ML20045F655

Requests Comments & Concurrence in Proposed Changes to 10CFR50.54,by Third Wk of September,In Order to Meet Tentative Schedule for Meeting on Final Review Group Rept

ML20045F655
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/25/1993
From:	Gillespie F NRC - REGULATORY REVIEW GROUP
To:	Norry P, Parler W, Rathbun D NRC, NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
NUDOCS 9307080195
Download: ML20045F655 (78)

Text

RSh f C)k gm y

4[

'o UNITED STATES 8

[,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h

WASHtNGTON, D. C. 20555 s

i June 25, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, OCA William C. Parler, General Counsel, OGC Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM Edward L. Jordan, Director, AE0D Ronald M. Scroggins, Deputy Chief, DC James Lieberman, Director, OE Gerald F. Cranford, Director, IRM Richard H. Vollmer, Director, OPP Carlton C. Kamerer, Director, OSP Robert M. Bernero, Director, HMSS Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR Eric S. Beckjord, Director, RES FROM:

Frank P. Gillespie Regulatory Reviaw Group

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONCURRENCE IN PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFR 50.54 Because of coments and questions received informally from the staff and the discussion at the last Senior Management Meeting, we have prepared a Comission Paper implementating the Regulatory Review Group's most significant rulemaking recomendation. The intention of the paper is to more sharply focus coments on this one recomendation and offer a vehicle from soliciting public coments on a specific proposal rather than the less refined recomendation of the draft report.

Because of the importance of this recomendation in the Regulatory Review Report, we believe staff and public coments would be most beneficial if they were available to the Comission by the third week of September, the tentative schedule for the meeting on the final Review Group Report. The additional detail on this recomendation might also be beneficial in the development of coments on the Grcup's draft report.

10 CFR 50.54 MILESTONES June 25, 1993 Distribute and request concurrence July 12, 1993 Office responses due July 30, 1993 Submit to the Comission August 16, 1993 Publish for a 30 day period September 16, 1993 End of comment period 9307090195 930625 PDR REVGP NRCR

'L

{

3

-f i

e i

Tentative Commission meeting on the final Review Group

{

Report the week of September 20, 1993.

l Your assistance in meeting this tight schedule is appreciated.

' nginal signeo !T/

j c

Frank P. Gillesp*

i i

Frank P. Gillespie l

Regulatory Review Group Enclosures.

l.

Commission Paper 2.

OMB Information Collection Request i

cc: James H. Sniezek l

Thomas T. Martin, RA, Region I Stewart D. Ebneter, RA, Region II

[

i John B. Martin, RA, Region III i

James L. Milhoan, RA, Region IV

{

Bobby H. Faulkenberry, RA, Region V j

i i

i DISTRIBUTION-RRG R/F RRG Task Group

)

RRGc j

FGI S

no P:\\MEM0 5/ gg S3 m e e

r-i

,.# * " ' * *g, I

i E

r

• • % #4*

i RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)

July

.1993 SECY i EQE:

The Comissioners FROM:

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

INCREASED OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON REGULATORY REVIEW GROUP RULEMAKING RECOMMENDATION ADDRESSING THE AMENDING OF 10 CFR 50.54 FOR SECURITY, QUALITY ASSURANCE, EMERGENCY PLANNING, FIRE PROTECTION, AND OTHER COMMITMENTS PURPOSE Obtain Comission approval of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Regulatory Review Group was established to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. The Regulatory Review Group emphasized the feasibility of substitution of performance-based requirements and guidance for unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and guidance. Of the recomendations in the draft report issued May 28, 1993, the one with the greatest effect, addresses the processes by which licensees can make and l

change comitments to the NRC. This recomendation was to revise 10 CFR 50.54,

" Conditions of Licenses," as it applies to the control of changes to Contacts:

[

Frank Gillespie, ED0/RRG Claudia Craig, ED0/RRG 301-504-1243

~

l The Comissioners 2

security plans, quality assurance plans, and emergency preparedness plans.

The Regulatory Review Group also recommended that fire protection plans be included under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54, that the term "comitment" be defined in 10 CFR 50.2, and that an NRC-accepted change process be included in 10 CFR 50.54.

Recognizing the importance of this recomendation to moving to performance-based regulation, the staff has enclosed proposed rule packages to focus on the benefits of implementing the recomendation. The following discussion and enclosures address each area in more detail than the Regulatory Review Group Report to provide a basis for soliciting coments on implementation. Separate i

rulemaking packages for each area allow for coments and action to be taken individually or collectively on the changes.

BACKGROUND Each level in the NRC's hierarchical regulatory structure includes a change mechanism to allow the NRC staff to review the licensee's actions at a level consistent with the safety significance of the action. The Comission has taken analogous approaches for both operating reactors and advanced reactors although using different nomenclature. The Regulatory Review Group made recommendations for the definition and control of comitments to give to the licensees of operating reactors the stability intended by the tier-two designation in the standard plant process. The lack of clarity in allowing "comitment" to remain undefined and in allowing the change process to be based on floating criteria creates a situation in which requirements can be backfitted informally. The staff is making this recommendation to the Comission to eliminate instability from the regulatory process to operating

]

reactors in an approach analogous to that taken for advanced reactors.

In reviewing anecdotal information received from the industry over the last s

five years, the staff repeatedly found references to the effects of licensees' comitments to the NRC, in the areas of security, quality assurance, and fire protection.

The Review Group found "comitment" lacked both an exact definition and a defined change mechanism and established plans such as those listed have no fixed standard f7 changes to be judged against. The Review Group found that established

.Jards are important in determining which l

regulatory process in the hierarchical structure governs an action to

~

determine the degree of autonomy the licensee can exercise in performing ite safety functions. The staff recommends defining "comitment" and the associated change process in a manner similar to the relationship between the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and 10 CFR 50.59. Thus, the NRC would capture " commitments" upon which the Commission has based safety findings not found in the FSAR or in submitted and approved plans.

For specific plans required by the regulations and currently addressed in 10 CFR 50.54, the staff proposes establishing the regulations as the standard changes must meet rather than an undefined level of effectiveness. The detailed recommendations in the enclosures would bring greater discipline and coherence to the regulatory process, which would improve safety and reduce cost. The recommended rule changes would also enable the NRC to eliminate duplication between licenses i

and the regulations.

e t-The Comissioners 3

I In the enclosures, the staff discusses security, quality assurance, emergency planning, fire protection, and comitments. Based on internal discussions and coments received by the Regulatory Review Group at public meetings, several topics on implementation are significant enough to be highlighted.

1.

The regulations would establish criteria which required plans must meet.

I Licensees could change the content of plans which exceed the requirements of the regulations without prior NRC approval.

Plant-specific requirements resulting from unique aspect of an individual licensee would have to be imposed as license conditions or specifically identified as a "comitment". This should promote a consistent application of requirements across the industry. This change would also increase the flexibility of licensees to optimize staffing in areas such as security as detailed in the Regulatory Review Group Report.

2.

The NRC staff would be notified generally at each refueling cycle of changes to plans consistent with the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e). The NRC would thus reduce reporting requirements for the licensee and would be consistent with the change process in 10 CFR 50.59 for changes in the FSAR.

3.

The NRC would not need to consider backfits when implementing the recomendation for the plans covered by 10 CFR 50.54. However, problems could arise because "comitment" was not defined in the past.

