ML20040F668

Advises That Request for Exemption from Requirements of Final Rule on Prompt Notification Sys within Plume Exposure Pathway Per 10CFR App E,Section IV.D.3 Cannot Be Granted

ML20040F668
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	01/21/1982
From:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 8202100067
Download: ML20040F668 (8)

Text

_ _ _

l l

JANUN<v

. 1982

-s-l I

1 DISTRIBUTION:

IE-3 S

NSIC Docket File ACRS-10

(

ORBn4 Rdg Gray File Ej NRC ?DR del s en hirt L PDR SSchwartz RIngram H RA MPadovan DocLet No.53-312 H0 rns tei n LDlackwood CELD AE0D "r. J.

1. Mattinoe Assistant Cencral f *anager and Chief Engineer Sacratiento Municipal Utility Jistrict M 1 S Street P. O. Nx 15330 Sacranento, Cali fornia 95G13 l

Dear Mr. 'ta ttinoe:

STJLCT:

PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTi't - REQUEST F0" EXLf'rTIO.

This is in response to your Ncenber 31, 1991 lettnr requestinq an exerption fron t7e requirenents of 19 CFR AppenJix E, 9ection IV.D. '

I and the Fedaral Register Notice in Vol. 46, 40. 1 M, pace 46;37 t u ruquires the conpletion of a Pmopt notification Syster within t:.e plune exposure pathway LP7 by February 1,1R.

TK rovised enernency plannirm reculation, u"ich becane effective

.overher 3,19';0, requirod the licensee to Jenonstrate that adninis-trative and plysical reans were established for alertino and provi linq pronpt instruction to t ie public wit.lin th: pl re exposura nathway Emrvncy Plannin:

.~on" by July 1, 1981.

Many licensees di' not neet tlis n>quironen _ by Jul/ 1,1931; the failure a ttributed to anfore-seen lifficulties and uncertainties surrounJino tSe desion, procure: ent I

and installation of the eronpt notification systers.

Consequently, t'w Ccuiission proposed the exterision of the July 1,111 late to February 1, 1 Ja, %t deterrined that if the systcrs were not installed and operahle

!;y Feb rua r / 1, l h ?, the licensees rould be subject to enforcerent actioc. On vecer d:er 30, INl, a fin?l rule channe which was innediately I

efftctive, Jelayed t,is iropl>:nentati m date for prm:pt public notifica-tion sys tens fron July 1,1T1 to Febru r/ 1, in (dC fp r3131),

I ra w

--o

'hc n tb Co alissioa chose t1 r bruary 1, l'F ? Jeadline, they wero e

T awaru t';it som licensees were statinq t :at Oey nicht not he able to

@g conplete inst tilation of their systers by tit late.

Even rii th thic (Din knoul Hge, the Lonni';sion deci !e ! th at ti february 1, l! m late was reasonable, qivan t.:ie fact th at all licensaes should have been able to rg neet t tis dea iline by havinr: appliel suffi cient resources to the tasF go

'lithout delay.

T'11s is particularly true since t% licensers havo ' n m in m

of the r"quirenent s ince Septenher 10, 1071, w' inn tb omposed rulo

?jg c'ian q i n o 10 CFP P 3ppendix F was publishod ia tho Federal locis t'r l

g (44 Fh54 E).

In view of the above, and the requiren :nts of the final l

rule on the prorpt public notification syster, your request for an exanotion cannot be orantes!.

g g

.pp 4

vC Q.j,

y l

Mr. J. J.11attinoe.

Since the Comission is aware that your inability to meet the July 1,1981 date could be attributed to causes beyond your control, the Comission will take into consideration your particular circumstances in detemining the degree of enforcement action.

In this regard, your attention is directed to Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Supplementary Information Section of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register.on Decerber 30,1981(FRVol.46, ib. 250, Pages 63031 - 63033 copy enclosed.

Sincerely, ech1019.L 31c2 M J01G F. 3IO W

• John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch f4 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

FR Vol. 46,flo. 250 Pages 63031-63033 cc w/ enclosure:

See next page a

OR L

C nRB#4:DL

... q.w..,......

omce >

.f1.P.. 7,. van../..c.b..

