ML20128D586

Informs That RES Will Hold Meeting in Room 17 G-27 on 920814 to Expedite Consensus Process on Implementation of Regulatory Reform

ML20128D586
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/10/1992
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Bernero R, Murley T, Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20128D549	List: ML20128D544 ML20128D563 ML20128D586 ML20128D599
References
FRN-57FR39353, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-50 AE30-2-004, AE30-2-4, NUDOCS 9212070314
Download: ML20128D586 (35)

Text

b August 10, 1992 3P4 PbR "4 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director, NMSS Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM Gerald F. Cranford, Director, IRM Carlton Kammerer, Director, OSP James Lieberman, Director, OE Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel FROM: James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY REFORM A memorandum from the President of the United States dated April 29, 1992, addressed to certain Department and Agency Heads requested that addressees set aside the next 120 days to implement the previously identified regulatory reforms. The President went on to state that reforms requiring public comment should be noticed in the Federal Reaister for comment not later than June 15, 1992, with a view to issuing the final rules no later than August 27, 1992. On June 18, 1992, the NRC published the subject proposed rules for 30-day public comment. A final rulemaking package consisting of a Federal Register Notice and congressional letters developed uy RES is enclosed for your concurrence. It should be noted that comment number 11 of the Federal Register Notice responds to a Petition for Rulemaking submitted by -

Yankee Atomic Electric Co. in July 1990. Since this rulemaking substantially responds to the spirit of the petition, we are graating the petition. RES will hold a meeting in room 17 G-27, at 2 p.m., on August 14, 1992, to expedite our consensus process. Please attend and provide your concurrence or those changes to the Federal Register Notice that are necessary for your concurrence. If you cannot attend personally, please have someone attend who is designated to concur for you.

Odpd signed by Jamc3 M.lf410f James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Rulemaking Package CC:

EBeckjord, RES JBlaha, ED0 EJordan, AE00

• See Previon Concunence Offe: RDB DRA* RDD DRA* RDB DRA* D DRA-RES* DD/GIR.RES*D;RE.S* EDO EDO Name; JMate.le CNisen 5Bahadur BMoms CHehemes EBeckjord irthompson 15niczek Date: 08/03/92 08/03/92 08/04/92 08/48/92 08/07/92 C8/07/92 / /92 / /92 Offe: EO Name: JM 'aylor Date: ./ /92 g OfTICIAL RECORD COPY 9212070314 921123 57 39353 PDR m

Distrioution: [ BUSH-COV)

Subj-circ-chron JMTaylor, E00 JSniezek, EDO HThompson, EDO EBeckjord CHeltemes BMorris FCostanzi Bahadur/ Reading Files CNilsen JMate EDO R/F EDO 7460 0

s. .m a>.+ . - u.aa .s.s n,s.,u u .a,- n aw.,- y s -.n. .,up-m- +s a =s s.

' 4 5

e f

f f

I 9

ENCLOSURE

e. .

_.; [7590-01)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 20 and.50

. RIN 3150-AE30 ,

Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, ,

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. This action reflects an '

t initiative undertaken by the Commission in response to a Presidential memorandum requesting that selected Federal agancies review and modify regulations that would eliminate an) unnecessary burden of governmental regulation, and ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. In that spirit, the NRC's Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) identified eight areas where regulations could be revised to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without in any_

way reducing the protection for 'the public health _ and safety or the common-defense and security. The amendments address the frequency of reporting information and emergency core cooling system analysis for operating power reactors, clarify and update regulations affecting certain material licensees; and remove unnecessary regulatory requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1992.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. C. W. Nilsen, telephone (301) 492-3834 or Mr. Joseph J. Mate, telephone (301) 492-3795, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

'earch, U.S'. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 28, 1992, the President of the United States signed a memorandum addressed to selected Federal Agency Heads who are concerned with energy production and protection of the environment. The memorandum requested-the addressees work together to streamline the regulatory process and ensure that the regulatory community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation.

On the same day, the President signed a second memorandum entitled

" Reducing the Burden of Government-Regulation." This memorandum, which was sent to all Federal agencies, set aside a '-Jay period to review and evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify and accelerate action on initiatives that will eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden. At the end of the review period, agencies were to submit a written report indicating the regulatory ch;s;es recommended or made during the review period and the potential savings as a result of the changes.