Licensee submittals and the associated staff safety evaluation reports may not have clearly identified the commitments. -

t 4.

The definition of "comitment" as proposed would exclude certain licensee correspondence.

Responses to enforcement actions would be excluded, compliance with the regulations is required. How compliance is achieved would not be a comitment since continued operation of a facility is based on compliance with the requirement and not the method of achieving compliance. This same rationale would apply to generic comunications promulgated to impose a compliance backfit.

In other generic comunications, the staff would have to clearly state whether the response will be considered a comitment such that future changes to that comitment would be governed by the proposed process of 10 CFR 50.54.

5.

The ability to measure performance against an established standard is a key element in a performance-based system. The staff has demonstrated the ability to evaluate performance against current requirements.

For example, the regional staff that conducts inspections are also responsible for conducting licensing evaluations of changes to the programs for quality assurance and security. The impact on the staff would be limited to the established standard being the regulations rather than a level of effectiveness which is plant specific.

6.

The NRC could continue to revise the technical substance of the regulations referenced by 10 CFR 50.54 consistent with the Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, independent of the process changes recomended herein.

~

r The Comissioners 4

RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS The NRC would reduce the burden on licensees by implementing the recomendations discussed herein. The NRC would reduce the burden by (1) enabling the licensee to consolidate into a single report the reports to be i

submitted to the NRC for each area, (2) eliminating delays for changes which now require NRC prior approval based on the use of the generally undefined term " effectiveness," (3) eliminating license amendments for changes to security and fire protection plans, and (4) consistently applying throughout the industry the principle that the regulations establish the performance criteria. The estimated reduction in burden will vary according to the practices at each plant.

The changes recomended will help reduce personnel cost because they apply to the process for meeting regulatory requirements. These can be from a reduction in overall processing effort or the direct reduction of staff as described for physical security in Volume Two of the Regulatory Review Group Report.

For perspective on potential savings, the elimination of one full time equivalent engineer per site for processing at a cost of $100,000 annually integrated across seventy sites with a twenty year average plant life represents a saving of $140M. The reduction of three technicians per shift in a five shift rotation at a cost of $60,000 annually per person over the same period and number of plants represents a savings of $1.28.

The NRC would expect modest saving. The NRC effort would shift from pre-approval reviews to post-implementation reviews with no response required.

The recomendations do not address review responsibility. Currently, the regions process the change requests required for security and quality assurance, while the NRR staff reviews the report of changes to the FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71. The recomendations make the reporting frequencies for changes addressed in 10 CFR 50.54 consistent with the schedule requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e).

COORDINATION The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has reviewed this paper and has found no legal objection to the staff's proposal. A copy of the proposal has been supplied to the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards review.

In view of the policy nature of the proposed amendments, the staff believes that appropriate decisions on the disposition of this specific recomendation of the Regulatory Review Group can best be achieved by early review by the j

Comission and the public. The staff will resubmit the amendments to ACRS and i

CRGR for review and coment before making final recomendations to the Comission.

j

The Commissioners 5

RECOMMENDATION That the Commission P

1.

Acorove the publication of this paper and the enclosures as a proposed rule to allow publication in the Federal Reaister by August 16, 1993, for a 30 day comment period ending September 16, 1993.

2.

E2tg that this publication will be after the comment period for the Regulatory Review Group Report and before a briefing of the Commission. Sharing the additional detail with the public may provoke additional comments which would benefit the Commission in I

considering the recommendations of the Review Group.

SCHEDULING By acting early, the Commission would enable the staff to analyze the comments on these detailed proposals and discuss recommendations of a meeting currently scheduled between the Commission and staff in September to discuss th3 disposition of the Regulatory Review Group's recommendations.

James H. Taylor Executive Director j

for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

Federal Reaister Notice for proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.54(a) l quality assurance plans 2.

Federal Reaister Notice for proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.54(p) security plans, security contingency plans, guard training plans 3.

Federal Reaister Notice for proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.54(q) emergency plans 4.

Federal Reaister Notice for a proposed addition to 10 CFR 50.54(**)

fire protection plans 5.

Federal Reaister Notice for a proposed addition to 10 CFR 50.2 definitions and 10 CFR 50.54(**) changes to commitments t

6.

Regulatory Analysis Statement 7.

Public Announcement 8.

Draft Congressional Letter i

l

r

[7590-01]

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 RIN 3150-AE70 Changes to Quality Assurance Programs t

AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i ACTION:

Proposed rule.

i

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its power reactor safety regulations to allow licensees to make changes to their r

quality assurance program that do not reduce the program's content below that necessary to implement the quality assurance requirements prescribed in the regulations without prior NRC approval. The proposed rule would also require licensees to submit periodic reports of these changes to the NRC. The i

proposed rule is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the NRC staff and the licensees.

DATES:

Comment period expires (30 days after publication).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or i

before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch.

q Deliver comments to.:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

Copies of the regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to 1

J OMB, and comments received may be examined at:

the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia M. Craig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In February 1993, the Commission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined l

review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framework of this review, the i

RRG identified portions of 10 CFR 50.54 as areas that may cause undue regulatory burden on both the NRC staff and licensees. These areas deal with 1

plans or programs placed under licensee control and the associated mechanism j

for changes to those programs or plans. Three areas were identified in 10 CFR j

50.54 -- quality assurance, security, and emergency planning. Often during the licensing process, licensees made commitments to perform actions in each of these areas in excess of what is required by the regulations.

Therefore, as 10 CFR 50.54 is currently written, each of these programs or plans is held 1

to a different standard of acceptability at each facility. Additionally, the change mechanism and record retention requirements described in the j

2

A ~

e

=

b l

/

regulations are different for quality assurance, security, and emergency planning at each facility. The RRG determined that the regulatory burden i

could be reduced if each licensee is held to the requirements contained in the regulation and if the change mechanism and record retention requirements within the regulation are the same for each area.

I Description l

i This proposed rule addresses the quality assurance portion of 10 CFR j

50.54. The proposed amendments would allow licensees to change their quality j

assurance program if those changes do not reduce the program's content below s

that necessary to implement the requirements contained in Appendix B to Part l

50. The licensee would be required to submit those changes in accordance with.

i the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions, and maintain the letter for~ warding the changes for three years. Three years was determined to be adequate to allow for NRC review at the site while minimizing the potential for dual record retention because the changes would be submitted on the docket.

If a licensee wishes to make changes to the program which reduce the program's content below that necessary to implement the quality assurance requirements in Appendix B, the

[

licensee would be required to request and obtain an exemption to the i

regulations.

I l

i 4

i 3

i

^

t a

h Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3).

Therefore, l

neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement j

This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection I

of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Information and Records Management Branch (P-530), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissian, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-

), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

I 4

l

Regulatory Analysis L

The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives f

considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Claudia M. Craig, I

Washington DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

s Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

i 1

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

i 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, i

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects only the licensing and' operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of r

l the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by j

the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

4 i

t e

F i

5

.e

.--.n--

a Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not.

l required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not impose more stringent safety requirements on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.

l List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 i

Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, l

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the-l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

Part 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

946, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 j

(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

1 l

6 i

i k

Section '50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 -

(42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under j

sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

f Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-l j

190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42

'l U.S.C. 2237).

i i

2.

