Text

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statements Re Reporting,Recordkeeping & Application Requirements of 10CFR50, Domestic Licensing of Production & Utilization Facilities. Estimated Respondent Burden Is 2,594,178 H
	ML20205D291
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/05/1985
From:	Norry P; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20205B075	List: ML20205B072; ML20205D284; ML20205D291;
References
	NUDOCS 8509230605
	Download: ML20205D291 (100)
	v • d • e

._

'75]5"' REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW $',5*ftN[1EC$_0 IMPORTANT READ INSTRUCT cus BEr0RE CcMPLETING FORM. O NOT USE THE SAME $F 83 TO SIMULTANEOUSLT REQUEST AN EXICUT!vE ORDER 12293 rey!EV AND APPROVAL UNDER THE PAPERWORK RfDUCTION ACT. -

- ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN PART 1. IF TH15 REQUEST 15 FCR REVIEW UNDER E.O.12291. CUMPLETE PART !!

AND $1GN THE CERTIFICATION. IF THIS REQUEST !$ FOR APPROVAL UNDER THE PAPERVORK REDUCTION ACT AND 5 CFR 1320. SKIP PART II. COMPLETE PART Ill AND SIGN THE CERTIBICATION.

SEND THREE CCPIES OF THIS FORM. THE MATERIAL TO BE REVIEVED. AND FOR PAPERVCRK -- THREE COP!ES OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT TC: CTT1CI CT INFORMATION AND RtCULATORT ATTAIRs. OTTICE CT MANActMth7 Ac BUDCET. VAsHINCTON D.C. 20503 -ATTENTION DOCKIT LisRAn Room 3:01 PART 1.

2. AGENCY 3.NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMSER OF PERSON WHO

1. CEDARTMENT/ AGENCY and BUREAU /0FFICI CODE CAN BEST AN5VER QUESTICNS REGARDING ORIGINATING REQUEST THIS REQUEST U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Hazel Smith, (301) 492-8972 '

Commission 3150 Jerry Carter, (301)492-8434

.- 4. TITLE OF INFORMATION COLLECTION OR RULEMAKING 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"

5. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR INFORMATION COLLECT 1&i S RULE 6i AHECTED PUBLIC (CMcCK AL1; TMAT APPLT)

(Cm UxmD sints C Dr. Tutt1C LAV. ct ummvt / / 1. IcIv1Duas cR woustNo:.:s cerR) E 2. sTut oR toca CovtRems 10 CFR 50 ER ACt of 1974 L ! 3. Tms UsC 01 AE Act of 1954, a5 amended 9 '5.. nUs1Ntsses CR Curt reR-rzem TEDtRAL ACtNCirs OR IMPLOYtts

6. NCN-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS t,,, 7. sMALL bus 1Ntsses OR ORCANIZATICNs PART I;. C:MPLETE THIS PART ONLY IF THE REQUEST 15 FOR OMB REVIEW UNDER EXECUT!YE ORDER 12291.

7. REGULATORY INFCRMATION NLMSER (RIN) 9. CFR SECTION AFFECTED

' CTR

. s.. TYPE GF SUEMISSION 10. DOES THIS RFGULATION CONTAIN REPORTING OR RECORD-KEEPING RECUIREM*NTS THAT REQUIRE [r3 APPROVAL.U?iDER CL'.55fFICATIDM THE PA"ERUORt P.EDUCTIEW ACT AMD 5 CFR 13207 O 2. MAJcx Tts O No O C 2. NONMAJon ..

STA;E OF DEVELOPMENT

11. IF A M1J04 RULE.15 THERE A REGULATCRT IMPACT ANALYSIS ATTACHE 07 C 1. Facrests CR DRAIT C 2. T1xc CR INTERIM TINR. V13 FRIOR 1. Yts C 2. No O - IT No. DID CM3 WAIVt FRorosAL nt MRYsist C 3. T1xR OR INTERIM TINE. VIDOUT FUCR PRoresc 3. TES C A. No O TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED

12. DOES THIS REGULATION AFFECT ANT TRADE SEN5!T!vE D 1. sTAWARD ' ACTIVITT7 O 2. -f tcIwc C 3. tMT2CINCY Yts a so a O A. sTATUICRT CR .HJDICIE DtCRtt CERTIFICATION FOR REGULATORY SUEMISSIONS: IN SUssiTTING THIS RECUtst FOR oms ArvrEW. THE AuTHcRrrED REcUtATORY CONTACT AND THE PROGRAM OFFICIAL CERTIFT THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF E.O.12291 AND ANT APPLICABLE POLICT DIRECTIVES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

s1CMTURE CT Pao; RAM CTTICLAL Daft s1CMATVRI OT ALTuotitts REctra.ATCRT CONTACT

DATE 850923060585071{

PDR REVGP NRCCR MEETINGO79 PD .

