthe nuclear Industry that are not relatedto significant safety matters.Subsequently, on March 11, 2981, theCommission submitted proposedlegislation to Congress (introduced as S.912) that would expressly authorize It toissue a license amendment beforeholding a hearing requested by aninterested person. when It has made adetermination that no significanthazards consideration Is involved In theamendment

After the House and Senate confereesconsidered two similar bills, H.R. 2330and S. 127, they agreed on a unifiedversion (See Conf Rep. No. 07-6, 97thCong. 2d. Sess. (952)) and passed PublicLaw 97-415. Specifically section 12(a) ofthat law amends section 189a of the Actby adding the following with respect tolicense amendments Involving nosignificant hazard consideration

(21(A) The Commission may issue andmake imedistely effective any amendmentto an operating license, upon a determinationby the Commission that such amendmentinvolves no significant hazards waslderation.notwithstanding the pendency before theCommission of a request for a hearing fromany person. Such amendment may be Issuedand made Imeditly effective In advanceof the holding and completion of any requiredbearing. In determining under this sectionwhether such amendment Involves nosignificant hazards consideration theCommission shall consult with the State towhic the facility Involved Is located. In allother respects such amendment shall meetthe requirements of this Act.

(B) lhe amendment shall periodicallyc btnot hss frequently than once evry thirtydaysl publisb notice of anr amendents

-In subparaaph (A). Each such notice shlchds a amendments Iued, or proposed

to be Issued, sdouc the dat, of pubLiaon ofthe last guch periodic notice. &ud notioshal, with respect to each amendment ce

ed aendment P Identify te facilityInvolved: and pfl) provide a bdef deaptionof such amendmenL Nothing In thiusection sha e conued to dea

effective date of any anendment(C) The Commission shalL during te

oinety-day period following the efective dateof this paragraph, promulgate regulationsestablishing (i) standards for deteminingwhether any amendment to an operatinglcese Involves no significant hazardsconu derstios ii) criterla for providing or, inemergency situations, dispensing with ornotice and reasonable opportunity for publiccomment On any such determinatlon, whichcritera shall tale Into account the e rgenyof the need for the amendment Involved. and(II procedures for consultation on any suchdetermination with the State in which thefacility Involved is located.

Section 12b) of that law specifieshat(h The authority of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, under the ions of theamendment made by (. l to ineand to make immediately effective anyamendment to an operating lcensehall takeeffect upon the promulgation by theC=omiion of th regulatins required ineuch provition.

Thus, as noted above, the legislationauthorize NRC to Issue and makeImmediately effective an amendment toan operating license upon adetermination that the amendmentInvolves no significant hazardconsideration, even though NRC hasbefore It a request for a hearing from anInterested pen. At the same time,however, the legislative history makes Itclear that Congress expects NRC toexercise Its authority only In the case ofamendments not Involving significantsafety questions. The Conference ReportstateE

The conference agrement maintains therequirement of the current section =a. of theAtomic Energy Act that a hearing on thelicense amendment be held upon the requestof any person whose Interest may beaffectedt he greement simply authorizesthe Commission. in those cases where theamendment involved poses no significanthazards consideration, to issue the licenseamendment and allow It to take effect beforethis hearing is held or completed. Teconferees intend that the Commiuion willuse this authority carefully, applying It onlyto those license amendments which pose nosignificant hazard consideration. i at 2.

In this regard, the Senate streusedits strong desir to presre for the public a

meaningfl right to participate In decisions

regarding the aommerdal us ofouclapower. u, the provision does not dispeswith the requirement for a hear ena theNRC. tf requested (by an Interested pasnJ,

snt conduct aearing aer theamendment takes effecL S. Rqm No. 7-2,

87th Cong. st Sees, at 24 D9M1)It should be also noted In light of the

previous discussion about the couplingof the decision on the merits of anamendment with the deddson aboutwhen to notice the amendment, thatSection 52 of Public Law 97-415, byproviding for prior public notice andcomment, In effect uncouples thedetermination about prior versus postnotice from the determinaidon aboutwhether to Issue an amendment.

In sm the Commission Ispromulgating as an Interim final rule theproposed standards in j S=2 fdetermining whether an amendment toan operating license involves nosignificant hazards consideratio and Itis publishing separately an interim finalrle to establish (a) procedures fornoticing operating license amendmentrequests for an opportunity for ahearing, (b) criteria for providing or. inemergency siuations, dispensing withprior notice and reasonable opportuityfor public comment On any proposeddetermination on no significant hazardsconsideration, and (c) procedures forconsulting with the requisite State anany such determinationLnterim Final Rule on Standards for

Determining Wlhethber an Amendment toan Operating License Involves NoSignificant Hazards Considerations andExamples of Amendments That AreConsidered Likely or Not Likely ToInvolve Significant HazardsConsiderationsA. Petition and Poposed Au.

lhe Commission's interim final ruleon standards for determining whetheran amendment involves no ignificanthazards consideration complet Itsactions on the notice of proposedrulemaking (discussed above) whichwas Issued in response to a petition forrulemaking (PRM 50-17) submitted byletter to the Secretary of theCofirnisslon on May 7,2978 M. RobertLowenstein For the reasons discussedbelow, the petition Is denied. However,the Commission is promulgatingstandards, as intended by the petitioner,though not the standards petitioned for.(PRM-50-17 was published for commentIn the Federal Register on June 4, 197B(41 FR 24005)). Te stafistecommendations on this petition are in6ECY-79-60 (December 13.1979) Thenotice of proposed rulemaking waspublished in the Federal Register on

. ..

Fedaral Register / Vol. 48. No. 187 / Wednesday. April 6, 1983 [--Rules and Regulation. 14867. _

4

March 28 1980 (45 FR 20491). The staffsrecommendations on the interim finalrule are in SECY-8I-3OC. 8Z-38. 6-1L 83-iGA and 831-ICE (Thesedocuments are available for -examination in theCounmisslon's PublicDocument Room at 717 H Street, N.W.Washington. D.C.)

The petitioner requested that 10 CFRPart 50 of the Commission's regulationsbe amended with respect to theprocedures for Issuance of amendmentsto operating licenses for production andutilization facilities. The petitioner'sproposed amendments to the regulationswould have required that the staff takeInto consideration (in determiningwhether a proposed amendment to anoperating license Involves no significanthazars consideration) whetheroperation of the plant under theproposed license amendment would (1)substantially increase the consequencesof a major credible reactor accident or(2) decrease the marjins of safetysubstantially below those previouslyevaluated for the plant and below thoseapproved for existing licenses. Further,the petitioner proposed that, if the staffreaches a negative conclusion aboutboth of these standards, the proposedamendment must be considered not toinvolve a significant hazardsconsideration.