In 550.54, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:

1

'l 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

j (a)(1) Each nuclear power plant or fuel reprocessing plant licensee subject to the quality assurance requirements in Appendix B of this part shall I

maintain and implement the quality assurance program described or referenced in the Final Safety Analysis Report, as kept ap to date pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).

l i

t 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j

i (2) Each licensee described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may make a change to a previously accepted quality assurance program if the change does not reduce the program's content below that necessary to implement the quality assurance requirements in Appendix B to this part.

Changes to the quality assurance program description that do not reduce the program's content below I

that necessary to implement the quality assurance requirements in Appendix B to this part must be submitted to the NRC as follows:

(i) Changes made to a previously NRC-accepted quality assurance program must be submitted as specified in 650.4 in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for the submitta' of Final Safety Analysis i

Report revisions.

(ii) The submittal of a change to the quality assurance program must include all pages affected by that change and must be accompanied by a forwarding letter that identifies the change, the reason for the change, and the basis for concluding that the revised program incorporating the change l

continues to satisfy the requirements of Appendix B to this part.

However,-

the letter need not provide the basis for changes that correct spelling, punctuation, or editorial items.

(iii) A copy of the forwarding letter identifying the changes must be maintained as a facility record for three years.

8 W -

4 7

(3) A licensee desiring to make a change that reduces the program's content below that necessary to implement the quality assurance requirements in Appendix B to this part shall request an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission.

l 1

9 l

i d

r

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 RIN 3150-AE71 Changes to Security Plans AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

t

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its i

power reactor safety regulations tc allow licensees to make changes to their i

safeguards contingency plan, security plan, and guard training and qualification plan that do not reduce the plans' content below that necessary to implement the applicable requirements prescribed in the regulations without prior NRC approval. The proposed rule would also require licensees to submit periodic reports of these changes to the NRC. The proposed rule is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the NRC staff and the licensees.

i DATES: Comment period expires (30 days after publication).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or i

before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch.

~

1 v

Deliver comments to:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

Copies of the regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to

)

OMB, and comments received may be examined at:

the NRC Public Document Room I

at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia M. Craig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

r SUPPLEMENTARY INFORHATION:

Background

In February 1993, the Commission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framework of this review, the RRG identified portions of 10 CFR 50.54 as areas that may cause undue regulatory burden on both the NRC staff and licensees. These areas deal with plans or programs placed under licensee control and the associated mechanism i

for changes to those programs or plans. Three areas were identified in 10 CFR i

50.34 -- quality assurance, security, and emergency planning. Often during the licensing process, licensees made commitments to perform actions in each of these areas in excess of what is required by the regulations. Therefore, as 10 CFR 50.54 is currently written, each of these programs or plans is held to a different standard of acceptability at each facility.

Additionally, the 2

change mechanism and record retention requirements described in the regulation are different.for quality assurance, security, and emergency planning at each facility. As 10 CFR 50.54(p) is currently written, a licensee wishing to decrease the effectiveness of these plans to any degree would be required to submit an application for a license amendment. The RRG determined that regulatory burden could be reduced if each licensee is held to the requirements contained in the regulation and if the change mechanism and record retention requirements within the regulation are the same for each facility in these areas.

Reliance on regulatory requirements would eliminate the need for plant-specific license conditions and license amendments for changes to the plans.

Description This proposed rule addresses the security provisions of 10 CFR 50.54.

The proposed amendments would allow licensees to change their safeguards contingency plan, security plan, and guard training and qualification plan.if those changes do not reduce the plans' content below that necessary to implement the reprements contained in 10 CFR 73.55a and Appendices B and C to Part 73. The incensee would be required to submit those changes in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Reports and maintain the letter forwarding the changes for three years.

Three years was determined to be adequate to allow for NRC review at the site while minimizing the potential for dual record retention because the changes would be submitted on the docket.

If a licensee wishes to i

make changes to the plans which reduce the plans' content below that necessary 3

1 s

i to implement the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 73.55a or Appendices B and C to Part 73, the licensee would be required to request and obtain an f

exemption to the regulations.

5-Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion l

The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of 1

)

action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, I

i neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has i

i been prepared for this proposed regulation.

i i

j Paperwork Reduction Act Statement i

J This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et, seq).

This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and i

approval of the paperwork requirements.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send t

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection 1

of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Information and Records Management Branch (P-530), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-

), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

l 4

4 I

1

Regulatory Analysis i

i The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection f

in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, i

DC.

Single copies of the' analysis may be obtained from Claudia M. Craig, Washington DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 {5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

1 This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power i

plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

i 5

1 i

l i

• s l

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not i

apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not impose more stringent safety requirements on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.

l List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 1

1 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

l For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

Part 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

j 946, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 1

2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

6

S 755, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and i

50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 6o stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

+

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended i

(42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

t 2.

In 550.54, paragraph (p) is revised to read as follows:

6 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

~

l r

(p)(1) The licensee shall prepare and maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with Appendix C to Part 73 of this chapter for effecting the actions and decisions contained in the Responsibility Matrix of the safeguards contingency plan.

(2) The licensee may make changes to the plan referenced in paragraph (p)(1) without prior Commission approval if the changes do not decrease the plan's content below that necessary to implement Appendix C to Part 73.

Changes to the plan that do not reduce the plan's content below that necessary to implement the requirements of Appendix C to Part 73 must be submitted to the NRC as follows:

r 7

I

(i) Changes made to a previously HRC-a.cepted safeguards contingency plan must be submitted as specified in 650.4 in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for the submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions.

_(ii) The submittal of a change to the safeguards contingency plan must include all pages affected by that change and must be accompanied by a forwarding letter that identifies the change, the reason for the change, and the basis for concluding that the revised program incorporating the change continues to satisfy the requirements of Appendix C to Part 73.

However, the letter need not provide the basis for changes that correct spelling, r

punctuation, or editorial items.

(iii) A copy of the forwarding letter identifying the changes must be maintained as a facility record for three years.

i (3) Prior to the safeguards contingency plan beicg put into effect the licensee shall have --

(i) All safeguards capabilities specified in the safeguards contingency plan available and functional; (ii) Detailed procedures developed according to Appendix C to Part 73 available at the licensee's site; and i

(iii) All appropriate personnel trained to respond to safeguards incidents as outlined in the plan and specified in the detailed Procedures.

4 (4) A licensee desiring to make a change which would decrease the plan's content below that necessary to implement the criteria of Appendix C to Part 73 or of the first four categories of information (Background, Generic Planning Base, Licensee Planning Base, Responsibility Matrix) contained in a licensee safeguards contingency plan prepared pursuant to 550.34(d), shall l

8

1 i

~

1 request an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

l (5) The licensee may make changes to the security plan and guard training and qualification plan prepared to comply with the requirements of 10 i

CFR 73.55a and Appendix B to Part 73 without prior Commission approval if the changes do not decrease the plans' content below that necessary to implement l

the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 73.55a and Appendix B to Part 73.

Changes to the plans that do not reduce the plan:' content below that necessary to implement the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55a and Appendix B to Part 73 must be submitted to the NRC as follows:

(i) Changes made to a previously NRC-accepted security plan and guard i

training and qualification plan must be submitted as specified in s50.4 in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions.

(ii) The submittal of a change to these plans must include all pages f

affected by that change and must be accompanied by a forwarding letter that identifies the change, the reason for the change, and i

. c. :

for concluding that the revised program incorporating the change contink

'r ati:ly the applicable requirements of 73.55a and Appendix B to Part 73.