.J,. 7-o sunsaur) 3

[...gg

...M...

ome) enc ronu sia po-son nacu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uso m asi-m wo

V '

em UNITED STATES

~

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,,

g,....+/a January 21, 1982 Docket No. 50-312 Mr. J. J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street P. O. Dox 15830 Sacramento, California 95813

SUBJECT:

PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION This is in response to your December 31, 1981 letter requesting an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Appendix E,Section IV.D.3 and the Federal Register Notice in Vol. 46, No.182, page 46587 that requires the completion of a Prompt Notification System within the plume exposure pathway EPZ by February 1,1982.

The revised emergency planning regulation, which became effective November 3,1980, required the licensee to demonstrate that adminis-trative and physical means were established for alerting and providing prompt instruction to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone by July 1,1981. Many licensees did not meet this requirement by July 1,1981; the failure attributed to unfore-seen difficulties and uncertainties surrounding the design, procurement and installation of the prompt notification systems. Consequently, the Comission proposed the extension of the July 1,1981 date to February 1, 1982, but determined that if the systems were not installed and operable by February 1,1982, the licensees would be subject to enforcement action. On December 30, 1981, a final rule change which was immediately effective, delayed this implementation date for prompt public notifica-tion systems from July 1,1981 to February 1,1982 (46 FR 63031).

When the Commission chose the February 1,1982 deadline, they were aware that some licensees were stating that they might not be able to complete installation of their systems by that date.

Even with this knowledge, the Commission decided that the February 1,1982 date was reasonable, given the fact that all licensees should have been able to meet this deadline by having applied sufficient resources to the task without delay. This is particularly true since the licensees have known of the requirement since September 19, 1979, when the proposed rule changing 10 CFR 50 Appendix E was published in the Federal Register (44 FR 54308).

In view of the above, and the requirements of the fina.

rule on the pmmpt public notification system, ycor request for an exemption cannot be granted.

I Mr. J. J. Mattimoe Since the Conrnission is aware that your inability to meet the July 1,1981 date could be attributed to causes beyond your control, the Commission will take into consideration your particular circumstances in determining the degree of enforcement action.

In this regard, your attention is directed to Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Supplementary Information Section of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register on Decamber 30,1981 (FR Vol. 46, No. 250, Pages 63031 - 63033 copy enclosed.

Sincerely, n

w Jo n F. Stolz, Chief' erating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

FR Vol. 46, No. 250 Pages 63031-63033 cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

,.-,.,-.-.,-y-.q, 7.

.=y.-

gw. c p

,m-g w-e w.

3 nm,-.-

~

Sacramento Municipal Utility Ranch) Seco, Dock::t No. 50-312 District cc w/ enclosure (s):

David S. Kaplan, Secretary and Christopher Ellison, Esq.

General Counsel Dian Grueuich, Esq.

6201 S Street California Energy Commission P. O. Box 15830 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95813 Sacramento, California 95825 Sacramento County Ms. Eleanor Schwartz Board of Supervisors California State Office 827 7th Street, Room 424 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Rm. 201 Sacramento, California 95814 Washington, D. C.

20003 Business and Municipal Department Docketing and Service Section Sacramento City-County Library Office of the Secretary 828 I Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento, California 95814 Washington, D. C.

20555 Resident Inspector / Rancho Seco c/o U. S. N. R. C.

14410 Twin Cities Road Herald, CA 95638 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Regional Radiation f.epresentative EPA Reaton IX Mr. Frederick J. Shon 215 Fremont Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Francisco, California 94111 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Robert B. Borsum Washington, D. C.

20555 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Chairman, Atomic Safety and Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Thomas Baxter, Esq.

Washington, D. C.

20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P.C.

1900 M Street, N.W.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.

20036 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Helen Hubbard Washington, D. C.

20555 P. O. Box 63 Sunol, California 94586 w -

we w

Sacramento Municipal Utility Distrtet Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. Robert H. Engelken, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission, Region V Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 202 Washington, D. C.