1 *%?.y . * ~=?

~.

e 2 p

~TRT ')J j , LoTLElE 1H15 P R1 ONLY IF 1ME REQUEST 1510R AFrROVAL OF A COLLELTION Of INrcT#.A110N UNDER 1HE7APERWORK e . REQUCTION ACT AND 5 CFR 1320. -

13. ABSTRACT - DESCRIBE NEIDS, UsES AND ATPECTED PUBLIC IN 50 Wocs OR LIss 10 CFR Part 50 of the NRC's regulations, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," specifies technical infomation and data to be provided by applicants and licensees so that the NRC may make determinations necessary to promote

'the health and safety of the oublic. in accordance with the Act.

14. TYPE OF INFore.ATION COLLECTION (CHECK CNE* ONU) 20. CURRENT (MOST RECENT) oMB C0w'40L NUMBER OR COMMENT

, NUMBER INFORMATION COLLECTIONS NOT CONTAINED IN RULES

_ a 1. RzGUuA SUBMISSION 3150-00'1'i O 2. DTRCENCY SU1 MISSION (CERTITICATION ATTACED) 21. REQUESTED EXPIRATION CATE INFORMATION COLLECTIONS CONTAINED IN RULES a 3. msnNC RECUuTICa (No CnANCE PROPCsED) April 30,1988 O 4. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAXING (NPRM) .

O 5. FINAL, NPRM VAS PRIVIOUSLY PUBLISHED 22. PURPOSE Of INFORMATION COLLECTION (CEECK As MANY

6. TINAL OR IhiERIM TIKAL WITHOUT PRIOR NPRM AS APPLY)

O A. RECIP AR SUBMISSION O B. EMIRCENCT SUBMISSION O 1. APPLICATION FOR BENETITS (CERTITICATION ATTACRID) O 2. PROGRAM EVALUATION O 3. CDiERAL PURPOSE STATISTICS DATE OT EXPECTC CR ACTUAL TEDERAL RE0f STDt O4 RICULATORY OR COMPLIANCE PUBLICATION AT THIS STACE OF RULEMAKINC - U 5. PROGRAM PLANNING OR MANACEMEh7

- 3 , 19 O 6. REsEARCH O 7. AUDIT

15. TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED (CnECK ONE Ch Y)

O 1. NEV COLLECTION- 23. FREQUEh ' 0F RECOROKEEPING OR REPORTING (CRECK ALL O 2. KrVIsION OF A CURRENTLY APPROVED COLLECTION THAT A} LT) . -

O 3. EXTENSION CT TEE EDIRATION DATE OT A CUu m u APPROVED COLLECTION WITHOUT ANY /D 1. REC 0cKEEPING CMANCE IN THE $UBSTANCE OR IN THE MITHOD RIPORTING OT COLLECTION D 2. ON OCCASION O E. SEMI-AhvdALLY O 4. REINSTATE'.ENT OT A PREVICUSLT APPROVID -

O 3. VEEKLY O 7, AhyJALLY COLLECTION TOR VHICH APPROVAL MAS EXPI E D d L. MONTHLY O B. BIEh'h*JALLY O 5. EXISTING COLLECTION IN UsE VIWOUT AN OMB , O 5. QUARTERLY U 9. OTHER -DESCRIBE .

16. AGENCY RE ORT 0

, e W heal @'and safety L EER(5)

~

N/A .