I wever, the letter need not provide the basis for changes that correct spelling, punctuation, or editorial items.

f (iii) A copy of the forwarding letter identifying the changes must be f

i maintained as a facility record for three years.

(6) A licensee desiring to make a change which would decrease the security plan or the guard training plan and qualification plan contents below that necessary to implement the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55a or Appendix B to Part 73 shall request an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

9 i

(7) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision, implert.entation, and maintenance of its safeguards contingency plan.

To this end, the licensee shall provide for a review of the safeguards contingency plan at least every 12 months. This review must be conducted by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct j

responsibility for implementation of the security program. The review must j

include a review and audit of safeguards contingency procedures and practices,

)

an audit of the security system testing and maintenance program, and a test of the safeguards systems along with commitments established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The results of the review and audit, along with recommendations for improvements, must be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate and plant management, and kept available at the plant for inspection for a period of two years.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission.

10

i i

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

10 CFR PART 50 RIN 3150-AE72 Changes to Emergency Plans AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

I ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its i

power reactor safety regulations to allow licensees to make changes to their emergency plans that do not reduce the plans' content below that necessary to implement the emergency planning requirements prescribed in the regulations without prior NRC approval. The proposed rule would also require licensees to submit periodic reports of these changes to the NRC. The proposed rule is r

intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the NRC staff and the licensees.

l l

DATES: Coment period expires (30 days after publication).

Comments received

[

after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the

- Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments.eceived on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch.

Deliver comments to:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 1

7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

i 4

w 7

-l

\\

Copies of the regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to OMB, and coments received may be examined at: the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia M. Craig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

w 1

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

i

Background

i In February 1993, the Comission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framew'ork of this review, the RRG identified portions of 10 CFR 50.54 as areas that may cause undue

+

regulatory burden on both the NRC staff and licensees. These areas deal with plans or programs placed under licensee control and the associated mechanism for changes to those programs or plans. Three areas were identified in 10 CFR 50.54 -- quality assurance, security, and emergency planning. Often during i

the licensing process, licensees made comitments to perform actions in each of these areas in excess of what is required by the regulations. Therefore, as 10 CFR 50.54 is currently written, each of these programs or plans is held to a different standard of acceptability at each facility.

Additionally, the change mechanism and record retention requirements described in the regulation are different for quality assurance, security, and emergency planning at each 2

l

/

facility. The RRG determined that regulatory burden could be reduced if each licensee is held to the requirements contained in the regulation and if the change mechanism and record retention requirements within the regulation are f

the same for each facility in these areas.

Description j

i i

This proposed rule addresses the emergency planning provisions of 10 CFR 50.54. The proposed amendments would allow licensees to change their i

emergency plans if those changes do not reduce the plans' content below that necessary to implement the emergency planning requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to this part. The licensee would be required to submit those changes in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions and maintain the letter forwarding the changes for three years. Three years was determined to be adequate to allow for NRC review at the site while minimizing the potential for dual record retention because the changes would be submitted on the docket.

If a licensee wishes to make changes to the plans which reduce f

the plans' content below that necessary to implement the emergency planning requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to this part, the licensee would be required to request and obtain an exemption to the regulations.

f I

I 3

[

- - N

..~

s Environmental Impact:

Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time fbr reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Information and Records Management Branch (P-530), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project i

(3150-

), Office of Management and Budget, Was.hington, DC 20503.

]

4

Regulatory Analysis t

The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Claudia M. Craig, Washington DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

{

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

I Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power pl ants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of i

the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act i

or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the l

Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

i I

t i

G 5

~

~

r Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required f>r this proposed rule because these amendments do not impose more stringent safety requirements on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.

i List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorijanization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

Part 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

'l 946, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

6

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.-91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).

Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 1

U.S.C. 2237).

2.

In 550.54, paragraph (q) is revised to read as follows:

s 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

l (q)(1) A licensee authorized to possess and operate a nuclear power reactor shall implement and maintain in effect emergency plans which implement the requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to this part. A licensee authorized to possess and/or operate a research reactor or a fuel facility shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which implement the l

t requirements in Appendix E to this part.

7

(2) The nuclear power reactor licensee may make changes to these plans without Commission approval if the changes do not decrease the plans' content below that necessary to implement the requirements of s50.47(b) and Appendix E to this part.

The research reactor and/or the fuel facility licensee may make changes to these plans without Commission approval-if these changes do not -

decrease the plans' content below that necessary to implement the requirements of Appendix E to this part.. Changes to the emergency plans that do not reduce the plans' content below that necessary to implement the applicable emergency planning requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to this part must be submitted to the NRC as follows:

(i) Changes made to previously NRC-accepted emergency plans must be i

submitted as specified in s50.4 in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions.

(ii) The submittal of a change to the emergency plans must include all pages affected by that change and must be accompanied by a forwarding letter.

that identifies the change, the reason for the change, and the basis for I

concluding that the revised program incorporating the change continues to satisfy the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to this part.

However, the letter need not provide the basis for changes that correct spelling, punctuation, or editorial items.

(iii) A copy of the forwarding letter identifying the changes must be maintained as a facility record for three years.

i I

~,

r (3) A licensee desiring to make a change that decreases the emergency.

plans' content below that necessary to implement the applicable emergency planning requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to this part shall request an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission.

i k

l

'1 1

l 9

n -.

Enclosura 4 e.-

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 RIN 3150-AE73 Changes to Fire Protection Plans i

AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its

{

power reactor safety regulations to allow licensees to make changes to their fire protection plan that do not reduce the plan's content below that

)

necessary to implement the fire protection requirement,,s prescribed in the regulations without prior NRC approval. The proposed rule would also require licensees to submit periodic reports of these changes to the NRC.

The proposed rule is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the NRC staff and the licensees.

DATES:

Comment period expires (30 days after publication).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch.

i q

\\

Deliver comments to:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

I Copies of the regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to OMB, and comments received may be examined at:

the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Leval), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia M. Craig, Office of Nuclear Reactor I

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

i

Background

i In February 1993, the Commission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framework of this review, the RRG identified portions of 10 CFR 50.54 as areas that may cause undue j

regulatory burden on both the NRC staff and licensees.

These areas deal with plans or programs placed under licensee control and the associated mechanism for changes to those programs or plans. Three areas were identified in 10 CFR 50.54 -- quality assurance, security, and emergency planning.

Although not 3

1 currently included in 10 CFR 50.54, the RRG also identified the fire l

protection plan as being under the licensee's control and applicable to treatment similar to that of the three areas listed above.

Often during the licensing process, licensees made comitments to perform actions in each of 2

r-these areas in excess of what is required by the regulations. Therefore, each of these programs or plans is held to a different standard of acceptability at each facility.

In the case of fire protection, a provision regarding the plan I

was added as a condition of the license. Additionally, the change mechanism and the record retention requirements described in the regulation are different for quality assurance, security, and emergency planning at each facility. The RRG determined that regulatory burden could be reduced if each licensee is held to the requirements contained in the regulation and if the l

change mechanism and record retention requirements within the regulation are the same for each facility in this area. This would eliminate the need for I

plant-specific license conditions and license amendments for changes to the plan.

Description

~

This proposed rule would add a paragraph to 10 CFR 50.54 that would i

allow licensees to change their fire protection plan if those changes do not f

i reduce the plan's content below that necessary to implement the fire protection requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.48(a).