20555 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. John H. Buck 4

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 California Department of Health ATTN: Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 f

l l

r N

03031 Rules and Regulations admi wai i r Vol. 46. No. 250 Wednesday, December 30, 1981 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER On August 11,1981, the Commission This decision is based on a contains regafatory documents having discussed possible actions because recognition that emergency plans and general e#cabit.ty and legal effect, most licensees failed to comply with the July preparedness have significantly

[jde d F\\ d to 1,1981 requirement contained in 10 CFR improved within the last year at and g Re n

is 50.47(b)(5) and 10 CFR 50. Appendix E, around every nuclear power plant site.

published under 50 t;tles pursuant to 44 Section IV.D.3. The licensees' failure to This significant improvement has been U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Fedeal Regulations is sold meet the July 1,1981 date was attributed confirmed by NRC teams who have by the Superintendent of Documents.

to unforeseen difficulties and visited a number of plant sites to Prices of new books are Ested in 159 uncertainties surrounding the design.

evaluate the licensees

• compliance with first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of eacti procurement and installation of the

' the upgraded emergency planning "Onth-prompt notification systems.

regulations of August 1900. In addition.

At the August 11,1981 meeting the the Federal Emergency Management Commission approved publication of a Agency (FEMA) and the NRC have NUCLEAR REGULATORY proposed rule change which would monitored numerous nuclear emergency COMMISSION -

provide an extension of the July 1,1981 exercises involving State and local date to February 1,1982. (See 46 FR governments and the licensees, and.

10 CFR Part 50 46587).That Federal Register notice again have witnessed a significant.

requested public comment during a 30 Improvement on onsito and offsite Emergency Planning and day period ending October 21,1981.

emergency preparedness.

Preparedness for Production and To date, comments have been The decision to delay the Utilization Facilities received from four NRC licensees, five implementation data is also based on AGENCV:Naclear Regulatory individuals or organizations in the the recognition that there exist Commission.

nuclear industry, one from the general customary warning systems (police, ACTION:Fi""1 rule" Public, three from environmental radio, telephone) which are viewed as organizations, one from a mass transit sufficiently effective in many postulated

SUMMARY

De Commission is making system director, and one from a State accident scenarios. In view of the above, two changes to its emergency planning governor.The comments received from the Commission finds that there exists regulations. He change to 10 CFR Part the general public and from the sufficient reason to believe that 50, Appendix E delays the date by which environmental organizations were appropriate protective measures,can prompt public notification systems must against delaying the implementation and will be taken for the protection of he operational around all nuclear powe, date to February 1982.The letters from the health and safety of the public in the plants.The change to i 50.54 clarifies the other commenters generally egree event of a radiological emergency during the language of the rule to conform with with extending the implementation date the extended time period for the Commission's intent at thq time of along with additional suggestions.

compliance.

promulgation.

One suggested modification to the II.The Amendment to 10 CFR 50.54 EFFECTIVE DATE:Decertber 30,1981.

proposed rule change, which has been accepted and included in these final Additionally,10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)'-

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

cumng requgres y

amendments,is not to eliminste the

,q Michael T. lamgochlan, iluman Factors Dranch. Office of Nuclear Regulatory f ur. month penod for correction of any "For operating power reactors, the licensee, Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory deficiencies identified during the initial State. and local emergency response plans Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 testing of the prompt notificatloc shallbe implemented by Aprill R81.except (telephone 301-443-3942)..

system.The Commission now believes as provided in Section IV.D.3 ot Appendix E that the elimination of this four. month of this part.If after April 1.1981,the NRC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION period would be inconsistent with the finds that the state of emergency I.The Amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, need toperform a reasonable test of the preparedness does not provide reasonable Appendix E system and make any needed changes assurance that adequate protective measurer a s indicated by the test results. The.

can and will be taken in the event of a On August 19,198', the NRC enclosed effective regulation radiobsical emergency and if the deficiencies 0

published a revised emergency plannm, g incorporates this concept.The are r.ot corrected within four months of that regulation which became effective on installation date, however, remains finding, the Commission will determine.

November 3.1950. The rule required February 1,1982, and any licensee not whether the reactor sha!! be shut down until licensees to dernonstrate, among other completing the installation by that date such deficiencies are remedied or whether -

things, by July 1,1981:

would be subject to. enforcement action.

other uforcement action is appropriate."