17. ANNUAL REPORTING OR 015CLO5URE EURDEN 24. RESPONDENTS OBLIGATION TO CCMPLY (CHECK THE

** * "*"^ * * " I ^# * )

1. NUM3ER OF RESPocEhis 202 O 1. v0LUhiARY

2. NUx ER Cr usPONsts PER RE$r0cm Varies O 2. RE0u1 RED TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN A BtNErIT U 3 ' ***"^' "'

-3 3. TOTAL ANNUAL RESPONSES (1 x 2) 2*m

4. HOUM PER RESPONSE -

AE E REWNMNTS W.ARIU ENIM WW OR INSTITUTIONS OR 15 THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE

5. TOTAL H0vu (3 x 4) . 2,594,178 COLLECTICN RELATED TO FEDERAL EDUCATION PR00 RAM 57 18 . A';NUAL RECOR0 KEEPING BURDEh --

YEs O NO D ,

202

1. NL'M3ER OF RECORDEEEPER$

2. AxcAL HOUKs PER UCCuxIEPEx Varies 26. 00E5 THE A;ENCY USE SAMPL1h; 70 SELECT RESPONDENTS

3. TOTAL RECOCKEEPING HOUR $ (1 x 2)

[ 703,674 OR 00E5 THE AGENCY RECOPIND OR PRESCRIBE THE USE OF SAMPLING OR STATISTICAL ANALY111 BT RESPONDENT 5T

4. RECO E u CPINC RITENTION PERIOD Life vtARs its O No $

19 . TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN ,

1. RE0;ESTED (17-5 + 18-3) 3,877,852 27. REcutATORT AUTHORITY FOR THE lhr0RMATICN COLLECTION

2. IN CURU NT OMB INVENTCRY D,Ud1,1/0 10 CTR 50

er 2

3. Dirrt uNCE (1 - g g ,.143,318 IDLANATION CT DITTIADiCE T3 . or

, 4. rRo: RAM CxANCE tg2,143,31_8

, OTHER ($PECITT)

5. msm i P;fWiX CF3TIFICAT10h in SusMITTING THIS RE0uEST FOR oms APrROVAL THE ActNCr HE.AD. THE SENIOR OFFICIAL OR AN -.

AU1 HOR 12[0 REPRESENTATIVE. CERTIFIES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRIVACY ACT AND OMB DIRECTIVE 5 HAVE BEEN COMPLIED VITH lhCLUDINO PAPEF.'ORK REGULATIONS, STAtl5TICAL STANDARD 5 OR DIRECTIVES, AND AhY OTH[R lhr0RMAT10N POLICT DIRECTIVE!

PROMULGATED UNDER THE PAPERaORK RIOUCTION ACT OF 1980.

53CHATU U Of TROGRAM OTTICIAL DATE SICKATURE OF ACLNCT WIAD CR ThI SENIOR . DAIE

, CTTICIA A AN AltrHORIIED MrsESciTATIVE

^

Pat 'ic . iior ' # 1 /"'

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

4 i

4 Supm RY OF SUPPORTING STATEMENTS -

10 CFR 50 , ,

Annual Number of Annual Annual Annual Total Total Burden Hours Respondents Cost to Recordkeeping Reporting Annual Annual Cost Federal Part Subject Per Respondent Annually Burden Hours' Burden Hours Burden Hours To Industry Government 1 Applications 0 0 0 0 0 1

50.30, 50.30a, 0 0 (new appilcations not expected for the next 3 years) 50.33, 50.34, ,i 50.54(bb), i and 50.55(d) i 50.55b, 200 23 460 4,140 4,600 $276,000 $138,000 '

Const. Per-1 mit Ext.

Appendix K; O O O O O O O 50.33a and 4 Appendix L; i Appendicles M. N, 0 and Q; 50.34(f). TMI 50.36 and 50.36a, (delineated in Part 2 of the Supporting Statements)

Tech Specs 50.59(c), 168 95 1,600 14.400 16,000 5 50.90, $960,000 $1,020,000 50.91(a) and (b),

License Amend.

j Apol.

8Besed on 10E of total burden, except in the areas of Technical Specifications (Part 2); QA (Part 3); 50.59(b) reports (Part 12); and EQ (Part 20).

See supportive disciession in the cognizant statements and in the letter to 008.

-i-

?

5 i

)

e i

SUMIARY OF SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 10 CFR 50 . .