The licensee would be required to submit those changes in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions and maintain the letter forwarding the changes for three years. Three years was determined to be adequate to allow for NRC review at the site while minimizing the potential for dual record retention because the changes would be submitted i

3 t

on the docket.

If a licensee wishes to make changes to the plan which reduce the plan's content below that necessary to implement the fire protection requirements of 650.48(a), an exemption to the regulations would be required.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3).

Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S'.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated I

to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Information and Records Management Branch (P-530), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-

), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

4 i

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed 4

regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Claudia M. Craig, Washington DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under 1

the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

6 5

l

t Backfit Analysis j

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not

[

required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not impose more stringent safety requirements on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.

1 List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation l

protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the i

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reofganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

i i

r Part 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

946, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239,

[

2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 t

(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

6 I

y.

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended s

(42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

I 2.

In 650.54, paragraph (ff) is added to read as follows:

s 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

(ff)(1) A licensee authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor shall implement and maintain in effect a fire protection plan that satisfies Criterion 3 of Appendix A to this part as implemented by the requirements of

)

s50.48(a).

I (2) Each licensee may make a change to a previously accepted fire q

protection plan provided the change does not reduce the plan's content below that necessary to implement the applicable requirements in 550.48(a).

Changes to the fire protection plan that do not reduce the plan's content below that P

7

S necessary to implement the fire protection requirements must be submitted to the NRC as follows:

(1) Changes made to a previously NRC-accepted fire protection plan must f

be submitted in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions.

i (ii) The submittal of a change to the fire protection plan must include all pages affected by that change and must be accompanied by a forwarding letter that identifies the change, the reason for the change, and the basis-t for concluding that the revised program incorporating the change continues to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a).

However, the letter need not i

provide the basis for changes that correct spelling, punctuation, or editorial items.

(iii) A copy of the forwarding letter identifying the changes must be maintained as a facility record for three years.

(3) A licensee desiring to make a change that does reduce the plan's content below that necessary to implement the fire protection requirements of s50.48(a) shall request an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sreuel J. Chilk Sei retary of the Commission.

j l

8

Enclosure'5-

.s i

j I

[7590-01)

)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 RIN 3150-AE74 Definition of Commitment i

AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its power reactor safety regulations to define the term commitment and outline the change mechanism for a licensee who wishes to modify a commitment. This action is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on tJue NRC staff and the licensees.

DATES: Comment period expires (30 days after publication). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch.

Deliver comments to:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

?

Copies of the regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to OMB, and comments received may be examined at: the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia M. Craig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

3 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In February 1993, the Commission approved the establishment of a e

t regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reaccor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framework of this review, the RRG identified portions of 10 CFR 50.54 that may cause undue regulatory burden on both the NRC staff and licensees.

These areas deal with license.

commitments contained in plans or programs placed under licensee control and l

the associated mechanism for changes to commitments made in those programs or plans.

For example, in 10 CFR 50.54(a), a licensee is free ' o change i

t commitments in the quality assurance program as long as the level of safety i

resulting from the commitments is not reduced.

If the commitment is reduced, the licensee needs NRC approval prior to implementation of the change.

Although used in the regulations and in other regulatory documents, the term commitment is not defined either in 10 CFR 50.54 or-in'10 CFR 50.2.

The 2

I w

<~

regulations do, however, make a clear distinction between a commitment and the plans or programs that are implemented to satisfy the commitment.

In the past, there has not been a clear distinction between commitment and its implementing mechanism. Many times they have been treated as one and the same. This has led to ambiguity and has raised questions in determining whether NRC approval is needed for a change to a commitment.

Licensees are often conservative and submit changes to commitments because of their uncertainty as to what constitutes a commitment and how to judge the extent to which a commitment may have been reduced. This places an unnecessary burden on both the 7 1see and the NRC staff because the change Jbmitted.

to the commitment need not ha' It is important to defin

'rm commitment and how potential changes to a commitment should be handled so that the NRC staff and licensees know the issues that should be submitted for review and approval and the issues that licensees are free to change without prior NRC approval.

A common understanding of the term and of how commitments are to be treated should lead to reduce the regulatory burden for both the NRC staff and the licensees by allowing the staff and licensees to focus on changes to commitments that may be significant contributors to the safety of the plant.

Licensee commitments should be treated in two separate fashions.

First, if a commitment is determined to be of such safety significance that it needs to be upgraded from an intent to carry out an action, the commitment should be included in the license as a condition of the license.

Licensees are not allowed to make changes to a commitment that becomes part of the license except through the license amendment process under 550.90.

Second, i

if a commitment is not significant enough to be elevated to the regulatory 1

3

I

~

status of a condition of the license, the licensee's administrative controls t

should be permitted to govern the change process. This would allow licensees to make changes to commitments by evaluating the changes and determining whether an unreviewed safety question is involved.

The evaluations should be documented and should demonstrate that an unreviewed safety question is not involved and that the changes represent an equivalent level of safety.

Licensees would be required to provide a report of the changes to commitments that are not considered an unreviewed safety question at specified intervals.

Licensees would need to receive NRC approval prior to implementation of a change that has been determined to be an unreviewed safety question.

The definition and codification of the change process would impose new requirements, however, the rule would be implemented only prospectively.

It is believed that the regulatory burden would be reduced because changes to obligations that the licensees volunteered to perform in excess of the regulations would not have to be submitted for review and approval and would l

be under the licensee's administrative controls.

Description i

1 The amendments proposed in this rule would add a definition of commitment to 950.2 and add a paragraph to 650.54 that would address the i

change mechanism for a commitment.

The definition of the term commitment-would include any condition or action agreed to or volunteered by a licensee on which the Commission has based a safety decision.

Both the licensee's action and the NRC's decision would be on the docket.

Commitments in specific programs or plans addressed under 10 CFR 50.54, items covered by 650.59, and 4

n

e items included in the FSAR would be excluded from this definition. The change mechanism for a commitment would include a test similar to the 650.59 test for an unreviewed safety question.

For those changes to commitments that do not involve an unreviewed safety question, the licensee would be required to submit a report to the NRC in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions.

If a change involves an unreviewed safety question, the licensee would be required to receive NRC approval before implementing the change.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of 3

action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3).

Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing i

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send 5

t 6

I

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Information and Records Management Branch (P-530), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-

), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Comission. The draft analysis is available for inspection i

in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Claudia M. Craig, Washington DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

1 The Comission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

j 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial. number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility 6

e r

Act, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis As required by 10 CFR 50.109, the Commission has completed a backfit analysis for the proposed rule. The Commission has determined based on this analysis, that the backfit, although imposing a new regulatory staff position, is justified in that it will reduce costs through the deletion of submittals of changes to voluntary licensee obligations in excess of the regulations.

The backfit analysis on which this determination is based reads as follows:

Ob.iectives.

By defining the term commitment and providing a mechanism to change a commitment, regulatory burden on the licensees and NRC staff will be reduced because submittal of changes to voluntary obligations in excess of the regulations will no longer occur.

Descriotion.

The backfit will define the term commitment and will recognize that licensees can modify commitments without NRC prior approval if the change does not constitute an unreviewed safety question.

L'censees will be required to submit a report of changes to commitments that do not involve an unreviewed safety question in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of Final Safety Analysis Report revisions.