In response to the Presidential memoranda, the Commission decided that it would be consistent with its policy to monitor the impact of complying with 2

- - = , - , . .

4 NRC regulations by its licensees to instruct its Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) to review existing NRC regulations to determine whether regulatory burdens can be reduced without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety and the common defense and security, in accomplishing their review, the CRGR drew upon previous studies and solicited comments from the public, other Federal agencies, and the Commission's staff.

A Federal Register Notice was published on February 24, 1992 (57 FR 6299) seeking public comment in connection with the review, and a second Federal Register Notice on March 23,1992 (57 FR 9985) discussed likely or possible candidates for action, based on CRGR's preliminary evaluation of comments. An associated public meeting was held on March 27, 1992, in Bethesda, Maryland.

After completing their special review, the CRGR recommended revising the regulations in eight areas. The proposed revisions met the criteria for reducing the burden without in any way reducing the protection for public health and safety and common defenso gnd security.

The Chairman of the NRC sent a report to the President of the United States on April 27, 1992, which summarized NRC's activities concerning the President's directive and advised the President that NRC would pursue the CRGR's recommendations expeditiously within the framework of the procedures and practices for rulemaking.

On June 1,1992, in response to a memorandum from the President of the United States, dated April 29, 1992, the Commission directed the staff to strive to publish the proposed rule changes in the eight areas identified by the CRGR in the Federal Register for comment as soon as possible, but not later than June 15, 1992, with a view to issuing the final rules in the

-Federal Register no later than August 27, 1992. On June 18, 1992, the NRC 3

published the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (57 FR 27187) for comment. The comment period expired on July 20, 1992.

SUMMARY

AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Thirty comment letters were received on the proposed rule and are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room located at 2120 L street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. The comments on the propo"-i rule carce from a variety of sources. These included private citizens, publicly held corporations, citizens' groups, the armed forces, industry representatives, electric power companies or their representatives, and legal firms. Eleven significant ,

points were raised by the commenters. Of the 30 comment letters received, 28 -

letters were favorable and 2 letters were partially opposed to the regulation changes. The comments and their resolutions are discussed below.

1. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Commission not only amend 20.1906(b) concerning contamination monitorir?, but also issue a statement that those licensees still operating under the old Part 20 not be required to monitor packages for contamination that meet the conditions of Part 20.1906(b).

Resoonse: The str f does not believe that the suggested change by the commenter is necessary (;:s le the amendment of 1 20.1906(b) will make the subject contamination monitoring requirements of the new-Part 20 essentially the same as those centained in the existing Part 20 (1 20.205(b)(1)(iii) and (c)(1)).

l 4 l

2. Comment: One of tha commenters opposed the rule on the basis that ,

sealed sources routinely leak and, therefore, should not be excluded from monitoring. The commenter cited an example where a driver and a truck vere contaminated because of a failure to conduct a proper radiation sweep.

Resoonse: The final rule would not exempt licensees from monitoring or surveying any packages with evidence of degradation of package integrity, including evidence of potential contamination. Likewise, this revision does not relax the preshipment requirements for monitoring of packages contained in 10 (~R Part 71. The NRC does not have any evidence which would support the commenters assertion that sealed sources routinely leak, and thus, the NRC believes that the requirements in place are sufficient to detect potential abnormal situations. No amount of regulation can, a priori, preclude all incidents involving leaking sources. However, such incidents can be dealt with through followup inspection and enforcement under the present regulatory scheme.

3. Coment: Several of the commenters spoke in general of the need for the NRC to continue in its efforts to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden ,

on licensees through additional amendments to parts of Title 10.

Response: The NRC will continue its efforts to identify additional I

amendments which will provide for a reducti(n in regulatory burden while :till assuring equate protection of t6 public health and safety.

4. Jmment: One of the commenters questioned the basis for excepting L

fiun external monitoring for radiation levels, only nuclear material that was either in the form of a gas or in a special form since the external radiation levels are dependent upon radionuc'iides, quantity, shielding, and distance 5

.a-..ar-. . - - - - -, ,e-

-, *-- . -e-.w- ww- e e -e-e r w - vue '

between radioactive material and the point of interest rather than material 9

form.

Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that the requirement, i upon receipt, to survey the radiation levels on the package exterior should be based on t$e' potential radiation hazard. Therefore, the requirement specified in 10 CFR 20.1906(b)(2) that monitoring of radiation levels be performed on labeled packages is being revised to delete the exemption that the radioactive material be in the form of a gas or in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4.

5. Comment: One of the commenters questioned whether the monitoring requirements were applicable for packages that show evidence of damage.

Response: The wording of 10 CFR 20.1906(b)(3) has been revised to more clearly indicate that packages with evidence of damage are to be monitored for both radioactise contamination and for radiation levels. -

6. Com-ent: Several commenters requested that the proposed wording to 10 CFR 50.71 (e)(i) concerning TSAR updates be revised to decouple tl.a FSAR updates from the refueling cycle and that the 24-month requirement for updates is an unnecessary restriction. ,

Response: The proposed changes were not accepted. The majority of facility design changes reflected in an updated FSAR are effected during the ,

refueling outage. The use of th9 refueling cycle interval provides for a current plant status document that is coordinated with plant changes. The ,

wording of 5 50.71 (s)(4) is not restrictive to plants that will eventually increase their refueling cycle to 24 months.

7. Comment: Three electric utilities requested that the propried wording in 10 CFR 50.36(a)(2) concerning radiological effluent reporting be revised to specify a particular date. One commenter suggested: "

The report 6

-rn..-,- -,t,,,- mm..~..s--r.,,.,y . . . , . , , . , ,g,.-. ., 9 .e,m. . - - ..-~..,.......~,,r-.,.7,.,.m. <.--,-y+,w,.m ---w-.-,,-.~,v--y--.,-,-m-y , , , , +

- must be submitted as specified in Section 50.4 prior to March 31 of each year."

Response: The wording of 10 CFR 50.36 (a)(2) gives the licensee maximum flexibility for scheduling submission of radiological effluent reports with the only restriction being that the interval between reports must not exceed 12 months. The reporting requirements remain as proposed.

8. Comment: Two esmmenters suggested that the amendments indicate that the changes in reporting requirements of the new regulations take precedence over the existing license technical specifications or license conditions where there may be a conflict.

Responsg: The proposed amendments are generic and licensees may request administrative amendments to any conflicting license condition or .

technical specification as needed.

9. C om-e n t : Two commenters suggested that NRC reconsider the need for licensees to submit 10 CFR part 50.36 a(2) effluent release reports and 10 CFR part 50.59 reports concerning annual design changes. The commenter noted the requirement for these reports was issued before the final Safety _

Analysis Reports were required to be updated periodically and before resident inspectors were assigned to all reactor sites. The commenter also observed that 10 CFR evaluations are now available on site for review by inspectors at any time, and most changes are reflected in the FSARs. Further, the commenters do not believe that these reports are routinely reviewed by the NRC staff. The commenters believed that if the requirement to submit such a report were eliminated, there would be no impact on safety and the 10 CFR evaluations would continue to be accomplished and to be available for 7

4 review and that the deletion of these requirements would contribute to significant increased savings by licensees.

Pesconse: The consequence of eliminating the requirements for these reports requires significant additional assessment. Thus, the proposed revisions have not been modified in order not to delay the benefit of burden reduction. Although this proposal will r.ot be addressed in the current rulemaking, such revisions will be evaluated as part of an ongoing staff effort.

10. [Amigni: One commenter questioned whether the changes in reporting frequency of facility changes under 10 CFR 50.59, FSAR updates, and radiological effluent reports would impair the ability of the NRC to review such information in a timely manner.

Response: The resident inspector program along with regional regulatory programs provide timely and in some cases day-to-day review of facility operations. The changes being made will not impair NRC's ability to review such information.

11. Comment: One commenter (Yankee Atomic Electric Co.) stated that the FSAR update changes discussed in Action Item #7 of this notice emanated from a petition for rulemaking that they submitted to the NRC on February 9, 1990 (PRM 50-55). The petitioner originaily requested that nuclear power plant licensees be allowed to file FSAR reports at periods greater than annually. They suggested that i 50.7)(e)(4) be revised to read as follows:

" Subsequent revisions shall be filed no later than 6 months after completion of each planned refueling outage for a licensce's facility. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR, the licensees shall designate the refueling outage schedule on one of the multiple facilities to establish the schedule 8

. for revisions of the common FSAR. The FSAR revisions shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filing."