In issuing the proposed rule, theCommission sought to improve thelicensing process by specifying in theregulations standards on the meaning ofno significant hazards considerationThese standards would have applied toamendments to operating licenses, asrequested by the petition for rulemaking.and also to construction permits, towhatever extent considered appropriate.As mentioned before, the Commissionnow believes that these standardsshould not be applied to amendments toconstruction permits. not only becauseconstruction permits do not normallyInvolve a significant hiardsconsideration but also because suchamendments are very rare; the proposedrule has been modified accordingly.Additionally. the Commission Isreviewing the extent to which and theway standards should be applied toresearch reactors. Th Commission Wilhandle case-by-case any amendmentsrequested for construction permits or forresearch reactors with respect to theIssue of significant hazardsconsiderations.

In the statement of considerationswhich accompanied the proposed rule.the Commission explained that It did totagree with the petitioner's proposed-standards because of the limitation to"major credible reactor accidents" end

the failure to Include accidents of a typedifferent from those previouslyevaluated.

During the past several years theCommission's stiff has been guided. Inreaching Its determinations with respectto no significant hazards consideration.by standards very similar to those nowdescribed In this Interim final rule as

wvell as by examples of amendmentslikely to Involve, and not Ilkely toinvolve, significant hazardsconsiderations. These have provenuseful to the staff, and the Commissionemployed them In developing theproposed rule. The notice of proposedrulemaking contained standardsproposed by the Commission to beIncorporated Into Part 50. and thestatement of considerations containedexamples of amendments to anoperating license that are consideredIlkely and not likely to involve asigniicant hazards consideration. Theexamples were samples of precedentswith which the staff was famniliar', theywere representative of certain inds ofcircumstances; however, they did notcover the entire range of possibilities;nor did they cover every facet of aparticular situation. Therefore, they hadto be used together with standards indetermining whether or not a proposedamendment involved significant hazardsconslderatidns.

The three standards proposed In thenotice of proposed rulemaking werewhether the license amendment would.(1) involve a significant increase In theprobability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated. (2) createthe possibility of an accident of a typedifferent from any evaluated previously.or (2) involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety.

Before responding to the specificcomments on the proposed rule, itshould be noted again that It wasstructured so that the three standardswould have been used to decide notonly whether the Commisson wouldpublish prior notice of an amendmentrequest (as opposed to notice after theamendment was issued) but also to

decide whether to grant an opportunityfor hearing before Issuance of theamendment (as opposed to granting the

opportunity after Issuance). Asexplained before, the standads werenot meant to be used to makce theultimate decision about whether to Issuean amendment-that final decision Is apublic health and safety judgment on themerits. not to be confused with thedecisions on notice and reasonableopportunity for a hearing.

As a result of the legislation. underthe final rule the three standards would

no longer be used to make adetermination about whether or not tobsue prior notice of an amendmentrequest. As fully described in theseparate Federal Register noticementioned before, the Commission hasformulated separate notice and Stateconsultation procedures that willprovide in all (except emergency andsome exigent) situations prior notice ofamendment requests. The standards andthe examples will usually be limited to aproposed determination and. when abearing request is received. to a finaldetermination about whether or notsignificant hazards considerations areinvolved in connection with anamendment and. therefore, whether ornot to offer an opportunity for a hearingbefore an amendment in issued. Thedecision about whether or not to issuean amendment is meant to remain onethat, as a separate matter. is based onpublic health and safety.

B. Comments on the Proposed Rule

1. General. Nine persons submittedcomments on the petition for rulemakingand nine persons submitted commentson the proposed amendments. Thecomments on the petition are in SECY-7-O. The comments on the proposedrule are in SECY file PR-Z. S0(45 FR20491). A summary of the comments andinitially-proposed responses to thecomments are in SECY-81.available for examination at theCommission's Public Document Room.In light of the legislation. theCommission has decided to make itsapproach more precise (as describedbelow) and has, therefore, revised Itsresponse to the comments. The newresponse is found in SECY-W-46A and

One of the commenters stated that allthree standards are unclear and uselessIn that they Imply a level of detailedreview of amendment applications farbeyond what the staff normallyperforms. It is the Commission'sconsidered judgment that the standardshave been and will continue to be usefulIn making the necessary reviews.Moreover, the Commission believes thatthe standards when used together withthe examples will enable it to make therequisite decisions. In ths regard. itshould be noted that Congress was morethan aware of the Commission'sstandards and proposed theirexpeditious promulgation. For example.Senate Report No. 97-113, cited above.stated.

* I * eCommittee jtes tat theCommission has already iss ad for publiccomment rules including standards fordetemAining whether an amendment involves

4 tllR Fqderal Regsdter / Vol. 48 No. 67 / Wednesday, April 6 1983 / Rules and Regulations

no significant hazards consideration. TheCommittee believes that the Cmm-stolonshould be able to build upon this past efforand it expectr the Comissbdon to actexpeditiously tn promugtng the requstandards within the time specfiedi section10111. withi n #LehNaer eetmentl. Idat IL

Similarly, the House notad:Tne commfitee amendment provides the

Commission with the authority to Uae andmake Immediate effective amendments tolicenses prior to the conduct or completion ofany hearing required by section 109ta) whenIt dtermines that the amendment Involves nosignificant hazards consideration. However,the authority of the Commission to do so Isdiscretfonary, and does not aqate therequirement imposed by the Sholly decisionthat such a heaing, upon request. besubsequently held. Moreover. thCommittee's action It in 4ht of the fct thatthe Commission has already issuedforpubliccomment rules Including standards jbrdetermining whether an amendment invobeno signifcant hazards consideroTons. TheCommission also has a long line of case4y-case precedents under which ft hasestablished criteria for such detenrinations.' ' * lRep No .9732 tPr 2h 871h Cang&Ist Seas, at 26 (M8) (Emphasis added)

A number of commentersrecommended, in regard to the secondcrilerion in the proposed rule. that athreshold level for accidentconsequences (for example, the limits In10 CFR Part 100) be established toeliminate insignificant types ofaccidents from being given prior notice.This comment was not accepted. Settinga threshold level for accidentconsequences could eliminate a group ofamendments with respect to accidentswhich have not been previouslyevaluated or which, If previouslyevaluated. may turn out after furtherevaluation to have more severeconsequences than previouslyevaluated.

It is possible, for example, that theremay be a class of license amendmentssought by a licensee which. whiledesigned to Improve or Increase safetymay, on balance. involve a sgnificanthazards consideration because theyresult in operation of a reactor with areduced safety margin due to otherfactors or problems (Ie^. the set effect Isa reduction In safety of somesignificance). Such amendmentstypically are also proposed by a licenseeas an interim or final resolution of somesignificant safety issue that was notraised or resolved before Issuance of theoperating license-and, based on anevaluation of the new safety Issue, theymay result in a reduction of a safetymargin believed to have been presentwhen the liscense was Issued. In thisInstance, the presence of the new afety

issue tn the review of the proposedamendment, at least arguably, couldprev ent a finding of no significanthaz consideration, even though theIssue would iqtimately be sisfactorilyresolved by the Issuance of theamendment Accordingly, theCommission added to the listafexamples considered likely to Involve asignificant hazards consideration a newexample (vii).