1 Licensees will be required to submit for NRC review and approval changes to commitments which do involve an unreviewed safety question prior to implementation.

Chance in Risk.

There is no potential change in the risk to the public i

from the accidental off-site release of radioactive material as a result of i

7

a t

this backfit..This backfit only affects how licensees define commitments and how commitments can be changed by licensees.

Imoact on Radioloaical Exposure. There is no potential impact on the radiological exposure of f.cility employees as a result of this backfit. This backfit only affects how licensees define commitments and how commitments can be changed by licensees.

Costs. There are no installation costs associated with this backfit, and it is anticipated that the long-term cost will be decreased due to the j

deletion of unnecessary submittals of changes to voluntary obligations in t

excess of the regulations. There will be some minor cost associated with the preparation and submittal of the periodic report, but this is estimated at far less than the costs associated with the current process of individual submittal of changes to commitments.

Safety Imoact. There is no potential safety impact of changes.in plant operational complexity because of this backfit.

NRC Resource Burden.

The burden on the NRC staff will also be reduced in the long-term because unnecessary submittals of changes to commitments will j

be alleviated.

The NRC staff will perform one review of changes to commitments that do not introduce an unreviewed safety question annually or on a refueling cycle basis for each plant instead of performing numerous reviews I

of individual changes to commitments. The NRC staff will also continue to perform reviews of unreviewed safety questions.

Impact on Different Facilities.

There is no potential impact on i

different facility types,. designs, or ages as a result of this backfit because all plants will be implementing prospectively the same definition of commitment and the same change mechanism for commitment.

8 4

t

?

Status of Backfit.

This backfit is considered final, although the backfit will be implemented only in a prospective manner.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 l

Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, j

i Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the rer..a,s set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.

t Part 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES i

1.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

r AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

946, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 i

(42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 9

~

50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

e; Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2.

In 650.2, the definition of commitment is added to read as follows:

i s 50.2 Definitions.

i Commitment means any condition or action agreed to or volunteered by a license holder that was relied upon, in whole or in part, by the Commission as a basis for a safety decision and both the condition or action and the decision that made use of the information are contained in the docket file.

i i

3. In 650.54, paragraph (gg) is added to read as follows:

550.54 Conditions of Licenses.

(gg)(1) The licensee shall submit a report containing a brief description of any changes to commitments which do not involve an unreviewed i

safety question, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each.

The report must be submitted to the NRC in accordance with the filing requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) for submittal of FSAR revisions. A change to a commitment i

10 i

r that involves an unreviewed safety question must be submitted to the NRC and receive approval prior to implementation. A proposed change involves an unreviewed safety question if the --

(i) Probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; (ii) Possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created; or (iii) Margin of safety as described is reduced.

(2) The licensee shall maintain the safety evaluations and reports as facility records for a period of three years.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk i

Secretary of the Commission.

t 1

4 i

11 1

v DRAFT REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 50.54 Statement of the Problem In February 1993, the Commission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framework of this review, the RRG identified portions of 10 rre F9.54 that may cause undue regulatory burden on both the NRC staff and nuc

>r tower reactor licensees. These areas deal with plans or programs placed under licensee control and the associated mechanism for changes to those programs or plans. Three subject areas were identified in 10 CFR 50.54 -- quality assurance, security, and emergency planning. Although not currently included in 10 CFR 50.54, the RRG also identified the fire protection plan as being under the licensee's control and applicable to treatment similar to that of the three areas included in 10 CFR 50.54 and listed above. Often during the licensing process, licensees made commitments to perform actions in each of these areas in excess of what is required by the regulations. Therefore,.each of these programs or plans is held to a different standard of acceptability at each facility.

In the cases of fire protection and security, provisions regarding the plans were added as conditions of the license. Additionally, the change mechanism and the record retention requirements described in the regulation are different for each of these areas.

Ob.iectives The objective of the proposed amendments is to regulate each license in accordance with requirements specified in the regulations and to standardize the change mechanism and record retention requirements within the regulation for each subject area. This would reduce regulatory burden and eliminate the need for plant-specific license conditions and license amendments for changes to the plan or program.

Alternatives The only alternative is to maintain the status quo. This means that each individual licensee will be held to a different standard of acceptability for voluntary obligations in excess of the regulations and will be required to maintain different change mechanisms and retain records for different lengths of time for similar sections of 10 CFR 50.54.

Consecuences Costs and Benefits of Alternatives.

Nuclear power reactor licensees will incur the cost of preparing and submitting the periodic report containing changes to programs or plans that do not reduce the program or plan's content below that necessary to implement the applicable requirements contained in the regulations. Currently, licensees have to prepare individual submittals to the NRC for each change to the program or plan and submit it within the specified time frame.

It is

anticipated that over the long term, costs will decrease as licensees will only need to submit periodic. reports rather than individual changes to programs or plans or license amendment requests for changes that do not reduce the program or plan below the requirements contained in the regulations.

Impacts on Other Requirements.

There are no impacts on other requirements.

Constraints.

There are no constraints on the implementation of the proposed amendments including scheduling, enforceability, policy, or legal considerations.

Decision Rationale The amendments are being proposed to regulate each licensee in accordance with the requirements in the regulations and to standardize the change mechanism and record retention requirements. The proposed amendments are expected to reduce regulatory burden for both nuclear power reactor licensees and the NRC staff.

Imolementation Schedule for Implementing Proposed Amendments.

The proposed amendments will be published in the Federal Recister for a comment period of 30 days. After the public comments are received, the final rule will be prepared.

It is estimated that final rule preparation, including resolution of comments, will take one month.

The final package will be put into concurrence, and final concurrence by the Commission is expected one month later. The final rule will become effective 180 days after issuance in the Federal Reaister.

Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements.

The proposed amendments will not affect other requirements.

l 1

b

DRAFT REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS T0 10 CFR 50.2 and 50.54 Statement of the Problem j

In February 1993, the Comission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framework of this review, the RRG identified portions of 10 CFR 50.54 that may cause undue regulatory burden on both the NRC staff and nuclear power reactor licensees. These areas deal with licensee comitments contained plans or programs placed under licensee control and the associated mechanism for changes to comitments made in those programs or pl ans.

For example, in 10 CFR 50.54(a), a licensee is free to change comitments in the quality assurance program as long as the level of safety that would be provided by these commitments is not reduced.

If the commitment is reduced, the license needs NRC approval prior to implementation of the change. Although used in the regulations and in other regulatory documents, i

the term commitment is not defined either in 10 CFR 50.54 or in 10 CFR 50.2.,

The regulations do, however, make a clear distinction between a commitment and the plans or programs that are implemented to satisfy the commitment.

P the past there has not been a clear distinction between commitment and the implementing mechanism. Many times they have been treated as one and the same.

This has led to ambiguity and has raised questions in determining I

whether NRC approval is needed for a change to a commitment.

Licensees are often conservative and submit changes to commitments because of their uncertainty as to what constitutes a commitment and how to judge the extent to which a comitment may have been reduced.

Obiectives l

?

The objective of the proposed amendments is to alleviate the ambiguity regarding the definition of comittent and how a commitment should be changed and to reduce regulatory burden.

Alternatives In addition to the proposed alternative of defining commitment and a change mechanism, there are two other available alternatives. The first alternative is to maintain the status quo.