During the comment period on this proposed rule, Yankee Atomic Electric stated that the period between successive FSAR updates should not be limited to 24 months as proposed. Their rationale was that the restriction of 24 months was unnecessary.

Resconse: Upon receipt of the Yankee Atomic Electric Co. comment letter of July 20, 1992, the NRC again reviewed the petition (PRM 50-55) submitted by ,

Yankee Atomic Electric Co. in July 1990. Based on the staff's review of the petition, the NRC believes that the current action being taken to reduce the burden on nuclear. licensees is substantially similar to the petition in question. With regard to the 24-month interval for successive FSAR updates,

~

this item is addressed in comment #6 above. It should be noted that the petition did not contain a specific reference to a number of months regarding successive FSAR updates. With respect to the petitioner's concern about ,

multiple facilities sharing a common FSAR, licensees will have maximum flexibility for scheduling updates on a case by case basis. This final L rulemaking does not address multiple facilities.

i This final rulemaking is considered by the NRC to be a granting of the petition request of Yankee Atomic Electric Co. and this constitutes final action on the petition, i

m.- , . -- -w.4. , - _ - - ,- ,,.u,,.-- m.---.-,.,w-.--_ , v---.--,.---,-,-oy, ,%-w-,-o

(l Tf5W!E M W e -

Discussion The Nucicar Regulatory Comission is amending 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to implement the eight proposed actions identified below and also identified in the report on 'Special Review of Existing NRC Regulations' that was completed by the CRGR and that was att6thed to Chairman Selin's letter to the White House dated April 27, 1992. These actions will not reduce the NRC's

\

protection of the public health and safety or the comon defense and security.

L.h of the eight actions are discussed below.

1. Postina of Rooms Occupied by Diaanostic Nuclear Medicine Patients 1

(10 CFR 20.1903(b))

The revision reduces the posting requirements for rooms in hospitals occupied by patP t'1 tdministered radioactive materials who might otherwise be released from conin.ement under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 35.75.

The estimated savings to licensees is $300,000 for elimination of the need for posting.

2. Contamination Monitorina of Packaaes (10 CFR 20.1906(b)) _

This action clarifies the regulations and reduces the monitoring burden for packages containing radioactive material in the form of a gas or in a special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4.

The estimated savings to licensees is $66.4 million.

3. fIeouency of Radioloaical Effluent Reports (10 CFR 50.36a.1 This action reduces the requirements for the submission of reports concerning the quantity of principal nuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous ef fluents from semiannually to annually.

10 L

The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $16,800,000 for licensees and $360,000 for the tdC.

4. Lise of fuel with Zirc2rdum-Based (Other than Zircalov) Claddina (10 CrR Q.44. 50.46. md Arpendix K to Part 501 This action revises the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.44 and 50.45, Part 50, relating to evaluations of emergency core cooling systems and combustible gas control applicable to zircaloy clad fuel to include 21Rl0 clad fuel. This revision to include ZlRLO as an acceptable zirconium based cladding material along with zircaloy will reduce the license 2 burden but will not reduce the protection of the public health or safety. The NRC will address, through an appropriate separate rulen,aking, the use of other similar zirconium based cladding materials when all of the necessary safety evaluations for those materials have been completed.

The estimated savings for eliminating the need to process recurring exerrptions to the regulations to licensees is $2 million per year and the savings to the NRC is $50,000 per year. This estimate is based on six plants per year requesting the use of ZlRL0 clad fuel over the next 8 years.

5. Receipt Bag of processed low level W3ste (10 CFR 50.54)

This action is addressed in a separate rulemaking. for additional information, see the proposed rule entitled " Receipt of Dyproduct and Special Nuclear Material" published in the federal Register on April 24, 1992 (57 FR 15034).