Annual Annual Neuber of Annual Annual

Total Total Cost to Burden Hours Respondents Recordkeeping Reporting Annual Annual cost Federal Part Subject Per Respondent Annually Burden Hours Burden Hours Burden Hours To industry Government Appendices A&B, 50.55a, 50.55(f)-QA (Delineated in Part 3 of the Supporting Statements)

Records 50.54(ce),

50.54(dd) and

-! 50.74 (Burden will be leposed when the rules become final)

{ (proposed)

2 I 50.80(b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.82, license 0 0 0 0 0 0 $115,200 1

terai-nation (for in-house app 11-cations) 2 50.36, 2047 168 192,000 151,970 343,970 $20,638,200 $957,600 Tech Specs 3 Appendices, 12.458 131 669.104 % 2,856 1,631,960 $9s,917,600 $9,791,760 A&B, 50.55a 50.55(f)-QA

-1i-a v

l

_m -- - -

___r _ _ _ _

StM4ARY OF SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 10 CFR 50 Annual Annual %mber of Annual Annual Total Total Cost to 8urden Hours Respondents Recordkeeping Reporting Annual Annual cost Federal P-'rt Subject Per Respondent Annually surden Hours Burden Hours 8urden Hours To Industry Government 4 50.71, 8ul- 4,800 40 39,200 352,800 392,000 $23,520,000 $960,000 letins and Generic Letters 5 50.48, 144 95 1,368 12,312 13,680 $820,800 $28,500 Appendix R.

Fire Pro-tection 6 50.54(p), 538 93 5,000 45,000 50,000 $3,000,000 $672,000 security 7 50.54(q, r, 4,442 168 74,625 671,625 746,250 $44,775,000 $326,400 and t)

Appendix E.

Emerg.

Planning 8 50.71(e) 1,000 93 9,300 83,700 93,000 $5,580,000 $27,900 Updated FSAR 9 50.54(f) 408 202 8,250 74,250 82,500 $4,950,000 $580,800 Dath or Affirm

-111-

SUIOMAY OF SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 13 CFR 50 ,

Annual Annual Number of' . Annual Annual ' Total Total Cost to Burden Hours Respondents Recordkeeping Reporting Annual Annual cost Federal Part Subject Per Respondent Annually Eurden Hours Burden Hours Burden Hours To Industry Government 10 50.72 10 $3 93 837 930 $55,800 $6,245,600 Notification of Events 11 50.55(e) 500 34 1,700 15,300 17,000 $1,020,000 $294,000 Design and Const. D9ff-ciencies 12 50.59(b) 2,000 168 268,800 67,200 336,000 $20,160,000 $806,400 Reports 13 Appendfcles 233 127 2,%2 26,658 29,620 1,777,200 $86,400 G and H; 50.60, Fracture Toughness 14 Appendix 248 93 2,306 20,752 $1,383,480 $3,780 23.058 J. Contain.

Leakage 15 50.35(b) 0 0 0 0 0 '

0 0 Periodic (See supportive discussion in the Statement regarding the negligible estimates)

Reports

-iv-

Su MARY OF SUPPORTING STATENENTS 10 CFR 50 i Annual Annual Number of Annual Annual , Total Total Burden Hours Cost to Respondents Recordkeeping Reporting Annual Annual cost Federal Part Subject Per Respondent Annually Burden Hours Burden Hours Burden Hours To industry Government 16 50.71(b) 1 127 13 114 127 $7,620 $7,620 and Appendix C, Financial y 17 50.54(w)(4) 4 50 20 180 200 $12,000 Property $720 Damage Insur-ante IB 50.34(g) 0 n 0 0_ 0 0 Implemen- 0 (see discussion in the statement with respect to negligible estraates) tien of SRP 19 50.44(c) 1,500 6 900 8,100 9,000 $540,000 $345,600 Hydrogen Control -

20 50.49, 622 127 5,080 73,940 79,020 $4,741,200 $152,880 Environmental Qualification (Includes one-time cost to industry and Federal Gov.

as discussed in Part 20) 21 50.62 52 127 660 ' 5,944 6,604 $396,240 $182,880 ATWS-

, (one-time cost to Industry and the Federal Government) v-a

_ _ . . . _ ._. m SUMARY OF SUPPORTING ST,ATEMENTS ,

10 CFR 50 Annual Annual Number of Annual Annual Total Total Cost to Burden Hours Respondents Recordteeping Reporting Annual Annual cost Federal Prrt subject Per Respondent Annually Burden Hours Burden Hours Burden Hours To Industry Government