When the legislation described beforewas being considered. the SnateCommittee on Environment and PublicWorks commented upon theCommission's proposed rule before Itreported S. UV. It stated:

The committee recognizes that reasonablepersons may differ on whether a licenseamentment Involves a significant hazbrsconsideration. herefore, the Committeeexpects the Commission to develop andpromulgate standards that, to the maximumextent practicable, draw a clear distinctionbetween license amendments that involve asignficant hazards consideration and thosthat Involve no sigficant hazardsconsideration. The Committee anticipates, forexample that consistent with prior practice.the Commission's standards would not permita "no significant hazar consideration7determination for license amendments toperit racdking of spent fuel pools. Id. at IL

The Commisslon agrees with thecommittee "that reasonable personsmay differ on whether a licenseamendment Involves a signifihazards consideration" Lad It has tried"to develop and promulgate standardsthat, to the maximum extent practicable,draw a clear distinction between licenseamendments that involve a sgnificanthazards consideration and those thatInvolve no Significant hazardsconsideration." The Commissionbelieves that the standards coupled withthe examples help draw as clear adistinction as practicable. It has decidednot to Include the examples in the textof the rule in addition to the originalstandards, but, rather, to keep them asguidelines under the standards for theuse of the Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.

The Commission wishes licensees tonote that when they consider lioenseamendments outside the examples. theCommission may need additional timefor Its determination on no significanthazards considerations; thus, theyshould factor this information into theirschedules for developing andImplementing such changes to facilitydesign and operation.

The interim final rule thus goes a longway toward meeting the intent of thelegislation. In this regard. theConference Report stated:

ts cnferees also xpect the Commistion,in promugatng tha regulations required bythe new subsection (2XCXiJ of section I1a.of the Atomic Eno.-g Ac to establishstandards that to tha extent practicable drawa lear distinction between Hienamendments that involve a significanthazards consideration and thoseamendments that Involve so su*consideration. These standards should notrequire the NRC staff lo predge the meitsof thes sues raised by a proposed licenseamendment. Rather, they should only requirethe staff to Identify those Issues anddetermine whether theyinvoive dgificamthealth, safety or environmentalconsideration These standards d becapable of being applied with ease andcertainty, and should esure that the NRCstaff does not resolve doubtful or borderlinecases with a finding of no significant hazards

consideration. Cona Rep. No. 7-1 s.ihCong. zd Sess. at 3 12862

It should be noted that theCommission has attempted to draftstandards that are as useful and as clearas possible, and it has tried to formulateexamples that wil help in theapplication of the standards. These finalstandards are the product of a longdeliberative process. As will be recalled.standards were submitted by a petitionfor rulemaking in 1787 for theCommission's consideration. Thestandards and examples are as dearand certain as the Commission canmake them-and. to repeat theConference Report, "should ensure thatthe NRC staff does not resolve doubtfulor borderline cases with a finding of nosignificant hazards consideration." TheCommission welcomes suggestions fromthe public to make them clearer andmore precise, recognizing. in the SenateCommittee's words. "that reasonablepersons may differ on whether a licenseamendment involves a significanthazards consideration."

With respect to the ConferenceCommittee's statement, quoted above.that the "standards should not requirethe NRC staff to prejudge the merits ofthe issues raised by a proposed licenseamendment," as will be recalled, it hasbeen the Commission's general practiceto couple the determination about priorversus post notice with thedetermination about provision of a priorhearing venus a hearing after Issuanceof the amendment. thus, occasionally.the issue of prior versus post notice wasseen by some as including a judgmenton the merits of issuance of anamendment. Consequently onecommenter suggested that application ofthe citeria with respect to prior noticein many instances will necessarilyrequire the resolution of substantialfactual questions which largely overlapthe issues which bear on the merits of

5.a,.rnl Reu'oter I voL &a. No. 67 1 Wednesday. April 6 1983 / Rules and Regulations lUB69- , - -- - - - -- -- , - - . - .

the license amendment. The implicationof the comment was that theCommission at the prior notice stagecould lock Itself into a decision On themerits. Conversely. thbe.ommepterstated that the staff ii using the nosignificant hazards considerationstandards, was reluctant to give priornotice of amendments because Itsdetermination about the notice might beviewed as constituting a negativeconnotation on the merits.

In any event, the legislation has madethese comments moot by ngseparation of the criteria used forproviding or dispensing with publicnotice and comment on no significanthazards consideration determinationsfrom the standards used to make adetermination about no significanthazards consideration. Under thelegislation, the Commission's criteria forpublic notice and comment would not bethe same as Its standards on thedetermination about no significanthazards consideration. In fact, theCommission will normally provide priornotice (for public comment and for anopportunity for a hearing) for eachoperating license amendment request.Ilhe Commission's criteria on publicnotice and comment are discussed in theseparate Federal Register notice notedbefore.) Additionally, the Commissionbelieves that use of these standards andexamples wlU help It reach sounddecisions about the Issues of significantversus no significant hazardconsiderations and that their use wouldnot prejudge the merits of a decision.

It holds this belief because thestandards and the examples are merelyscreening devices for a decision aboutwhether to hold a hearing before asopposed to after an amendment IsIssued and cannot be said to prejudgethe Commission's final decision to Issueor deny the amendment request. Asexplained above, that decision Is aseparate one, based on separate publichealth and safety findings.

2 Rerocking of Spent Fuel Pools. IleCommisslon has been providing priornotice and opportunity for prior hearingon requests for amendments Involvingreracking of spent fuel pools. 'MeCommission Is not prepared to say thata reracking of a spent fuel storage poolwill necessarily Involve a significanthazards consideration. Nevertheless, asshown by the legislative history ofPublic Law 97-415. section 2(a), theCongress was aware of theCommission's practice and statementswere made by members of both Houses.before passage of that law, that thesemembers tought the practice would becontinued. Th report on the Senate side

has been quoted above; the discussionin the House is found at 127 Corg.Record at H 8156. Nov. 1981.

The Commission Is not Includingreracking in the liit of examples thatwill be considered likely to involve aignlficant hazard consideration

because a significant hazardsconsideration finding is a technicalmatter which has been assigned to theCommission. However, In view of theexpressions of Congressionalunderstanding. the Commission feelsthat the matter deserves further study.Accordingly, the staff has been directedto prepare by August 1,1983. a report (1)which reviews NRC experience to datewith respect to spent fuel pool,expansion reviews, and (2) whichprovides a technical Judgment on theasis which a spent fuel pool expansion

amendment may or may not pose asignificant hazards consideration. Uponreceipt and review of this report theCommiss iton will revisit this part of therule.