6. Annual Desian Chance Reports (10 CFR 50.59)

This action revises the requirements for the annual submission of reports for facility changes under 5 50.59 (Changes, tests, and experiments) to conform with the proposed change for updating the FSAR (see item 7). This 11 4i 7,

action does not affect the substance of the evaluation or the documentation required for i 50.59 type changes. It only affects the interval for submission of the information to the NRC. Instead of submitting the information annually, the information can be submitted on a refueling cycle basis, provided the interval between successive reports does not exceed 24 months.

The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $1,500,000 for licensees and $400,000 for the NRC.

7. Frecuency of Final Safety Analysis Reeort (FSAR) Vodates 110 CFR 50.71)

This action provides licensees with an option from the current requirements for the annual updating of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). In lieu of an annual submission, licensees may choose to provide the required information once per each refueling outage. According to the proposed revision, updates to the FSAR can be submitted 6 months after each refueling outage, provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months. This action does not affect the substance of FSAR updates.

The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $11,100,000 for licensets and $910,000 for the NRC.

8. Elimination of Unnecessary Event Reports (10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73)

The revision concerning event reporting is covered in a separate rulemaking action. For ao'd,itional information, see the proposed rule entitled

' Minor Mo' fications to Nut. lear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" published n the Federal F.egister on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28642).

s

! 12 e

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion ,

The NRC determined that the final regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(2) and (3). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

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

These requirement > were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number, 3150-0014 and 3150-0011.

The reduction of the public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 208 hours0.00241 days <br />0.0578 hours <br />3.439153e-4 weeks <br />7.9144e-5 months <br /> per response for operating power reactors and I hour per response for certain materials licensees, 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 reduction or any other aspect of this decrease in the collection of information including suggestions on this reduced burden to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019 (3150-0011, 3150-0014), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

l 13 l

(

Regulatory Analysis The NRC is amending its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. This action reflects an initiative on the part of the NRC and responds to the spirit of President Bush's memoranda of January 28, 1992, which requested that selected federal agencies review and modify regulations that will reduce unnecessary burden of governmental regulation and ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. The NRC has identified eight rulemaking actions that would eliminate duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.- Six of the actions are included in this package. Two of the eight actions are being processed as separate rulemakings and are not discussed here. The eight actions are as follows:

1. Posting of Rooms Occupied by Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine Patients--

to include exceptions for posting requirements for rooms in hospitals for patients administered radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic tests (10 CFR 20.1903(b)).

2. Contamination Monitoring of Packages--to eliminate certain provisions for contamination monitoring of packages containing certain types

-of radioactive material (10 CFR 20.1906(b));

3. Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports--to change the frequency of reports on power reactor radiological effluents from twice per year to once

. per year (10 CFR 50.36a);

4. Use of fuel with Zirconium-Based Cladding--to eliminate the need to obtain exemptions in order to use a certain fuel cladding material not l

l i 14

presently addressed in the regulations (10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K);

5. Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste--separate rulemaking (10 CFR 50.54).

6. Annual Design Change Reports--to change the frequency of reporting changes at power reactors from once per year to once per refueling cycle (10CFR50.59(b));

7. Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report Updates--to change the frequency of safety analysis report updates from once per year to once per refueling cycle (10 CFR 50.71);

8. Elimination of unnecessary event reports--separate rulemaking (10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73);

Each of these actions considers the elimination or relaxation of regulatory requirements currently imposed on NRC licensees. Actions 1 and 2 would affect material licensees while Actions 3 through 8 would affect pewer reactor licensees. For each regulatory action, the staff has evaluated the health and safety implications and the cost impacts relative to a status quo alternative. The staff finds that each would result in a reduction in burden without reducing protection of the public health and safety. The public health and safety determination appears in a document entitled ' Report on Special Review of Existing NRC Regulations by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements" issued on April 13, 1992. Additionally, an analysis of the safety implications-of Action 4 is available in .a U.S. NRC Letter to Westinghouse Corporation dated July 1, 1991, entitled ' Acceptance For Referencing Of Topical Report WCAP-12610 ' Vantage + Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report" (TAC NO. 77258)."

15

3 The cost savings to both the licensee population and the NRC appear below. Dollar impacts are expressed on a 1992 present worth basis in 1992 dollars. The basis for these cost estimates is available in a report entitled

" Analyses of Potential Cost Savings for Selected NRC Reforms" dated June 10, 1992.