"that administratis e and physical means After evaluating all public comment It has come to the Commission's "d

"lj','8 pr"'st b!is edj,r alerti" I tiers received, the Commission has attention that because this section of the p,

9, to e puMic ec to pMsk as immda%

regulation was written as one within the plume exposure pathway EPZ."Ite effective, a final rule change to 10 CFR paragraph,it can be interpreted to mean des 4n objective shall be to have the $dtlal Part 50, Appendix E which will delay the that the four. month period for the capability to essentia!!y corr.plete the notication of the public within the plume implementation date for the prompt correction of emergency preparedness.

exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 public notification systems from July 1 deficiencies does not apply to "Section minutes."

1981 to February 1,1982.

IV.D.3 of Appendix E."

4

e.

7ter / Vol. 40. No. 250 / Wedr.uday, Deccmb'er 30. 1981 / Rules and Rcgu!.,ticr.s 62032 Federal I?

This is a misinterptctation of the Regulatory flexibility Act Statement D. Not@cctica Pmced.;tes Commission's intent, which was that the Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

3. A licensee shall base the capabihty to four month period is to apply to any Act of 1960. Pub. L 93-354. the NRC has mMy mp nsa state and local deficiencies identified in the emergency determined:(1) That the delaying of the 8" ' *"* ' #'I' * * ' " '

plans. The Commission is therefore implementation date for the prompt after declaring an emergency. The !!:ensee COdif)ing 150.54[s)(2) to mom clearly public notification systems will not have shan demonstrate that the State / local reflect that intent The four. month.

a significant economic impact on a officials have ti.e capability to make a public period provided in i 50.54(s)(2). will not substantial number of small entities, notification decisbn prornpdy on being apply to any licensee for the installation pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility informed by the licent ce of an emergency and initial test of the public notificatmn Act of1930, section 605(b) and (2) that condition. By February 1.1932. each nuclear system by February 1.1982. lf a hcensee the rule change to i 50.54(s)(2)is not power reactor licensee shau demonstrate that administrative and phy sical means have been is not in co=pliance with this subject to the provisions of the estaWsW Wuung a@&g pg requirement for installation and testing Regulatory Flexibility Act of1960, by Febru ry 1,1982, the Commission because the Commission has determined eps],f

[ eor y

th wa cons er ta ing approp ate pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of period in 10 CIR 50.54(s)(2) for the correction enforcement actions promptly'at that proposed rulemaking for 150.54 (s)f 2) of emergency plan deficiencies shall not time. In determming appropriate need not be issued and that the rule may apply to the initialinstallation of this public enforcement action to trutiate, the be promulgated in final form and notification system that is required by Commission wdl take into account.

become effective on December 30,1981.

February 1.1932. The four-c.onth period will among other factors, the demonstrated apply to cornction of deficiencies identified diligence of the licensee in attempting to Paperwork Reduction Act Statement during the initiclinstallation cod testing of fulfill the prompt public notiCcation Pursuant to the provisions of the the procrpt public notification systems as capab'ility requirement. The Commission Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.

therecfter. ne des.encies disc

• 1. Il## #A### ##[###

ign objective of the prompt will consider whether the licensee has L 9G-511). the NRC has made a kept the NRC Informed of the steps that determination that this final rule does

$, [p",df,*3*$,",',['n'$fco"mp e'te t$

it has taken, when those steps were not impose new recordkeeping.

initial notification of the public within the taken and any significant problems information collection, or reporting plume exposure pathway EPZ within about encountered, and the updated timetable requirements.

Is minutes.ne use of this notification which the licensee expects will be mc!

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of capability will range from immediate in achieving full compliance with the 1954, as amended, the Energy notiscation of the public (within ts minutes of the time that State and local officials are prompt public notification capability Reorganization Act of1974, as amended, requirements. The four. month period and section 553 of title 5 of the United notiSed that a situation exists requiring urgent acue) to the mom My emte will, however. apply to correction of States Code, the following amendments

" hem s su sta m

]

deficiencies identified during the initial to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as the s,

l9e g9 ent1o test of the prompt pubhc notification documents subject to codification:

make a judgment whether or not to activata systems as well as those deficiencies the public notification system. Where there Is discovered thereafter.

PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF a decision to activate the notification syr: m.