This means that individual licensees will continue to unilaterally determine what constitutes a commitment and decide if a change to that commitment should be sent to the NRC for review. The second alternative is to propose rulemaking that deletes the word " commitment" from the regulations and discontinue its use in the regulatory process.

Consecuences Costs and Benefits of Alternatives.

Nuclear power plant licensees will incur a cost of preparing and submitting the periodic report containing changes to comitments that do not involve unreviewed safety questions. Currently, licensees have to prepare individual reports for each change that is sent in to the NRC for review.

It is

anticipated that over the long term costs will decrease as licensees eliminate voluntary obligations which are in excess of the regulations.

Impacts on Other Requirements.

There are no impacts on other requirements.

Constraints.

There are no constraints on the implementation of the proposed amendments including scheduling, enforceability, policy, or legal considerations.

Decision Rationale The amendments are being proposed to remove ambiguity with the use of the term

" commitment" and how a commitment should be changed. The proposed amendments are expected to reduce regulatory burden for both nuclear power reactor licensees and the NRC staff.

Imolementation Schedule for Implementing Proposed Amendments.

The proposed amendments will be published in the Federal Reaister for a comment period of 30 days. After the public comments are received, the final rule will be prepared.

It is estimated-that final rule preparation, including resolution of comments, will take one month. The final package will be put into concurrence, and final concurrence by the Commission is expected one month later. The final rule will become effective 180 days after issuance in the Federal Reaister.

Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements.

r The proposed amendments will not affect other requirements, i

~

~

Press Release On

, 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Reaister for comment a number of proposed rulemakings to amend its power reactor safety regulations. The first group of proposed rulemakings would allow licensees to make changes to quality assurance, security, emergency preparedness, and fire protection programs and plans without prior NRC approval and submit periodic reports of the changes if the changes do not reduce the program's content below that necessary to implement the requirements contained in the regulations.

The second proposed rulemaking provides a definition for the term " commitment" and outlines a change mechanism for licensees who wish to modify a commitment. The comment period for both groups of proposed rulemakings is 30 days and copies are available for examination at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Comments should be sent to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

1 e

9 l

l t

/-

Enclosufe 8

~E The Honorable

, Chairman Subcommittee Committee United States Senate / House Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed proposed amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50.

The amendment proposes to allow licensees to make changes to quality assurance, security, en.ergency preparedness, and fire protection programs and plans-without NRC approval if the programs and plans continue to meet the requirements contained in the regulations.

Licensees would.be required to i

submit a periodic report of these changes.

It is anticipated the rulemaking, if adopted, would reduce regulatory burden on both the licensees and the NRC staff. The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for a 30-day public comment period.

Sincerely, Frank P. Gillespie, Director Regulatory Review Group

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator / Representative i

i

3 e

f The Honorable

, Chairman i

Subcommittee Committee United States Senate / House Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

t The NRC has sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the enclosed proposed amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50.

The amendment proposes a definition for the term " commitment",.which is used in the regulations and in the regulatory process, and outlines a mechanism for licensees to use when changing commitments.

It is anticipated the rulemaking, if adopted, would reduce regulatory burden on both the licensees and the NRC staff. The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for a 30-day public comment period.

Sincerely, Frank P. Gillespie, Director Regulatory Review Group

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator / Representative e.

[7590-01]

)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements:

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review l

AGENCY:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

{

ACTION:

Notice of OMB review of information collection.

P

SUMMARY

The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1.

Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:

Revision 2.

The title of the information collection:

Changes to Licensee Controlled Programs or Plans l

l 3.

The form number if applicable: Not applicable 4.

How often the collection is required: Annually or on a 4

refueling outage basis, as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months.

5.

Who will be required or asked to report:

Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees i

6.

An estimate of the number of responses:

70 nuclear power reactor sites will respond.

t 7.

An estimate of the total number of hours required annually to complete the requirement or request:

Total Burden: 700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> (100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> per site if all four revisions to 10 CFR Part 50 are made).

Licensees have the option of submitting the reports annually or on a refueling outage basis as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months. Actual costs will be lower if licensees l

submit reports on a refueling outage basis.

8.

An indication of whether Section 3504(h), P.L.96-511 applies:

Not applicable i

9.

Abstract: The proposed amendments would require licensees to submit periodic reports containing changes to programs or plans currently under the control of the licensee annually or on a refueling outage basis as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months. The proposed amendments would be a reduction in present reporting requirements - currently I

licensees are required to submit changes to these programs or plans individually following each change. The proposed amendments would consolidate these individual changes into one

{

report.

1

~

Copies of the submittals may be inspected or obtained for a fee from the NRC

~

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.

20555.

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer:

Ronald Hinsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (31.30-

)

NE0B-3019 Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C.

20503 Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerald F. Cranford, Designated Senior Official for Information Resources Management

~

~

~~

Copies of the submittals may be inspected or obtained for a fee from the NRC Public Documen Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.

20555.

I 4

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer:

Ronald Minsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-

)

NE0B-3019 Office of Management and Budget i

Washington, D.C.

20503 Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerald F. Cranford, Designated Senior Official for Information Resources Management i

RRG RRG OGC IRM i

CCraig FGillespie GFehst GCranford

[

/ /93

/ /93

/ /93

/ /93 DISTRIBUTION:

Central Files NRC PDR

{

ADM Rdg RRG R/F FGillespie CCraig j

BShelton, IRM i

'I i

i SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR-CHANGES TO 10 CFR 50.54 1

1 Descriotion of the Information Collection The proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50.54 would allow licensees to make changes i

to security, quality ~ assurance, emergency planning and fire. protection plans 1

and programs without prior NRC approval if the plans continue to meet the l

requirements contained in the regulations. The amendments would require i

licensees to submit reports containing the. changes on an annual or refueling '

-j outage basis as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months. Currently, licensees are required to submit a report on each l

individual change to these plans or programs within a specified time interval.

The proposed amendments would reduce the reporting requirements in that only I

one report of changes for each plan or program would be required.

i A.

JUSTIFICATION l

1.

Need for the Collection of Information i

The agency needs to review the information to ensure licensees' I

programs continue to meet the requirements contained in the

-}

regulations.

Currently, the NRC staff reviews each change individually.

The proposed changes would reduce the reporting-i requirements.

I 2.

Aaency Use of Information i

t The agency will use the information to periodically review the types l

of changes licensees make to the identified programs and plans.

The j

agency will determine whether the program or plan continues to meet i

the requirements in the regulations.

i l

3.

Reduction of Burden Throuah Information Technoloav There is no legal obstacle to the use of information technology.

)

Moreover, the NRC encourages its use.

I i

4.

Effort to Identify Duolication l

There are no reporting requirements similar to those identified.

i 5.

Effort to Use Similar Information There is no source for the information other than licensees.

f q

6.

Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden i

The proposed reporting requirements are only a'pplicable to licensees of nuclear power reactors and does not affect small businesses.

l i

3 i

i i

4.

I i

7.

Conseauences of less Frecuent Collection The proposed amendments would reduce the current collection requirements.

8.

Circumstances of less Frecuent Collection This action does not vary from OMB guidelines.

9.

Consultation Outside the NRC There have been no outside consultations.

10. Confidentiality of Information There is no pledge of confidentiality.

t

11. Justification for Sensitive Ouestions No sensitive information is requested.

12. Estimated Annual Burden to the Federal Government The estimated annual burden to the Government for reviewing the periodic reports is 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> per site for all four reports. The total burden is estimated at 1750 hours0.0203 days <br />0.486 hours <br />0.00289 weeks <br />6.65875e-4 months <br /> for all sites. The total cost at $115 an hour is $201,250.