, . 22 50.61 35 66 233 2100 2,333 $139,980 $155,000 Pressurized 4 Thermal Shock 23 50.64 (pro- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 posed) Highly

. Enriched (Burden will be imposed when the rule becomes final)

Uranium 4

Totals: 31,410 2,126 1,283,674 2,594,178 3,877,852 $232,671,120 $22,985,440 4

e i

.vt.

i 1

Part 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR ~

Application for Construction Permit or Operating License 10 CFR 50.30, 50.30a, 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34, 50.34a, 50.34c, 50.34d, 50.36, 50.36a, 50.54(bb), Proposed 50.54 (cc) and proposed 50.54(dd), 50.55(b), 50.55(d), 50.59(c),

Proposed 50.74, 50.80, 50.82, 50.90, 50.91(a) and (b),

and Appendices A, B, K, L, M, N, 0 and Q to CFR 50 '

JUSTIFICATION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is authorized by Congress to have responsibility and authority for the licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants, research and test facilities, fuel reprocessing plants and other utilization Act of 1954.andTo production facilities licensed pursuant to the Atomic Energy meet its responsibilities, the NRC conducts a detailed review of all applications for licenses to construct and operate such f acilities.

The purpose of the detailed review is to assure that the proposed facilities can be built and operated safely at the proposed locations, and that all structures, systems and components important to safety will be designed to -

withstand the effects of postulated accident conditions, without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Applicants are required by the Atomic Energy Act to provide such technical information and data that the NRC may determine necessary to assure the public health and safety.

Before a company can build a nuclear power plant at a particular site, it must obtain a construction permit from the NRC. Subsequently, the company must obtain an operating license from the NRC before it can operate the plant. The decision by NRC as to whether to approve a company's application for a construc-tion permit or an operating license is based largely on the staff's detailed review of the information provideo oy the company as part of its application.

Information provided by the applicant as part of the application is crucial to the lic?nsing process as it provides NRC with the information it needs to make a decision with regard to the proposed plant's impact on the public's health and safety. Information required by the NRC to be included in each applica-tion for a construction permit or an operating license is addressed in the specific 10 CFR Part 50 sections for which this Supporting Statement is written.

" Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,"

Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, indicates the information to be provided in the Safety Analysis Reports and represents a format for SARs that is acceptable to the NRC staff. Conformance with the Standard Format, however, is not required.

Safety Analysis Reports with different formats will be acceptable to the staff if they provide an adequate basis for the findings requisite to the issuance of a license or permit. However, because it may be more difficult to locate needed information, the staff review time for such reports may be longer, and there is a greater likelihood that the staff may regard the report as incomplete.

Upon receipt of an application, the NRC staff will perform a preliminary review to determine if the SAR provides a reasonably complete presentation of the in-formation that is needed to form a basis for the findings required before issu-ance of a permit or license ir. accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.101. The Stan-dard Format will be used by the staff as a guideline to identify the type of information needed unless there is good reason for not doing so. If the SAR does not provide a reasonably complete presentation of the necessary informa-tion, further review of the application will not be initiated until a reasonably complete presentation is provided. The information provided in the SAR should be up to date with respect to the state of technology for nuclear power plants and should take into account recent changes in the NRC regulations and guides and in industry codes and standards, results of recent developments in nuclear reactor safety, and experience in the construction and operation of nuclear p6wer plants. The Standard Format should be used for both Preliminary Safety Analysi,s Reports and Final Safety Analysis Reports; however, any specific item that applies only to the FSAR will be indicated in the text by adding (FSAR) at the end of the guidance for that item. An entire section that is applicable only to the FSAR will be indicated by including (FSAR) following the heading.

Applications must contain information in three major categories to permit a complete evaluation by the NRC. These categories are general information, safety information and environmental information which is submitted in two phases through a Preliminary Safety Analysis report (PSAR) and a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

The section of the regulation that addresses each category of information for construction permit and operating license applications and NRC's detailed need within each category of information is outlined below. *

1. Construction Permit:

Section 50.30(a) provides for the filing of an application for a construc-tion permit.

a. Contents of Applications:

General information (Section 50.33, 50.33(f) and Appendix C). Here the applicant is identified and his financial qualifications are detailed.