Because the amendment to PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION the State and local officials wiD determine i 50.54(s)(2) is interpretative and of a FACILITIES whether to activate the entire notification

'I"

" " 8 "' '

minor nature, simply resolving'an The authority citation for Part 50 staged manner."n"e responsibility for ambiguity in the rules to the reads as follows:

activating such a public notification system Commission's intended mdaning at the

.me of promulgation the Commission Authority Secs.1c3. Iot.161.182,189, ca shall remain with the appropriate Stat. 938. 937. 948, 953. 954. 955, 956. as governmental authcrities.

finds good cause to dispense with amended t42 U.S.C. m33. n34. 2201,2232.

advance notice and opportunity for 2233,2239); sets. 201,202. 206. 88 Stat.1243,

2. I MMsM is rew. d M read as s

public comment thereon as unnecessary. 1244.1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841,5842,5846), unless follows:

For this reason this enange shall be otherwise noted.Section 50 8 also issued.

effective as a final rule on December 30, under sec.122,68 Stat. 939 (42 US.C. 21521

! $0.54 Conditions oflicenses.

Section SCL 78-50.81 also assued under sec. 1981.

1s4. c8 stat. 954. as. amended (42 0s.C. 2234).

Likewise the Commissionis Secuans so.1n102 Issued under sec. isa, (s) * *

• publishing the final amendments to 10 CFR s' art 50, Appendix E (extending the

$,h

• fa 958, (2)(i) For operating power reactors, the S

s m nded 4 Lcensee. State, and local emergency irnplementation date for the installation U.S.C. 2273). t 50.41(1) inued under sec.te11.

response plans shall be implemented by of a prompt public notification system) 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S C.1201(i]); 1150J0,5031, a s effective immediately upon -

and 5058 issued under sec.1610,68 Stat. 950 April 1,1981, except as provided in -

publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)). and the law sSection IV.D.3 of Appendix E to this 553(d][1) since the rule is expected to referred toin Appendicea.

part.

(ii)If after April 1,1981,theNRCfinds relieve the obligation of certain Appendix E' 1 Arnended]

that the state of emergency preparedness licenseas with respect to the present

. Section WD.3 of Appendix E to does not provide reasonable assurance July 1.1981 deadline for operational Part 50 is revised to read as follows:

public notification systems. In that that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a regard, the Commission notes that the Appendix E-Emergency Planning and radiological emergency (includmg

' final rule, when effective, will be Preparedness for Production and Utilization findings based on requirements of applied to ongoing licensing proceedings

• Facilities

• A Pendix E. Secflon IV.D.3) and if the P

now pending and to issues or contentic as therein. Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC,499 F. 2d 1009 (D.C.

• m resutation hu been twed in con parative chanse pu%.hed in the rederal Restiter on -

Cir.1974),

text showing changes tro e the proposed rule September 21.1981.

b a

Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 250 / Wednesday, De:.cmbeg1931 / Rules and Regulations

~

G39 0 deficiencies (including deficiencies applies to the application.

Daled at Dethesda, Mar} land. this uth dory based on requirements ofAppendix E, recordkeeping. and reporting oi December.1981.

Section JED.3) are not corrected within requirements contained in NRC For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

four months of that finding, the regulations.

Wihm J. Dircks.

Commission will determine whether the On October 30,1981, the NRC ExecutiveDirectorfor Operofions.

reactor shall be shut down until such obtained OMB respproval for the p u e n w u.s 43.au.=1 deficiencies are remedied or whether information collection requirements eumo coor rsoo-et-u other enforcement action is appropriato.

contained in 10 CFR Part 50.This In determining whmher a shutdown or amendment adds a new i 50.8 to Part 50 other enforcament action is appropriate, setting out the OMB approval number.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Commiss: 2n shall take into account, the expiration date of the current among other factors, whether the approval, and a list cf sections within 10 CFR Part 503 licensee can demonstrate to the Part 50 that contain an approved

[ Docket No. ERA-R-81-OGl Commission's satisfaction that the information collection requirement This deficiencies in the plan are not emendment also removes the note Powerplant snd Industrial Fuel Use Act significant for the plant in question,tr concerning the expired GAO clearance of 1978; Final f'ules that adequate interim compensating that follows i 50.110.