Total Discounted'" Cost Savings Associated With Proposed Regulatory Revisions (1992 $ in millions)

REGULATORY REVISION LICENSEES lE ITEM 1 0.3 -0.100'"

ITEM 2 66.4 -0.100'"

ITEM 3 16.8 0.360 ITEM 4 2.0 0.050 ITEM S N/A'" N/A")

ITEM 6 1,5 0.400 ITEM 7 11.1 0.910 ITEM 8 N/A'" N/A"'

ilqT[: (1) assumes an annual real discount rate of 5%

(2) negative cost savings represent a cost expenditure (3) not applicable--separate rulemaking The NRC concludes that each of these proposed regulatory revisions is justified due to the net cost savings that would accrue without reducing public health and safety.

16 1

- Regulatory Flexibility Certification As requi,ed by the Regulatory flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission ce,rtifies that, this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NRC has adopted size standards that classify a small entity as a small business or organization, one whose gross annual receipts do not exceed $3.5 million, or as a small governmental jurisdiction whose supporting population is 50,000 or 4 less. The first six issues effect 112 power reactor licensees. 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 NRC Size Standards. The remaining two issues involve the relaxation of requirements which will affect approximately 10,000 material licensees. Although many of these licensees may be small entities, there should be no adverse impact on these small licensees because the regulations are being relaxed.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

17

List of Subjects Part 20 - Byproduct material, Criminal penalty, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.

Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire l

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

F7r 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 Parts 20 and 50.

PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.

1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 20.408 also issued under sets. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat.

2232, 2241, (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).

18 1

'* For the purposes of sec. 233, 6e Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2273); i il 20.101, 20.102, 20.103(a), (b) .

and (f), 20.104 (a) and (b), 20.105 (b),

20.106 (a), 20.201, 20.202 (a), 20,205, 20.207, 20.301, 20.303, 20.304, and 20.305, 20.1102, 20.1201-20.1204, 20.1206.-20.1207, 20.1208, 20.1301, 20.1302, i b

20.1501, 20.1502, 20.1601(a) and (d), 20.1602, 20.1603, 20.1701, 20.1704, 20.1801,20.1802,20.1901(a),20.1902,20.1904,20.1906,20.2001,20.2002, 20,2003, 20.2004, 20.2005 (b) and (c), 20.2006, 20.2101-20.2110, 20.2201-20.2206, and 20.2301 are issued under sec. 161(b), 68 Stat. 948 as amended (42 -

U.S.C. 2201 (b)); 6 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub.

L.93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and il 20.102,20.103(e),20.401-20.407,20.408(b),_

20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.1204(c), 20.1206 (g) and (h), 20.1904(c)(4), .

20.1905 (c) and (d), 20.2005(c), 20.2006(b)-(d), 20.2101-20,2103,-20.2104(b)-

(d), 20.2105-20.2108, and 20.2201-20.2207 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat.

950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

2. Section 20.1903 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

6 20.1903 Exceptions to posting requirements (b) Rooms or other_ areas in hospitals that are occupied by patients o are not required to be-posted with caution signs pursuant to I-20.1902 provided that the patient could be released from confinement pursuant to i l

l 35.75 of this chapter, l

19

. - . ~ . - _ _ _ _ _ _-. . . _ - _ . . , ~ . .- _.

3. Sec lon 20.1906 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

i 20.1906 Procedures for receiving and opening packages.

(b) Each licensee si.211---

(1) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled package for radioactive contamination unless the package contains only radioactive material in the form of a gas or in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4; (2) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled package for radiation >

levels unless the package contains quantities of radioactive material that are less than or equal to the Type A quantity, as defined in i 71.4 and Appendix A to Part 71 of this chapter; and (3) Monitor all packages known to contain radioactive material for <

radioactive contamination and radiation levels if there is evidence of degradation of package integrity, such as packages that are crushed, wet, or damaged.

l l

t.

l Labeled with a Radioactive White I, Yellow II, or Yellow Ill label as specified in U. S. Department of Transportation regulations, 49 CFR 172.403 and 172.436-440..

20

,p.p,,i ,y ,e..g_-.- , - . ..p .

