Contact: William D. Reckley, NRR 

415-1323

POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATiON

July 27, 2001 SECY-01-0142

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: William D. Travers 

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION

DETERMINATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE RATED THERMAL

POWER FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS 

PURPOSE:

To inform the Commission of the staffís intent to issue proposed no significant hazards

consideration determinations for amendments to increase rated thermal power (power uprates)

for nuclear power reactors. 

SUMMARY:

In 1986 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued its regulations for no significant

hazards consideration (NSHC) determinations for license amendment applications. The NSHC

determination is used in the license amendment process to decide if an amendment may be

issued before completing a requested hearing or if the staff must wait until after the hearing

process is completed before issuing the amendment. In the supplementary information that

accompanied the final rulemaking (51 FR 7744, published March 6, 1986), an increase in

authorized maximum core power level was provided as an example of an amendment that the

NRC considered likely to involve significant hazards considerations (i.e., an amendment that

would not be issued before completing a hearing if one were granted).

The staff has issued many power uprate amendments in the years after issuing the procedures

and standards on NSHC determinations. In an effort to improve the efficiency of the staffís

approach to power uprates and address previous inconsistencies in our approach to noticing

applications, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) will issue guidance to the staff on

using the criteria defined in Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10

CFR 50.92) for evaluating the issue of NSHC for amendments requesting power uprates. The

staff would, thus, handle power uprates in the same fashion as it handles other license

amendment applications. 
-2-

BACKGROUND:

Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), requires, in part, that

the Commission provide thirty daysí notice of its intent to issue an amendment to a license for a

power reactor, and an opportunity for a hearing. In 1983, Congress amended Section 189a. to

provide, in part, as follows: 

(2)(A) The Commission may issue and make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license . . . upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,

notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for hearing

from any person. Such amendment may be issued and made immediately

effective in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing. 

. . . .

(C) The Commission shall, during the ninety-day period following the effective

date of this paragraph, promulgate regulations establishing (i) standards for

determining whether any amendment to an operating license involves no

significant hazards consideration[.]

42 U.S.C. ß 2239(a)(2). To comply with these provisions, the Commission published an interim

final rule (48 FR 14864, published April 6, 1983) setting forth criteria in 10 CFR 50.92 for

determining whether an amendment involves NSHC. The final rule (51 FR 7744, published

March 6, 1986) affirmed the criteria in the interim final rule.

Section 50.92 provides that a proposed amendment to an operating license involves NSHC if

"...operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or 

(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety."

The Commission included guidance on the NSHC criteria and examples of amendments

deemed likely to involve or not involve a proposed NSHC determination in the statements of

consideration published with a proposed rule (45 FR 2049, published March 28, 1980). The

supplementary information accompanying the final rule also included such examples, as well as

a discussion on several specific types of amendments. Example "v" under the category of

amendments that would likely involve a significant hazards consideration was "...for a nuclear

power plant, an increase in authorized maximum core power level." 
-3-

1 When the staff issues a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License And Opportunity For a Hearing without a proposed NSHC

determination, the notice includes the following statement:

If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may issue

the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further notice for

public comment of its proposed finding of no significant hazards

consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.

The notice issued by the staff provides neither a proposed NSHC determination nor a

definitive finding that the subject amendment involves a significant hazards

consideration. In such cases, the staff will make a finding regarding NSHC only if a

request for a hearing is received.

Although the supplementary information did not include an expanded discussion for each

example, the notice made clear that the examples were merely guidelines and that, as

problems were resolved and new information was developed, the staff might refine the

examples and add new ones, in keeping with the standards of the final rule. 

DISCUSSION:

The staff decided to develop additional guidance on NSHC determinations for power uprates

to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of, and lend stability to, the licensing process. Two

options were considered. The first option was to issue guidance to the NRC staff that all

power uprate amendments be noticed without a proposed NSHC determination.1

 The second

option was to delete power uprates as an example under the category of amendments that are

considered likely to involve significant hazards considerations. The staff chose the second

option because the technical evaluation of whether or not a power uprate amendment involves

potential hazards consideration should center on the three standards defined in 10 CFR 50.92.

The staff has concluded that sufficient evidence and information exist for the staff to uniformly

apply the criteria defined in 10 CFR 50.92 to amendments for power uprates. The staff has

reviewed and approved numerous power uprate license amendments since the development

of 10 CFR 50.92 in the 1980s. Some proposed power uprate amendments were noticed

without making a proposed NSHC determination (i.e., providing neither a proposed NSHC

determination nor a finding that the subject amendment involved a significant hazards

consideration). Other power uprate amendments have been noticed with a proposed NSHC

determination based on the licenseeís analysis, the final standards in 10 CFR 50.92, and the

lessons learned from previously approved power uprate amendments. The staff has now

determined that it is appropriate to make proposed NSHC determinations for some types of

power uprates, as described below.