This would be a reduction from the current burden of reviewing each individoal change to a program i

or plan.

13. Estimate of Industry Burden The estimated annual burden to licensees for submittal of the periodic reports is 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> per site for all four reports. The total burden of 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> at $115 per hour is $805,000. This would be a reduction from the current burden of submitting each individual change to a program or plan.

See attachments 1 and 2 for details.

14. Reasons for Chanae in Burden The proposed changes reduce the burden and allow both the NRC and licensees to focus on safety significant issues.

15. Publication for Statistical Use This information will not be published for statistical use.

t B.

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS l

Statistical methods are not used in this information collection.

i

i

?

Attachment I BURDEN TABLE Annual Reportino Recuirements Recuirement No. of Burden Total Total Cost Reports per Report Burden at $115/hr 3

Submittal 70*

100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> **

(70 x 100)

(7000 x 115) of Report

- 7000 hrs - $805,000***

i

• Assuming sites with multiple units will maintain only one program or plan for each of the four areas.

• • Assuming all four changes to 10 CFR 50.54 are implemented.

• • • These estimates are based on annual submittal of reports.

Licensees have the option of submitting the reports annual or on a refueling outage basis as long the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months. Actual costs-will be lower if licensees submit reports on a refueling outage basis l

(approximately 18 months).

i P

r h

v

[

I

~

9 BURDEN TABLE Annual Recordkeenina Recuirement Reauirement Burden Total Total Cost Per Licensee Burden At $115/hr Recordkeeping for 20*

(70 x 20)

(1400 x 115)

Three Years

- 1400 hrs

- $21,000 Assuming sites with multiple units will maintain only one program or plan for each of the four areas.

e l

e i

1 e

.~.

I

~

4-l

[7590-01]

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements:

Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Review 1

AGENCY:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

ACTION:

Notice of OMB review of information collection.

SUMMARY

The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of P

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

4 1.

Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:

New 2.

The title of the information collection:

Submittal of Changes to Commitments 3.

The form number if applicable: Not applicable 4.

How often the collection is required: Annually or on a refueling outage basis, as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months.

5.

Who will be required or asked to report:

Nuclear Power l

Reactor Licensees

i C

6.

An estimate of the number of responses: 70 nuclear power reactor sites will respond.

7.

An estimate of the total number of hours required annually to complete the requirement or request:

Total Burden: 2800 hours0.0324 days <br />0.778 hours <br />0.00463 weeks <br />0.00107 months <br /> (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per site).

Licensees have the option of submitting the reports annually or on a refueling outage basis as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months. Actual costs will be lower if licensees subnit reports on a refueling outage basis.

t 8.

An indication of whether Section 3504(h), P.L.96-511 applies:

Not applicable 9.

Abstract: The proposed amendment to 10-CFR 50.54 would require licensees to submit periodic reports containing changes to t

commitments annually or on a refueling outage basis as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months.

Copies of the submittals may be inspected or obtained for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.

20555.

1

s c:

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer:

Ronald Minsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 1

(3150-

)

NE0B-3019 Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C.

20503 Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerald F. Cranford, Designated Senior Official for Information Resources Management T

4 P

0

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer:

Ronald Minsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-

)

NE08-3019 Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C.

20503 Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerald F. Cranford, Designated Senior Official for Information Resources Management RRG RRG OGC IRM CCraig FGillespie GFehst GCranford

/ /93

/ /93

/ /93

/ /93 DISTRIBUTION:

Central Files NRC PDR ADM Rdg RRG R/F FGillespie CCraig BShelton, IRM

E r

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR CHANGES TO 10 CFR 50.54 Descriotion of the Information Collection The proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.54 would outline the change mechanism for a licensee who wishes to modify a commitment. The amendment would require licensees to submit reports containing the changes on an annual or refueling outage basis as long as the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months.

A.

JUSTIFICATION 1.

Need for the Collection of Information The agency needs to review the information to ensure licensees' commitments continue to meet the requirements contained in the regulations.

In past practice there has been no clear definition of the term commitment and licensees have been uncertain as to how to change a commitment. Therefore, licensees have been conservative and submitted changes to commitments which were not required. The proposed amendment would impose new requirements, however, it is believed regulatory burden will be reduced because changes to obligations licensees have volunteered to perform in excess of the requirements in the regulations will not have to be submitted to review and approval.

2.

Acency Use of Information The agency will use the information to periodically review the types of changes licensees make to their commitments.

The agency will determine whether the commitment continues to meet the requirements in the regulations.

3.

Reduction of Burden Throuch Information Technolooy There is no legal obstacle to the use of information technology.

Moreover, the NRC encourages its use.

4.

Effort to Identify Duplication There are no reporting requirements similar to those identified.

fff.q_rt to Use Similar Information f

5.

There is no source for the information other than licensees.

6.

Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden The proposed reporting requirements are only applicable to licensees of nuclear power reactors and does not affect small businesses.

J

4 7.

Consecuences of less Frecuent Collection The NRC would not be aware of changes to agreed upon commitments if the collection was not made.

8.

Circumstances of less Freauent Collection This action does not vary from OMB guidelines.

9.

Consultation Outside the NRC There have been no outside consultations.

10. Confidentiality of Information There is no pledge of confidentiality.

11. Justification for Sensitive Ouestions No sensitive information is requested.

12. Estimated Annual Burden to the Federal Government The estimated annual burden to the Government for reviewing the periodic reports is 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> per site.

The total burden is estimated at 1750 hours0.0203 days <br />0.486 hours <br />0.00289 weeks <br />6.65875e-4 months <br /> for all sites. The total cost at $115 an hour is $201,250.

13. Estimate of Industry Burden The estimated annual burden to licensees for submittal of the periodic reports is 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per site.

The total burden of 2800 hours0.0324 days <br />0.778 hours <br />0.00463 weeks <br />0.00107 months <br /> at $115 per hour is $322,000.

See attachments 1 and 2 for details.

14. Reasons for Chanae in Burden It is believed that the regulatory burden will be reduced because changes to obligations licensees volunteered to perform in excess of the regulations would not have to be submitted for review and approval and would be under the licensee's administrative controls.

15. Publication for Statistical Use This information will not be published for statistical use.

B.

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS Statistical methods are not used in this information collection.

.j t

BURDEN TABLE Annual Reportina Reauirements Recuirement No. of Burden Total Total Cost Reports ner Report Burden at $115/hr i.

Submittal 70*

40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> (70 x 40)

(2800 x 115) of Report

- 2800 hrs - $322,000***

j

• Assuming sites with multiple units will maintain only one set of commitments.

• • These estimates are based on annual submittal of reports.

Licensees have the option of submitting the reports annual or on a refueling outage basis as long the interval between reports does not exceed 24 months. Actual costs will be lower if licensees submit reports on a refueling outage basis (approximately 18 months).

k E

t I

i

n-

't.

t BURDEN TABLE Annual Recordkeepina Reouirement Reouirement Burden Total Total Cost Per Licensee Burden At $115/hr Recordkeeping for 20*

(70 x 20)

(1400 x 115)

Three Years

= 1400 hrs

- $21,000 Assuming sites with multiple units will maintain only one set of commitments.

4