actions have been or will be taken Because this is a nonsubstantive Correction promptly, or that that there are other amendment dealing with a minor In FR Doc. 81-34770 appearing on compelling reasons for contmued procedural matter, good cause e)u. ts for page 59872 la the issue of Menday, s

operation.

finding that the notice and wmment Decetaber 7,1981, make the following procedures of the Administrahve corrections:

Pr cedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) are (1) In i 503.6(c)(2), the following line's Dated at Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of

"" I "

en en ef ec veD b r 30,1981.

equahon on page m For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Under the Atomic Energy Act of1954, Sa muel J. Ch1Ik, as amended, the Energy Reorganization EQ4 DELTA = COST Secretoryof the Commission-Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.

(ALTERNATE)-COST (OIL) where p omes nw wat a n.=1 552 and 553, the following amendments COST [ ALTERNATE) and COST (OIL) owwo coor neo-ot-u to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as a are determined by:

document subject to codification. The (2)In i 503.36(a), paragraph (5) was 10 CFR Part 50 authority citation for this document is:

incorrectly designated as (b); therefore, on page 59914, first column in the 30th Reporting, Recordkeeping, and PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

.line,"(b) For powerplants..." should App!! cation Requirements; Approval PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION have read *(5) For powerplants...".

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory FACILITIES ewwo coot isoset-u Camission.

Authority: Sec.161, Pub. L 83-703. 68 StaL ACTION: Final rule.

948 (42 U.S.C. 2:01)

FEDERAL HOME LOAN SANK BOARD

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory fgf Secum 50.8 is added to read as 12 CFR Parts 522 and 545 ws.

Commir>sion is amending its regulations (No. 81-8001 on the domestic licensing of production j 50.8 Reporting, recordkeeping, and and utilization facilities to indicate appucation requirements: OMB approval.

Payment of Litigation Expenses of -

Office of Management and Budget (a) the Nuclear Regulatory Federal Home Loan Bank Officers, approval of the information collection Commission has submitted the Directors, and Employees requirements contained in the information collection requirements regulations.This action is required by contained in this part of the Office of Dsted: December 17.1981.

the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980.

Management and Budget (OMB) for AcENCY:Federa!Ilome Loan Bank EFFECTIVE D ATE: December 30,1981.

8pproval as required by the Paperwerk Board.

Reduction Act (Pub. L 9S-511). OMB ACTION: Final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

r approved the information collection Steve Scott, Chief. Document l

Management Branch, Dm,ston of (1) The OMB approval number is Board is amending the Regulations for requirements on October 30,1981.

SUMMARY

The Federalliome loan Bank l

TechnicalInformation and Document 3150 m.

theFederalIlome Loan Bank System to Control. Office of Administration.

(2) OMB approval expires April 30, liberalize the terms on which the Banks Telephone: (301) 492-8585.

. 1982.

may pay expenses of officers, directors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION:The

• (b)The approved information and employees involved in litigation Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.

collection requirements include the arising out of their Bank duties.The l

L 96-511; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) application, recordkeeping, and amendment will allow the Federalliome l

transferred the responsibility for reporting requirements contained in Loan Banks to establish their own i

approving the information collection il 50.30,50.33,50.33a. 50.34(b) (c). (d),

policies regarding litigation expenses.

l requirementa imposed by the Nuclear (f) 50.34a,50.35(b). 50.38,50.38a,50.48 ErrECTIVE DATE: December 17,1981.

Regulatory Commission [NRC) on the 50.54(f). (p), (q), (r), (s), (t). (u). 50.55(el, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

public from the Cencral Accounting 50.55a, 50.59(b). (c). 50.71(a), (b), (c), (d), >

s t v 2

}

~

Office (GAO) to the Office of (e) 50.72(a), (b), 50 80. 50.82. 50.90, and I"g*G d

Management and Budget (OMB). The Appendices A B, C, E, G. II. j, K and R.

Bank Board.1700 G Street, NW, Act requires that each existing information collection requirement be

{ 50.110 (Amended]

Washington. D.C. 20552.

reapproved by OMB as existing GAO

2. The note following I 50.110 is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION:The clearances expire.This requirement removed.

Federal!!ome Loan Bank Board is 3