During the interim. the Commissionwill make a finding on the question of nosignificant hazards consideration foreach reracking application, on a case-by-case basis, giving full considerationto the technical circuinstances of thecase, using the standards in 1 50.2 ofthe rule. It Is not the intent of theCommission to make a no significanthazards consideration finding forreracking based on unproventechnology. However, where rerackingtechnology has been well developed anddemonstrated and where theCommission determines on a technicalbasis that reracking involves nosignificant hazards, the Commissionshould not be precluded from makingsuch a finding. tf the Commissiondetermines that a particular rerackingInvolves significant hazardsconsiderations, it will provide anopportunity for a prior hearin, asexplained in the separate FederalRegister notice.

Additionally, It should be noted thatunder section 134 of the Nuclear WastePolicy Act of 1982 an Interested partymay request a "hybrid- bearing Inconnection with reracid and may

articipate in such a hearing. if one isEeld. The Commission will publish in thenear future a Federal Register noticedescribing this type of hearing withrespect to expansions of spent fuelstorage capacity and other matteSnconcerning spent fueL

3. Amendnents brnvalYi L-mveslbleConseque

The Conference Report statedThe conferees intend that in determiln

whether a proposed license amendment

Involves no significant hazards considertinthe Commission should be especiallysensitive to the Issue posed by licenseamendments that bave Irreversibleconsequences (uch as thosepermittig anhceose in the amount of effluenb orradiotion emitted frm a ofiity or allowita facility to operate for a period of tmewithout full safetyprotections.Z In those

2ae Issuing the order In advance of ahearing would, as a practical matter.foreclose the public's right to have Its vewsconsidered. In addition. the licensing boardwould often be unable to order anysubstantial relief as a result of an after-the-fact hearing. Accordingly, the confereesIntend the Commission be sensitive to thoselicense amendments which Involve suchbreversible-eonsequences. (Emphasis added.)Jd. at 37-4a

This statement was explained In acolloquy between Senators Simpson and.Domenicl. as followsr

Mr. Domenici. In the statement ofmanagers. I direct attention to a paragraph Insection 12 the so-called Sholly provision.wherein It Is staled that in applying theauthority which that provision grants theNRC 'should be especially sensitive to theIsue posed by license amendments that haveirreversible consequences." Is that paragraphIn general, or specifically, the words'irreversible consequences" intended toImpose restrictions on the Commission's uweof that authority beyond the provisions of thestatutory language? Can the Senator clarifythat. plese?

Mr. Simpson. I shall. It Is not the intentionof the managers that the paragraph tn -general, nor the words 'Irreversibleconsequences." provide any restriction on theCommissions use of that authority beyondthe statutory provision In section I9.. Underthat provision. the only determination whichthe Commission must make is that Its actiondoes not Involve a significant hazard. In thatcontext "Irreversibility" Is only one of thmany considerations which we would expectthe Commission to consider. It Is thedetermination of hazard which Is important.not whether the action is irreversible.Cearly. there ae many Irreversible actionswhich would not pose a hazard. Thus wherethe Commission determines that nosignificant hazard is involved. no furtherconsideration need be given to theirreversibility of that action.

Mr. DomenicL I thank the Senator for theclarification. Tat Is consistent with myreadings of the language ... .s54 Cong. Rem(Pal It at 5.13038 (daily ed. Oct. i .192)

The statement was further explainedIn a colloquy between Senators Mitchelland Hart, as follows:

Mr. Mitchell. Te portion of the statementof managers discussing section U of thereport. the so-caled Sholly provisi.stresses that in determining whether aproposed amendment to a facility operatingicense involves no significant hazardsconsideration, the Commission -should beespecially sensitive ... to licenseamendments that have irreversible

-q

l487b Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 67 I Wednesday. April 6. 1983 / Rules and Regulations.

consequences." is my understanding correctthat the statement means the Commissionehould tke specal cen hevaluatins forpossible hazrdous consIderations.amendments that in~volvin evepba wl -_ .consequences? l't

b~r lSe nator's understanding iscorrect. As you Fenow th provison sees tooverrule the bolding of the U.L Courl ofAppeals for tfie Distrct of Columbih in Shollyagainst Nuclear Reguhtor~y CommIsion. Thtcase Involved the ventin of radioactvekiwlon gas f!rom the damaeged Three Mieisland Unit 2 reactor-an irreversdble action.

As in this case, once the Commsion hasapproved a license amendment. nd nt has

one into effecn It could prove Imposbl btcorret any oversights of fact or errors ofJudgmnent Therefore. the Commission has anobligation, hen asessng the health orsafety implicatIons of an aendment havingirver ible consequences to insure that onlythose amendeent tht clearly anbe hOsgneificant haezrds itsues ill lake effectprior to a public hearing. Ido (art or at1322

In light of the Conference Report andcolloquies quoted above, theCommission wishes to note that it wimake sure "that only those amendmentsthat clearly raise no ignificant hazardsissues will take effect prior to a publichearinor" It wull do this by provadin8 In

i 5i0.2 of the nle that It wil reviewproposed amendments with a view as towhether they involve Irrever ibleconsequences. In this regard. example(ili] makes clear that an amendmentwhich allows a plant to operate at fullpower during which one or tore safetysystems are aot operable would betreated In the same way av otherexamples considered ltiey to involve aignificant hazards conideration ln thatti8 mLkes to mleet the critera in d 52

Finally. it Is once again Important tonote that the examples do not cover allpossible examples and may not berepresentative of *l postible concerns.

s new information is developed theCommision will refine these examplesand add new examples in k oeeping withthe standards in I 50.92 of thc Interimfinal le-andm if necessan y ItmwSIltirhten the standards themselves.

The Coiumion has left the proposeduile intact to the extent that tple rue

states standards wIth respect to themeaning of r no dIgnificant hazardsconsiderationh The standards in theInterim final rule are substantiallyIdentical to those in the proposed rule.though the attendant language In new£ 50.92 as well as In £ 50.58 has beenrevised to make the determinationeasier to use and understand. Tosupplement the *tandards that are beingincorporated into the Commisslon'sregulations. the guidance embodied inthe examples will be referenced In the

ro edures of the Office of NuclearReactor Regulation. a copy of which will

be placed f the Conssion's PublicDocument Roqm.Examples of Amendments That AreConsidered Ukly To InvolveSignificant Hazards iderations AnListed Below

'Unless the specific circunmstances of alicense amendment request whenmeasured against the standards InI 5.2 lead to a contrary conclusionthen, pursuant to the procedures in1 50.91. a proposed amendment to anoperating license for a facility licensedunder I50.1(b) or f 50l22 or for atesting facility will likely be found toinvolve significant hazardsconsiderations. If operation of thefacility in accordance with the proposedamendment Involves one or more of thefollowing

(1I) A significant relaxation of thecriteria used to establish safety limits.

a (ii) A significant relaxation of thebases for limiting safety system settingsor limiting conditions for operation.