--m- _-m 4m._-. -_y _

..y . -

4 y - q -w_, _

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING Of PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

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

AUTHORITY: Secs 102, 103, 104, 105, 151, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. ,

936, 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 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 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 U.S.C. 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2273); il 50.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54 (c) are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); il 50.5, 50.7(a), 50.10(a)-(c),

l 21

Si).34(a) and (e), 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50. 47(b), 50.48(a), (c),

(d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), (i), (t)(1), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v),

and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a),

50.62(b), 50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1611, 6B Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220)(i)); and il 50.49(d), (h) and (j),

50.54(w), (z), (bb), (cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.61(b), 50.67(b),

50.70(a), 50.71(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 161c, 68 Stat. 950 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

5. Section 50.36a is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

I 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors.

(a)

(2) Each licensee shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of operation, including any other information as may be required t,y the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. The report must be submitted as .

specified in i 50.4, and the time between submission of the reports must be no longer than 12 months. If quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting period are significantly above design objectives, the ,

report must cover this specifically. On the basis of these reports and any 22

i l

additional inforcation the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, J

the Commission may require the licensee to take action as the Commission deems  !

approprihte.

6. Section 50.44 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) to read as follows:

i 50.44 Standards for combustible gas control system in light-water-cooled power reactors.

(a) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZlRLO cladding, shall, as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, include means for control of hydrogen gas that may be generated, following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), by --

(b) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pollets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZlRLO cladding must be provided with the capability for --

(c)(1) for each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power.

reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZlRLO cladding, it must be shown that during th9 time period following a postulated LOCA, but prior to-effective operation of the combustible gas control system, either:

23

f

7. SecC on $0.46 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as follows: ,

i 50.46 Acceptance criteria for emergency core coolir.g systems for light-water nuclear power reactors.

(a)(1)(1) Each boiling and pressurized light-water nuclear power rea.-ter fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZlRLO cladding must be provided with an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) that inust be designed so that its calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. ECCS cooling performance must be calculated in umi :r with an acceptable evaluation model and must be calculated for a number of postulated loss-of-coolant accidents of different sizes, locations, and other properties sufficient to provide assurance that the most severe postulated loss-of-coolant accidents are calculated. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the evaluation model must include sufficient supporting justification to show that the analytical technique realistically describes the behavior of the reactor system during a. loss-of-coolant accident. Comparisons to applicable experimental data must be made and uncertainties in the analysis method and-inputs must be identified and assessed so that the uncertainty in the calculated results can be estimated.

This uncertainty must be accounted for, so that, when the calculated ECCS cooling performance is compared to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of 24

this section, there is a high levs1 of probability that the criteria would not be exceeded. Appendix K Part II, Required Documentation, sets forth the documentation requirements for each evaluation model.

8. Section EL.59 1s amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

i 50.59 Changes, tests, and experiments.

(b)

(2) The licensee shall submit, as specified in i 50.4, a report emntaining a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the s.Tety evaluation of each. The report may be submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by i 50.7)(e),

or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license.

9. Section 50.71 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:

l 6 50.71 Maintenance of records, making of reports.

l 25

- .. - . . _ = - -

4 1

4 l

1 (e)

(4) Subsequent revisions must be filed annually or 6 months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months. The revisions must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filing.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of ,

1992. , ,

for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James H. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations.

26

r l u fpeto %,

y * ~ 3 ,, g UNITED STATES j a a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - I WASHINGTON, D C. 2ese6 O.

1 The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment t Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives l Washington, DC 20515 i

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for the information of the subcomittee is a copy of a Notice of -

Final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Reaister. The Nuclear '

Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. The action is responsive to the spirit of two Presidential memoranda of January 28, 1992, which requested all Federal!

agencies to set aside a 90 day period to evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify and accelerate initiatives that would eliminate any ,

unnecessary burden or otherwise promote economic growth. New regulations were not to be issued during this review period unless certain criteria were met. ,

On April 27, 1992, the Chairman of the NRC sent a resort to the President of ,

the United States which identified potential areas w1ere regulatory burdens might be reduced. As a result, NRC is amending 10 CFR Parts 20 and $0 to implement regulatory burden reduction. The proposed actions include:

--Exceptions to Posting Requirements

--Contamination Monitoring of Packages

--Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports ,

--Use of fuel witn Zirconium-Based (Other than Zircaloy) Cladding-

--ReceiptBackofProcessedLowLevelWaste

--Annuai Design Change Reports .