Section 50.33(f) requires applicants to submit financial information that demonstrates reasonable assurances that required funds are available. Financial information is necessary because the NRC must make a decision as to whether the applicant's financial resources are adequate to permit construction of the plant in a safe manner and to permit implementation of safety related programs described elsewhere in the application. Appendix C outlines the informaton to be fur-nished by the applicant in the construction permit application to establish financial qualifications.

i Information required for antitrust review must also be included in the construction permit application.

is addressed in the Supporting Statement Theforneed for such Section information 50.33a.

b. Safety information (Sections Appendix B, Appendix E). 50.34, 50.34a, 50.34a(a), 50.34a(b),

Safety information is provided by the applicantReport Analysis at the(PSAR).

construction permit stage in the Preliminary Safety Section 50.34(a) outlines the minimum information that is necessary in the PSAR to permit the NRC to perform a safety evaluation.

Included in the PSAR are the design criteria and preliminary design information for the proposed reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site. The PSAR also dis-cusses situations and the safety features which will be provided to prevent accidents or, if they should occur, to mitigate their effects on both the public and the facility's employees.

The principal features of the staff's safety review of the infor-mation follows:provided in the PSAR by the applicant can be summarized as

, (1)

A review is made of the population density and use characteris-tics of the site environs, and the physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology and hydrol-ogy.

This review is necessary to determine whether these characteristics have been evaluated adequately and have been given appropriate consideration in the plant design and whether site characteristics are in accordance with NRC siting criteria.

(2)

A review is performed of the facility design, and of programs for fabrication, construction and testing of plant structures systems, and components important to safety for the purpose of determining whether they are in accord with the NRC regulations and other NRC requirements.

(3) A review is performed of the applicant's preliminary calcula-tions of the response of the facility to a broad spectrum of hypothetical accidents for the purpose of determining whether site acceptability guidelines are satisfied.

(4) For the purpose of determining whether the applicant is techni-cally qualified to operate the plant and whether he has estab-lished effective organizations and plans for continuing safe E plans for: of the facility, a review is made of the applicant's operation (1) plant operations including organizational structure, -

(ii) technical qualifications of operating and technical '

support personnel, (iii) planning for emergency actions to be taken in the event of an accident that might affect the general public g

^^-

(elements of preliminary planning that are required to be specified in the PSAR are set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(a) and Appendix E),

(iv) quality assurance (A>pendix B) requires that the appli-cant provide in the ?SAR, a description of the quality assurance program to be applied to the design, fabrica-tion construction, and testing of safety-related struc-tures, systems, and components.

(5)

A review is made of the description of the preliminary design in systems to be provided by the applicant for control of radiological effluents from the plant. This review is neces-sary to evaluate the general adequacy of the systems proposed to control the release of radioactive wastes from the facility within the limits specified by the NRC regulations. Minimum information required by the NRC for this review is specified in Sections 50.34a(a) and 50.34a(b).

c.

Environmental information. An Environmental Report, which provides

' a basis for the staff's evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposed plant, is specified as a requirement of the application for a construction permit in Section 50.30(f), but is justified as part of 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Proce-dures for Environmental Protection."

d.

If the proposed construction or modification of a facility is not completed by the latest completion date specified in the construc-tion permit, the permit shall expire and all rights thereunder shall be forfeited.

However, if good cause can be shown by the applicant the Commission of time. may extend the completion date for a reasonable period The Commission will recognize, among other things, develop-mental problems attributable to the experimental nature of the facility or fire, flood, explosion, strike, sabotage, domestic violence, enemy action, an act of the elements, and other acts beyond the control of the permit holder, as a basis for extending the completion date. This requirement is specified in 10 CFR 50.55(b).

There are approximately 23 licensees who will be required to meet the regulations specified in 50.55(b) within the next 3 years.

and filing the information that NRC needs in order to complete itsPreparing review of requests for extension of construction permits will involve approximately 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months per licensee annually. This represents an b annualhours 4,600 industry X $60 cost of $276,000 (200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months X 23 = 4,600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months ;

= $276,000).

p Based on experience, NRC estimates that 100 staff hours will be in-volved for reviewing each of the 23 requests for construction permit extensions. This totals up to 2,300 annual person hours. Thus, annual Federal cost is expected to be $138,000 (2,300 hours0.00347 days 0.0833 hours 4.960317e-4 weeks 1.1415e-4 months X $60).