(i A si dgnificant relaxation In limitingconditions for operation notaccompanied by compensatory changes.conditions or actions that maintain acommensurate level of afety (such asallowing a plant to operate at full powerduring a period In which one or moresafety sytems are not operable).

(iv) Renewal of an operating license.(v) For a nuclear power plant, an

Increase In authorized maximum corepower leveL.* (vi) A change to technicalspecifications or other NRC approvalInvolving a sgnificant unre.iewed

(vr Achange In plant operatindesigned to Improve safety but which.due to other factors. in fact allows plantoperation writh safety marginssignificantly reduced frm thosebelieved to have been present when thelicense was Issued.

Examples of Amendments That AreConsidered Not likely To InvolveSignificant Hazards Considerations AnListed Below

Unless the specific circumstances of alicense amendment request. whenmeasured against the standards inI 50.9. lead to a contrary conclusionthen, pursuant to the procedures In1 50.91. a proposed amendment to anoperatinglicense for a facility licensedunder I 50.21(b) or 1 50 22 or for a testingfacility will likely be found to involve noignificant hazards considerations. Ifoperation of the facility in accordncewith thxe proposed amendmnent Involvesonly one or more of the lollowin

AI A purely administrative change totechnicl specifications for example,change to achieve consistencythroughout the technical specifications.correction of an error, or a chane Innomenclature.

(II) A change that constitutes anadditional limitation. restriction, orscontrol not presently Included In thetechnical specifications: forsxaple 1 amore stringent surveillance requirement.

(ili) For a nuclear power reactor, echange resulting from a nuclear reactorcore reloading. If no fuel assembliessignificantly diflerent from those foundpreviously acceptable to the NRC for aprevious core at the facility In questionare Ivolved. Ths assumes that nosignificant changes are made to the.acceptance criteria for the technicalspecifications, that the analyticalmethods used to demonstrateconformance with the technicalspecifications and regulations are notsignificantly changed. and that NRC hasprevlousljy found such methods.

(Iv) A relief panted upondemonstration of acceptable operationfrom an operatfing restriction that wasimposed because acceptable operationwas not yet demonstrated. Ths assumesthat the operating restriction and thecriteria to be applied to a request forrelief have been established In a priorreview a~d that It Is justified tn asatisfactory way that the criteria havebeen met.

(v) Upon satisfactory completion ofcon stru cti on in conne ction wvith anoperating facility. a relief granted fromanoperating restriction that wasImposed becus e the construction wasnot yet completed satisfactorIly. This Istntended to involve only restrictionswhere It Is justified that constrctionhas been completed satisfactorily.

(vi) Ak change which either may resultIn some increase to the probabillty orconsequences of a previously-analyzedaccident or may reduce in some way asafety margin. but where the results ofthe change are clearly within allacceptable criteria with respect to thesystem or component specified in theStandard Review Plan: for example. achange resulting from the application ofa small refinement of a previously usedcalculational model or design method.

(vii) A change to makce a licenseconform to changes In the regulations.where the license change results In veryminor changes to facility operatonsuclearly in kzeeping with the regrulations.

(viii) AV change to a license to reflect amlinor adjustment in owgnership sharesamong co-owners already shown In thelicense.

Federal Register I Val. 48, No. 67 / Wednesday, April S. 19ow Rules and Regulations 114871

Paperwork Reduction Act StatementThis final rule contains no new or

amended requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, plans or procedurs;app11catons or anylcier type ofInformation collection.Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the RegltorFlexibility Act of t19e US. C05),the Commission certifies that this ruledoes not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smalentities. This rule affects only thelicensing and operation of nuclearpower plants ad sting facilities. Thecompanies that own these plants do notfail within the scope of the defiition of"small entities" set forth in theRegulatory Flexibility Act or the Sina1Business Size Standards set out inregulations issued by the Small BusinessAdministration at 13 CFR Part 121. Sincethese companies are dominant In theirservice areas, this rule does not fallwithin the purview of the At.Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared aregulatory analysis on eamendments, assessing the coats andbenefits and resource Impacts. It may beexamined at the address indicatedabove.

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974. as amended,and Sections 532 and 553 of Title 6 of theUnited States Code, notice is herebygiven that the following amendments toTitle 10. Chapter L Code of FederaRegulations. 10 CFR Part 5.aruopublished as a document subject tocodificationLst of Subjects In 10 CER Part So

Antitrust, Classified Information. Fireprevention. Intergovernmental relations.Nuclear power p ants and reactors.Penalty, Radiation protection. Reactori ing giteria. Reporting requirements

PART 60-DOMESTIC UCENSING OFPRODUCTION AND UTILIZATIONFACILITIES

i Ile authority citaton for Part 50 lsrevised to read as follows:

Authority. sa. in3104, 18k2, 1. ".189,68 Stat. 30.137,91. N VA3 3VA asamended. sec. 234.93 Stat. 1244, as amended(42 US.C 233.2134L 220n. =2. 22= 3.2239. 82); s. ML = .2D 82 StaL 41244,1240. as amended (42 Y U 41. 1642,

14. unless otherwise noted.Section 50.7 also issued under Pub L 95-

001. s 10 2 Stat. 2951 (42 U.SC Gai1.Sections W0 50.92 and 10.32 also Issuedunder Pub. L 9741L36 Stat. MM7 (42 U.291. Section 60.78 also issued wider wc

trL a Stat. CM ¶42 usc. 2112). sceions10.80 and 5M so Issued under mc. 16Stat. 54 as amended (42 U.S.C. 24),Sections 5&i0.I0-002 also issued - srec.18.6 S. 0s 3 gm (42 U.S.C. 1z2

For the purposes of sec. 2L3 StaL 58 asamended (42 U.S.C. W273) 1 11W 1.( (badcc). 50.4. 10.4650.48.10.4 and 50.80(a)fe issued under sec. lIb. 68 StaL 48 asamended (42 U.S.C. U20(b). II l0(b) and(Ck and 50.54 are Issued under sec. I6, 6fUStat. 949. as amended (42 U.S.C 220(Q); andII 55(e]. 5.59(b). MM 750. 1 and5O.N are issued under ee Itle U SaL a%es amended (42 U.S6C 22011)

2. In I 10.5 paragraph (b) Is revisedto read as follows:I gaze Heatgs and repo f todAdvio&y Commmlt"e on ReactorSafoguerda.* * 4 4