--Frequency of final Safety Analysis Report- (FSAR) . Updates

--Elimination of Unnecessary Event Reports Rulemakings on " Receipt Back of' Processed Low Level Waste," and " Elimination  :

of Unnecessary Event Reports" are being developed separately, it should be noted that the above action on " Frequency of Final Safety

' Analysis Report (FSAR) Updates" also grants a petition _ noticed in the Federal' ,

Reaister on May 3, 1990 (55 FR 18608).-

a t

i s

• The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer 2  ;

Through these rule changes, NRC can reduce the regulatory burden on licensees while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security. -

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking cc: Representative John J. Rhodes o

p , - e- -g ,-

r _nm--s- -, -- - , - - ,

er- v.,-~gg-w-, ,- ., ,, ~ - , -w- , - - - - -,m z- ----

4 05 28c f oq'%

8" s., , '% UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION fo, l

W AsHINGTON. O C. 20t46

,0'

s, * . . .

• The Honorable. Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Notice of final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Reaiste.t. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. The action is responsive to the spirit of two Presidential memoranda of January 28, 1992, which requested all federal agencies to set aside a 90-day period to evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify and accelerate initiatives that would eliminate any unnecessary burden or otherwise promote economic growth. New regulations were not to be issued during this review period unless certain criteria were met. ,

On April 27, 1992, the Chairman of the NRC sent a report to the President of the United States which identified potential areas where regulatory burdens might be reduced. As a result, NRC is amending 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to implement regulatory burden reduction. The proposed actions include:

--Exceptions to Posting Requirements

--Contamination Monitoring of Packages

--Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports

--Use of fuel with Zirconium-Based (Other than Zircaloy) Cladding

--Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste

--Annual Design Change Reports

--Frequency of final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Updates

--Elimination of Unnecessary Event Reports Rulemakings on " Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste," and " Elimination of Unnecessary Event Reports" are being developed separately, it should be noted that the above action on " Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Updates" also grants a petition noticed in the Federal ELqister on May 3, 1990 (55 FR 18608).

m

9 The Honorable Philip R. Sharp 2 .

Through these rule changes, NRC can reduce the regulatory burden on licensees while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun Office of Congression'al Affairs

Enclosure:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking cc: Representative Carlos J. Moorhead P

i y,r- - ew- e. . , - - , - 4m- ,--i,- , r.w-- m e m,, , , + , . ~ , . .- ,,w....-is. .---- mm. .-r-,, -

-tm-ter-- - er -

scace

+#o .'.D,,

3" UNITED STATES E i NUCLt!AR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q q/y) n W ASHINGTON. D.C. L%

w. . .*. [,f The Honorable' Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Notice of Final Rulemaking to be published ir the Federal Reaister. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. The action is responsive to the spirit of two Presidential memoranda of January 28, 1902, which requested all Federal agencies to set aside a 90-day period to evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify and accelerate initiatives that would eliminate any unnecessary burden or otherwise promote economic growth. New regulations were not to be issued during this review period unless certain criteria were met. .

On April 27, 1992, the Chairman of the NRC sent a report to the President of the United States which identified potential areas where regulatory burdens might be reduced. As a result, NRC is amending 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to implement regulatory burden reduction. The proposed actions include:

--Exceptions to Posting Requirements

--Contamination Monitoring of Packages

--Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports

--Use of Fuel with Zirconium-Based (Other than Zircaloy) Cladding

--Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste

--Annual Design Change Reports

--Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Freport (FSAR) Updates

--Elimination of Unnecessary Event Reports Rulemakings on " Receipt Back of Processed low Level Waste," and " Elimination of Unnecessary Event Reports" are being developed separately.

It should be noted that the above action on ' Frequency of Final Safety Ana' lysis Report (FSAR) Updates" also grants a petition noticcd in the Federal Reaister on May 3, 1990 (55 FR 18608).

I I

The Honorabie Bob Grahtm 2 l l

l Through these rule changes, NRC can reduce the regulatory burden on licensees  ;

while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the l common defense and security.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson

]