Applications for power uprates have proposed increases in rated thermal power from

approximately 1 percent up to approximately 20 percent of an existing licensed power level. 

Numerous power uprates of approximately 1.4 percent power are expected as a result of a

recent change to Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, ìECCS [emergency core cooling system]

Evaluation Models,î (65 FR 34921, published June 1, 2000). The change allows for analyses of
-4-

ECCS performance assuming a power level less than the traditional 1.02 times the licensed

power level, provided the proposed alternative value has been demonstrated to account for

uncertainties in power level instrumentation. Improvements in power level measurements since

the development of the ECCS rules in the 1970s have allowed licensees to justify measurement

uncertainties on the order of 0.6 percent and to request power uprates of approximately

1.4 percent without revising many of the analyses within the subject facilityís existing licensing

bases. Based on the well-developed technology involved in these relatively small uprates and

the staffís experience with them, the staff believes that it is straightforward to determine that

power uprates of approximately 1.4 percent do not involve a significant hazards consideration

using the standards of 10 CFR 50.92. 

The staff has also reviewed numerous power uprates of several percent power (approximately

7 percent power or less). These uprates, sometimes referred to as ìstretch upratesî have 

been justified by original design analyses that assumed power levels above the power level

incorporated into the license or were justified by new analyses of plant systems, structures, and

components under the revised operating conditions associated with an increase in rated

thermal power. The staff intends to determine whether to issue proposed NSHC determinations

on a case-by-case basis for future power uprates of approximately 7 percent power or less. 

Based on its safety and environmental findings from past uprates, the staff believes it will likely

find that specific applications for uprates of this magnitude can be noticed with proposed NSHC

determinations using the standards of 10 CFR 50.92.

The staff will need to carefully consider the noticing of power uprates of more than

approximately 7 percent power, sometimes referred to as ìextended uprates.î The extended

power uprates could challenge the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 associated with increased

consequences of accidents or reduced margins of safety. The staff will use the safety and

environmental findings from its reviews of extended power uprates to determine if the standards

defined in 10 CFR 50.92 can be met for large increases in rated thermal power. After the staff

has had experience with a few requests for extended power uprates, the staff may determine,

on a case-by-case basis, whether an individual application for an extended uprate could be

noticed with a proposed NSHC determination. Until the staff has gained insights from its review

of at least a few extended uprates, the staff plans to continue to notice applications for 

extended power uprates without proposed NSHC determinations. 

The staff, therefore, will issue guidance, in NRR Office Instruction LIC-101, ìLicense

Amendment Review Procedures,î on using the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92 for evaluating the

issue of NSHC for amendments requesting power uprates. Thus the staff will handle power

uprates in the same fashion as it handles other license amendment applications. The staff will,

however, be cautious about noticing proposed extended power uprates with proposed NSHC

determinations until experience with such reviews demonstrates that such applications can

meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.92. The staff will continue to notify the Commission

whenever it plans to issue an amendment subject to a request for a hearing.

SCHEDULING:

The staff expects to issue the revised guidance in LIC-101 within 30 days of the date of this

paper.

RESOURCES:
-5-

No significant resource implications are associated with this effort. The guidance will be

developed as part of an ongoing activity for maintaining NRR procedures. There are no

significant differences between the resources needed to implement this guidance and the

resources needed to implement any alternative.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to its

content.

/RA by William F. Kane Acting For/

William D. Travers

Executive Director 

 for Operations
- 5 -

RESOURCES:

No significant resource implications are associated with this effort. The guidance will be

developed as part of an ongoing activity for maintaining NRR procedures. There are no

significant differences between the resources needed to implement this guidance and the

resources needed to implement any alternative.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to its

content.

/RA by William F. Kane, Acting For/

William D. Travers

Executive Director 

 for Operations

ADAMS TEMPLATE: SECY-012

ACCESSION NO. ML011930574

*See Previous Concurrence

OFC NRR:DLPM:PM NRR:DLPM:PD NRR:DLPM:LA NRR:DLPM:D NRR:PMAS TechEd

Name WReckley SRichards DJohnson JZwolinski MCase* PKleene*

Date 7/5/01 7/5/01 7/9/01 5 / 14 /01

7/11/01

 5 / 14 /01 5 / 18 /01

OFC OGC NLO with

 comments

NRR:ADPT NRR:D EDO

Name RWeisman* BSheron SCollins WTravers

Date 7/ 3 /01 7/13/01 7/16/01 7/27/01

OFFICIAL RECORD