(b) The Commission will bold ahearin after at least 3-days' notice andpublication once In the Federal Registeron each application for a constructionpermit for a production or utilizationfacilty wich I 9, f a ?W deibed II W21(b or I MM a) ths part or,which Is a testing facility. When aconstruction permit has been Issued forsuch a facility following the holding of apublic hearing and an application Ismade for an operating LBen" or for anamendment to a construction permit oroperating license, the Commission mayhold a bearing after at least 20-days'notice and publication once In theFederal Register, or. in the absence of arequest therefor by any person whoseInterest may be affected, may Issue anoperating license or an amendment to a'construction permit or operating licensewithout a hearisn, upon 30-days' noticeandpubllcation In the Federal Registerof Its Intent to do so. lf the Commissionfinds. In an emergency situation. asdefinedin ID fai that no sigifcanthazards consideration Is presented byan application for an amendment to anoperating license, It may dispense withpublic notice and comment may Issuethe amendment. If the Commission findsthat exigent circumstances exist, asdescribed in 1 60.91, It may reduce theperiod provided for public notice andcomment Both in an emergencysituation and In the case of exigentcircumstances, the Commission wilprovide S0 days notice of opportunity fora hearln though thi notice may bepublished after issuance of theamnendmsent If the Commissiondetermines that no significant hazardsconsiderations are Involved. TheCommission will use the standards In150 92 to determine whether asignificant hazards consideration hspresented by an amendment toanoperating license for a fcility of the -

type described in 1 5021(b) or 1 0.2 orwhich Is a testing facility, and maymake the amendment I- mdiatelyeffective, notwithstanding the pendencybefore It of a request for a earing fromany person. In advance of the holdingand completion of any tequird hearing.where It has determined that nosignificant hazards consideration IsInvolved.

L Section 50.M1 is redesignated as10.92 and revised to read as follows:

502 Issuance of mwn _d.(a) In determining whether an

amendment to a license or constructionpermit will be issued to the applicant.the Commission will be guided by theconsiderations which govern theIssuance of Initial licenses or-construction permits to the extentapplicable and appropriate. If theapplication involves the materialalteration of a licensed facility, aconstruction permit will be Issued priorto the issuance of the amendment to thelicense. If the amendment Involves asignificant hazards consideration, theCommission will give notice of itsproposed action purmant to I £105 ofthis chapter before acting thereon. Thenotice will be Issued as soon aspracticable after the application hasbeen docketed.

(b) The Commission will beparticularly sensitive to a license

amendment request that InvolvesIrreversible consequences (such as onethat., for example. permits a significantIncrease in the amount of eMuents arradiation emitted by a nuclear powerplant).

te) The Commission may make a finaldetermination. pursuant to the -procedures In 1 50.92. that a proposedamendment to an operating license for afacility licensed under I 5021(b) or£ 5022 or for a testing facility Involvesno significant hazards considerations. ifoperation of the facility In accordancewith the proposed amendment wouldnot 0

(1) Involve a snficant increase Inthe probability or consequences of anaccident previously evaluated, or

(2) Create the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident from anyaccident previously evaluated; or

(3) Involve a significant reduction in amargin of safety.

The views of ChairmanPalladino and Commissioners Aheame.Gllinsky and Asselstine follow.

Dated at Washington. D.C. Ws 4th day ofApril 19s3.

14872 Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 67 / Wednesday, April 6,1983 / Rules and Regulations

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Samuel J Oaflk.Secreforth* Commission:

Chairman Palldlo.Additial Views-In my opinion the Commisdon's decison

on reraddig represents its best tecicaljudgment at this me on the generic no-igrnfcant-huzards questio. That s. the

Commission cannot say that reacng.t u ageneral matter, would or would not involve asignificant hazards consideration Thetechnical considerations of remacinproposals can wary significantly from oe toanother.

It was this latter fac as well as thestatements made In the Congress anreracking. that caused me to vote for the staffto study the technica2 basis for judgmentsabout the hazards considerations presentedby particular reracking applications

I also believe that we may have cleared upone of the Congressional concerns aboutreracking by stating that it Is not our intent tomake a no-significant-hazards-considerationfinding for reracking based On unpoventechnology.

Additional Comments of Comnm oAhearn

There have been several complaints thatthe criteria for determining when anamendment involves significant hazardconsiderations are unclear or difficut toapply. For example. in the current notice theCommission notes that a commenter on theproposed rule stated the standards are"unclear and useless in that they Imply akvel of detailed review of amendmentapplications far beyond what the staffnormally performs."' However, thecriticisms must be considered In context

tn May s7a a petition for rulemaidng ufled which requested that criteria bespecified for determining when anamendment Involved no significant hazardsconslderations.'The petition was publishedfor comment in 197*The Commissionreceived few comments, primarily supportingor opposing criteria which had been proposedin the petition. Tle discussion focused anunderlying philosophical/legal Issues ratherthan specific alternative crterla.

Tle rulemaking then lay dormant forseveral years. In late WV the Commi ssonaddressed the matter and agreed to Issue aproposed rule for public comment. Theproposed rule was publIshed March 19a.'4Athe Commission explained in that notice:

'This refes :n "Commets by the NaturaltResources Defense Council and the Union gfConcerned Scientists en Proposed amendmes bo20 CFR Pars: 2 and No Signficant HazardsConuidertion' at 5 (May 1.130) (commenStl. PR-Lo (45 FR 2Osi).

Me petition was filed May .I=5 by Ur. RobertLowenstein on behalf of 3oeton Eds Company.Florid Power and Lght Company, and Iowa PowerCompany.

$ei RM Sw oun Kws)

'45 FR am (March 3 ;20).

During the past several years. the Staff hasbeen guided in reaching Its findings withrespect to no significant hazaItonsdrtion" by staf crteri and exaples

of amendmens likely to invoivs. and notily to Involv, ignificant

considertions. Tese 0tcri a exampleshave been promulgated within e Staff andhave proven useful to the Staff TheCommission believes It would be useful toconsider Incorporating these afteria Into theCommission's rtions for we indetermining whether a proposed amendmentto an operating license or to a constructionpermit of any production or utilization facilityInvolves no gnficant hazardsconsideration.'

With respect to the criticism that thecriteria are unclear, we have not receivedmuch assistance In developing clearer criteriadespite having obtained two rounds ofcomment over the last seven years. Forexample, in the comments on the proposedrule mentioned sbove. NRDC and UCSsimply urguedL The NRC sould-proulgatea rle holding that prioroce adopportunity for hearing should be providedfor construction permit and operatinglicenses amendmuents in all cases exceptthose involving no significant p y-unreviewid safety iuue" In additon thedebate has oen bce confued bydiffering assumptions und philosophies thattare not usually dearly Idenxtified. Ypr

mple, the NRDC/U mplicathon of atdetailed level of review alse ybecause of an Implicit assumption tht thecriteria are intended to require a merits typereview. In fct, what thestaffhis alwaysdone, and whet I believe we had In mind.was to make a preliminary Judgment.

