Commission Response Clause Samples
Commission Response. To the extent that concerns or complaints received by the School may trigger Commission intervention, including revocation or non-renewal of the Charter, the Commission may monitor the School’s handling of such concerns or complaints. In such cases, the Commission may request and the School shall provide information regarding the school’s actions in responding to those concerns or complaints. The Commission may elect to delay intervention until another state or federal investigation is completed and may accelerate the level of intervention based on the conclusions of the state or federal investigation.
Commission Response. The Commission and the public utilize the data in FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6–Q to assist in monitoring rates, the financial condition of the oil pipeline industry, and in assessing energy markets. The LSG’s comments in support of the continued collection of FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6–Q data reflect the public benefit of reporting this information. Comments: Comments are invited on:
(1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections
Commission Response. The Commission did not make the suggested change. The suggested addition would exceed the scope of the rule and add practice requirements that should not be in the Rules.
Commission Response. When the Commission published the upgraded emergency preparedness regulations in August 1980, the subject of low power operating licenses was not addressed. At that time the Commission did not differentiate as to what emergency planning requirements would be applicable to the period of fuel loading and low power testing. The Commission has now focused on the risks associated with this level of operation and has chosen a level of emergency preparedness appropriate to assure the health and Safety of the public at the stage. In doing so, the Commission does not alter the high standards applicable to the review of emergency preparedness at full power.
Commission Response. Applicability of the rules for baseline negotiated service agreements. For administrative purposes, the Commission has docketed the instant filing as a request predicated on a baseline negotiated service agreement as
Commission Response. The Commission agrees that there may be s lightly higher risks due to the plant operators having less experience with the plant at this stage and with a Federal Register / VoL 47, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 13, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 30233 potential for undiscovered design and construction defects. However, in the Commission’s view, this risk is significantly outweighed by several other factors. First, the fission product inventory dining low power testing is much less than during higher power operation due to the low level of reactor power and short period of operation. Second, at low power there is a significant reduction in the required capacity of systems designed to mitigate the consequences of accidents compared to the required capacities under full- power operation. Third, the time available for taking actions to identify accident causes and mitigate accident consequences is much longer than at full power. This means the operators should have sufficient time to prevent a radio active release from occurring. In the worst case, the additional time available (at least 10 hours), even for a postulated low likelihood sequence which could eventually result in release of the fission products accumulated at low power into the containment, would allow adequate precautionary actions to be taken to protect the public near the site. Weighing all risks involved, the Commission has determined that the degree of emergency preparedness necéssary to provide adequate protection .of the public health and safety is significantly less than that required for full-power operation,1
Commission Response. It is true that special hearings will not, in a typical case, be held following the full-scale exercise. The public should recognize that the Commission does not intend to authorize the issuance of a full-power operating license if there has been a full- scale exercise which raises serious and significant deficiencies which have not been compensated for and which go to the fundamental nature of the emergency plan itself. Such a deficiency calls into question whether reasonable assurance may be found that public health and safety will be adequately protected in a radiological emergency.
Commission Response. The Commission agrees with this comment. See Commission Response to Issue #