2. Operating License:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(d), at or about the time of completion of the l construction or modification of the facility, the applicant must file any

{

l

i I

additional information needed to bring the original application or li- !

cense up to date, and must file an application for an operating license or !

an amendment to an application for a license to construct and operate the '

facility for the issuance of an operating license, as appropriate, as specified in 50.30(d).

!. Section 50.30(d) provides for the filing of an application for an operating license. The information provided in this application is essentially an update of the information categories (i.e. , general, safety, and environ-mental) previously submitted in the application for a construction permit.

a. General information (Section 50.33). Except for electric utilities, i

Section 50.33(f) also requires applicants for operating licenses to submit financial information that demonstrates reasonable assurances that required funds are available. The applicant's financial quali-i fications must be detailed as they were for the construction permit ,

application, but now the details must demonstrate that the applicant possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary 3

to cover estimated operation costs for the period of the license, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down

~

and maintaining it in a safe condition. The applicant shall submit

. estimates for total annual operating costs.for each of the first five years of operation of the facility and estimates of the costs to per-manently shut down the facility and maintain it in safe condition.

The applicant shall also indicate the source (s) of funds to cover these costs. An application to renew or extend the term of an operating license must include the same financial information as is required in an application for an initial license.

l b. Safety information (Sections 50.34(b), 50.34(c), 50.34(d), 50.34a(c),

Appendix B, and Appendix E). Safety information is provided by the applicant at the operating license stage in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Section 50.34(b) outlines the minimum information that should be provided in the FSAR to permit the NRC to perform a l

safety evaluation. This is essentially an update of information provided in the PSAR and allows the same editorial format. Among other things, the applicant must address the following items in the FSAR:

Pertinent details on the final design of the facility, including final containment design of the nuclear core and waste handling system; the applicant's latest plans for operation of the facility, as well as substantive procedures for coping with emergencies (Appendix E provides elements of emergency planning to be considered in the FSAR); the quality assurance program (Appendix B requires that information pertaining to managerial and administrative con-l

' trols necessary to assure safe operation of the plant be provided in the FSAR).

The final equipment design and procedures to be used by the appli-cant to control radiological effluents from the plant to permit the j staff to determine whether such systems can control the release of radioactve wastes from the facility within the limits specified by MRC regulations. Information required by the NRC in the FSAR in

this area of review is specified in Section 50.34a(c).

, - - - , ,- - , , . . ,, , ,.,_,,n,. - . . . _ - - , - . , . - , ,._,.,n,.m.. - , - ,- - . .. _ , , - - , ,.a -n ,_ -,..

. .=, . - , _-_ - __ - . . _. . _ -

U e 0 c.

Physical Security Plan (Section 50.34(c))

This plan describes the physical program that will be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 50.34(c) to assure that i

the plant will be sufficiently protected against acts of sabotage

, that could cause releases of radioactive materials in amounts suffi-cient to represent a hazard to the public health and safety. Also see Supporting Statement for 50.54(p).

Safeguards Contingency Plan (Section 50.34(d))

The Safeguards Contingency Plan, as provided for in 10 CFR 50 will provide a structured, orderly, and timely response to safeguards

! contingencies planning and will be an important segment of NRC's contingency programs. Licensee safeguards contingency plans will result in organizing licensees' safeguard resources in such a way that, in the unlikely event of a safeguards contingency, the re-sponding participants will be identified their several responsi-bilities specified, and their responses c,oordinated.

d. Environmental information.

Justified in the Supporting Statement for 10 CFR Part 51.

The staff reviews, in detail, applications for construction permits and operating licenses to determine if the public health and safety will be fully protected.

These reviews are conducted in some 50 different techni-cal disciplines organized within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

]

i If any portion of an application is considered to be inadequate, the staff j requests the applicant to make appropriate modifications or to provide needed additional information. In many cases the staff review results in modifications to the facility's design or oper,ating procedures. The result i of the staff review is provided in a Safety Evaluation Report. This report represents a summary of the review and evaluation of the application by I the public the staff relative to the health and anticipated effect of the proposed facility on safety.

i both construction permit and operating license applications. Safety Evaluatio The public l may obtain copies of Safety Evaluation Reports from the Public Document i.