Basically. we have done the est we can. Iwould be willing to address any specificalternatives. However, after dealing with tsfor a number of years. I believe we mustmove ahead with what we have.Commissioner Glinky's Separate Views enthe Interim fina Rude Regarding Standardsfor Determining Whether LicenseAmendments Involve no Significant HazardsConsiderations (Amendments to 10 CFR Pant'96)

Standing by themselves, the standardswhich are set forth in the rule are so generalthat they offer no real guidance to the NRCstaff. In a priorversion of the rule. theCommission included. in the rule itself. somevery useful examples of which amendments

lid atd 11ld At 12. 1 CFR 0.m deems actions to be an

unnrviewed safety questonnz"(1) If the probability of occurrerc dthe

consequances of an accient or malfunction ofequipment important to safety previously evlustedti tie safety analysis report may be 6sasoedi W(U) Ue possibility fur an acident or ulfnctUon ofa diferent type than any evaluated prvously tothe sy alysi eport may h sted or (il) Ifthe mqn ef saetyr as defined In tbrhe t baisr sIytcnical specifcato Is bd sd

NDClUt did ot propose analtaatadefinition to be wed with their proosaL it istoterstin tlo bane the substantl OWN ty to'hesignificant hazards conlderation t.aL

do and do not Inv;lnv a significant hazardconsIderation. In the final version. theseexamples have been downgraded to ther amible of the rule where they wilsbe of

ttle or nO lgal cons equence and where, a apractical ter1hey will be inccessible toanyone but the NRC historian Thisdiinishes the vlue of the rle so much thatI can no longer approve IL

The earlierversio of the rule placedamendments authorizing substantial spentfuel pool expansions In the significanthazards consideration category.TheCommision should have retained thiscategorization which Is consistent with theterms of the rule. Moreover, the Commissionshould not have Ignored the strong public andCongressional views which have beenexpressed on this point, most recently bySenators Simpson. Ht and Mltchell. I amInagreement with Commissoner Asselatine'sanalysis of the legislative record underlyingthis provialdAdditional VisY of Commissioner AsselJtind

I strogy disagree with the Commissionmajority's decision to permit the use of the"Shofly amendment" authority contained insection U of Public law 7-425, the NRCAuthorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and1983 for license amendments for theseracddng ofa spent fuel pool.

The Commission majority's interm finalrule would change the Commission'slongstanding and consitent policy ofrequiring that any requested earing on alicense amendment for the reracking of aspent fud pool be completed prior to gntingthe license amendment. Although theCommisslon has considered and approved ahlae number of spent fuel pool rerackingamendments in the past. It has never used theto significant hazards consideration

iso s in son 18 . of the AtomicEtnergy Act of 15aBs a basis for approvingthe amendment before the completion of arequested hearing.

It h clear to me from the legislative historyof section 12 of Public Law P7415 that theCongress did not intend that the authoritygranted by section 12 should be used toapprove reracking amendments prior to thecompltion of ny requested hearing. ITeSholly amendment was first Included In theNRC authorization bill for fiscal years 1982and 2983 by the Senate Committee enEnvironment and Public Works. The report ofthat Committee on the bill (Senate Report 97-113) makes It abundantly clear that theCommittee did not Intend the Shoflyamendment to be ued by the Commission toapprove reracking amendments in advance ofthe completion of a requested hearing.Although the report of the ConferenoeCommittee on the bill did not repeat thisadmonition, there Is no evidence to indicate acontrary view by the House-Senate confereeson the bill or by the two House Committeesthat considered the legislation.

Moreover. I believe that the ue of theSholy amendment authority to approvrtracing amendments before the completionof any required hearing goes far beyond thejustification offered by the Commission whenIt requested the Sholly amendment In

- e

. Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 67 _ Wednesday, April 6. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 14873

requesting the enactment of the Mhollyamendment the Commission described insome detail the situations In which It foresawthe need for this authority. The Commissionemphasized the need for a large nuber ofunforeseen and usantan ted chane to tdetailed teonicaspecofictn In theoperating licenses for nudlesr powerplantsthat arise each year through such activities asrefueln of the plant. The Commissonargued that the need to bolda* aring oneach of these changes. If one Isrequested.would be burdensome to th Commuslon andcould dirrupt te operation of a nubr ofplants. In order to evoid thisr problem. teCommisson arsked the Congress to rinstatethe authority that the Commission htdexercised In simlar situations since lIZ Areracking amendment bs sbstantallydifferent fro the situatlons described by tbeC dommsin In requesting the Shollyamendment, because the need for rerakncan be anticipated. beaus rerackinginvolves a substantial physical mcodilicatlonto the plant and because of te signifcanceattached to reracking by State and loculofficials and by the public.

Finally. I believe thaet there are dstonpublic policy reasons for continuing theCommissions past practice of compleingbearings on reracking amendmnent proposl

aeor pproving the amendment. T~esepubic policy reasons Includete sthegInterest and concern on th part of State andlocal governments and the public regaringreracking proposal and the estent tb wIchproceeding with rerckcing In *dvance of theheaig may prejudice the later considerationof other alternatives to the proposedrerackig plan

For these reasonsaes a mastter of polcy. Iwould not permit the use of the Shollyamendment authority to approve rerakngamendments prior to the completion of anyrequested hearing. I would therefore havadded a provision to the Commissionseinterimn final rule that would hav requirdas a policy matter, the completion of anrequested bearing on a spent fuel poolrercking amendme nt before Comissonapproval of thie amendment.

D~nan

R ooc~ ..

m~usion and

amendmentshazards conscriteria for dlnotice and republic command (3) toconsutationith the Stat

involved s Iswill nomallyStates withdeterlInatio

opportunityDaTr EfcectiCommissionInterim finalCommentssoebe considerebut assuranbe gven excereceived on 0ADORESSEt 1be sent to theComnmission]CommnissionAttention: Do~

thie amendmeRcgulatoryconnectionbe n edDocument RoWashitonFOR FUNMlERThomas F. DoExecutive LegRegulatory CcD.C. 2055. TeSUPPLEMENTA

IntroductionPublic Law

4.1983. amonjto promulgateestablish (a) awhether an arlicense involvconsiderationor. In emergerwith prior notany such deteprocedures fodeterminatiocthe facility In,Conf. Rep. NeSes. (19U2). 1authorizes NYImmediately ia license. upoamendment Ithazards conslNRC has befchearing by anadvance of tbof any requirand request f

s statutory

.volve no significant

lerations. (2) to specifylensing with such priorsonable opportunity forit lI emergency situations,ish procedures for

ny suchdeterminationsInwhich the facility

ated. ese procedures,rovide the pubic and theor notice of NRC'sInvolving no signficant

lerations and with ancomment on Its actions.date: May 1983. ITe

Wites comments on thisxle by May 0,1983.elved after this date willif It is practical to do so.of consideration cannot,t as to commentsbefore this date.

tten comments shouldcretary of the

S Nuclear RegulatoryVashington. D.C. 2055etng and Serviceof comnments received on

Is as well as on theyeis proposed in

mthe aendments maythe Commission's Public

m at 7l H Street. NW.

FORMATION eONTACan Esq, Office of theI Director. U.S. Nuclear

snmlon. Washington.ephone: (301) 492-890.

1715C signed on Januaryother things. directs NRC

gulations whichandards for determining&endment to an operating

rs no significant hazards(b) criteria for providing

situations, dispensingce and public comment ontminaton; and (c)consulting on such awth the State in whichIved is located. See97;.'884 97th Cong., ade legislation alsoto issue and make

ective an amendment toa determination that the

volver no significantI1eraton (even though

e It arequest for aterested person) and in

&holding and completionep hearing. This rulemakingo comments responds totrectie that NRC

expeditiousl promlgate regulations onItems (b) an 4c) above. RC is aopublishingpartely in the FeoralRegister Intetim fina regulatons on Item(a) abe. .

These regi ations are Issued. as finalthough in Int rim form. and commentswill be consi ered on them. They willbecome effec ve 30 days aeterpublication I the Federal Reg.stat.Accordingly. nterested persons whowish to com aent are encouraged to doso at the earl est possible time, but notlater than 30 ay after publication. topermit the fudest consideration of theirviews.Backgound

A. Affecec JLegislatio& Reat fionsand Procedt ?8

When the 4tomic Energy Act of 1954(Act) was adqpted in 1954. It containedno provision Which required a publichearing on Iss:ance of a constructionpermit or opetating license for a nuclearpower reactor in the absence of arequest from ;n Interested person. In1957, the Act *as amended to requirethat mandato y hearings be held beforeIssuance of b tho construction permitand an operatig cense for powerreactors and trtain other facilities.Public law 85258 (7 StaL 578)amending sec on l89a. of the Act.

The 1057 amendments to the Act wereInterpreted by the Commission asrequiring a "msndatory hearing beforeIssuance of amendments to constructionpernits and operating licenses. See. eHeang Before the Subcommittee onLegislation. lotat Committee on AtomicEnergy. 87th Cpng.. ad. Seas. (April 17.1962), at 6.) Paitially in response to theadministrative~rigidity and cumbersomerocedures whIch this Interpretationrce upon the Commission (see. oint

Committee on Attomic Energy StafiStudy. "Improving the AEC RegulatoryProcess". Marci 1961, pp. 49-0). section189a. of the Act was amended in 1962 toeliminate the requirement for amandatory pub'lic bearing except uponthe application for a construction permitfor a power or (sting facility. As statedIn the report of the Joint Committee onAtomic Energy whlch recommended theamendments:

Accordingly, a section will eliminate therequirements for mandatdry hearing. exceptupon the applics on for a construction permitFor a power or tcoUng fclty Under thisplain the Issuanc of amendments to suchconstruction perits and the Issuance ofoperating lcenae and amendments to suchconstruction permits. and the Issuance ofoperating llcense4 and amendments tooperating llcense would be only after a 3D-day public notice nd an offer of hearing. Inthe absence of a quest for shearing.

10 CFR Parts 2 u l0

Notie and State aonsufttlon

ACENmC Nuclear egulatoryCommission.Acmo Interim ai re.

sUMimRY; Pursua415. NRC Is amento provide procednormally It wouldopportunity for aapplications It retoperating licensereactors and test,reactors are not cnotice and reasorpublic comment cdeterminations al

t to Public aw 97-in8 Its regulations (1)rer under whichgive prior notice oftearing onives to amendfor nuclear powerg facilities (researchvered) and priorible opportunity foriproposedout whetheriase

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 67 / Wednesday, April 6. 1983 | Rules and Regulations 14873

requesting the enamendment thesome detail the rthe need for thiremphasized the nunforeseen anddetailed technicaoperating 3icensethat aIse eae hrefuelIng of the plargued that theeach of these chewould be burdecould disrupt the

- plants. In orderCommission askthe authority thatexercised Insilrersck ingaendifferent from theCommisslon inramendment becacan be anticipateinvolves a ubsto the plant andattached to reraofficials and by

Finally. I believpublic policy reasCommissIons pasherings on rracbehre approvingpublic policy reasIterest nd wnlocal governmenreracking proposalproceeding writhhiearing masy prejof other aiternativrerackdng plan

For these ressorwould nat permit Iamendment authoiamendments priorrequested hearing.added a provisioninterim final rule Cas a policy matter,requested hearingreracking amendmapproval of the anpa D cL m2rb ad4m.t coDE n

ctnent of the ShollyDlmisslon described In

uateons In which It foresawathority te Commissioned for a arge number ofanticipated changes to the-speEastaons in thefor nuclear powerplantskr through such activities astnt. The Commissiond to hold a hearing an

*eLs If one is requested.Xne to the CommissIon ndperatlon of a number ofavoid this problem. theI the Congress to reinstatethe Commission hadr situations since 16 Aent is substantiallysituations described by theeusting the Sholly

te the need for reacing* because eakingtial physical Duodlcation

pcouse of the sgnificanceby State nd rlocal

rpublic.that there are etrong

oontinuing thepractice of completing~n amendment propoalsPu mendmnent. These

Ins ude the strongon the part of State and

and the publ1ic reardingus ad the extent to whichrcklnr In advance of thece later consideration

F to the proposed

sass matter of policy. ie use of the Shollyty to pprove reacking

eompleton of any¢ vould therefore h

ko the Commisstonsat would have required.

, the completion of anyan a spent fuel poolrnt before Commission!ntent .

so wa;<

amendments Involve no sgsdficanthazards considerations, (2) to specifycriteria for dispensing with such priornotice and reasonable opportunity forpublic comment lb emegency situations.and (3) to furnish proce ures forconsultafon on any such determinationswith the State In which the facilityinvolved Is located. These procedureswill normally provide the publc and theS~tates with prior notice of NRCsdetermnhations Involving no significanthazards consliderations and with anopportunity to comment on Its actions.DA=E Effective date: May 1983 TheCommission Invites comments on thisinterim final rule by May S 1983.Comments received after this date willbe considered if It is practical to do so,but assurance of consideration cannotbe given except as to commentsreceived on or before this date.ADDRESSE: Written comments shouldbe sent to the Secretary of theCommission. US. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. Washington. D.C 20555,Attention: Docketing and ServiceBranch. Copies of comments received onthe amendments as well as on theRegulatory Analysis proposed Inconnection with the amendments maybe examined in the Commission's PublicDocument Room at 1717 H Street. NW,,Washington D.C.FOR FURTHER INFORMAMON eONTACr.Thomas F. Dorian. Esq. Office of theExecutive Legal Director, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission. Washington.D.C 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-890SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOCIntroduction

Public Law 27-415. signed on January4. 1983, among other things, directs NRCto promulgate regulations whichestablish (a) standards for determiningwhether an amendment to an operatinglicense involves