Room.

i No applications for construction permits or operating licenses are antici-pated during the next three years. -

t Section 50.54(bb) requires that for operating nuclear power reactors, the licensee shall no later than 5 years before expiration of the reactor operating license, submit written notification to the Commission for its review and preliminary approval of the program by which the licensee in-tends to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor-upon expiration of the reactor operating license until [

title to the irradiated fuel and possession of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy for its ultimate disposal in a repository. Final *'

Commission review will be undertaken as part of any proceeding for con- I tinued licensing under Part 50 or Part 72.

The licensee must demonstrate to NRC that the elected actions will be consistent with NRC requirements I

, o for licensed possession of irradiated nuclear fuel and that the actions will be implemented on a timely basis. Where implementation of such actions require NRC authorizations, the licensee shall verify in the notification ,

that submittals for such actions have been or will be made to NRC and shall '

identify them. A copy of the notification shall be retained by the licensee as a record until expiration of the reactor operating license. The licensee shall notify the NRC of any significant changes in the proposed waste manage-ment program as described in the initial notification.

Negligib)e burden is anticipated for this regulation because no reactor licensee is expected to be required to meet this provision during the duration of this three year clearance.

3. Appendix K, Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Evaluation ModelsSection II of Appendix K delineates the documentation requirements for the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) evaluation models of Appendix K.

Section II-1.a. requires that a description of each evaluation model be .

furnished and that the description be sufficiently complete to permit technical review of the analytical approach including the equations used, their approximations in difference form, the assumptions made, and the

. values of all parameters or the procedure for their selection. Section II-1.b. requires that the documentation be sufficiently detailed and specific such that changes to the model which result in a calculated fuel clad temperature different by more than 20*F from the temperature calcul-ated for a postulated Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) using the last previously accepted model shall be specified in amendments of the model description. Section II-1.c. requires a complete listing of each com-puter program in the same form as used in the evaluation model.

Section II-2. requires that, for each computer program, convergency shall be demonstrated by modeling or noding studies and calculational time steps to provide sufficient data for a thorough review.

Section II-3. requires that appropriate sensitivity studies be made for each evaluation model, to evaluate the effect on the calculated results of variations in noding, phenomena assumed in the calculation to predom-inate, including pump operation or locking, and values of parameters over their applicable ranges.

Section II-4. requires that, to the extent practicable, predictions of the evaluation models, or portions thereof, be compared with applicable experimental information.

, The reporting requirements delineated in Section II of Appendix K are needed to provide the NRC staff with sufficient information to judge the adequacy of the ECCS analysis and its compliance with the regulations.

The information provided under Section II-1.a. allows the NRC staff to assess the adequacy and validity of the overall technical approach used i in a respondent ECCS evaluation model. Without this information, it would not be possible for the NRC staff to make such an assessment.

t

i i . .

The information provided under Section II-b. allows flexibility for small changes in an evaluation model while at the same time providing stability to an ECCS model. A change in an evaluation model that results in a calculated difference in the peak clad temperature of more than 20 F (approximately a 1% change in peak reactor power density) is considered by the NRC as being significant and, as such, should be documented in approved amendments to the model.

The information provided under Section II.l.c. allows the NRC staff to audit an evaluation model. This documentation is usually provided as a magnetic computer tape and is controlled by NRC to protect proprietary information.

The information provided under Section II-2, II-3, and II-4, allows the NRC staff to assess the mathematical stability of an evaluation model as well as its sensitivity to various physical phenomena and parameters ex-pected to occur during a LOCA. Comparison of model predictions with appli-cable experimental data permits the NRC staff to assess the technical validity results. of the calculational techniques and the accuracy of the predicted Without the information required in Section II of Appendix K, the NRC staff would be unable to determine the adequacy of the calculational methods used to evaluate ECCS performance.

Burden anticipated for this provision is negligible because the NRC expects no new applications.

However, the staff is presently preparing a proposed revision to the Appendix K rule which may prompt licensees to voluntarily submit Technical Specification change requests.

4.

50.33a and Appendix L, Information Requested by the Attorney General for Antitrust Review Under the Atomic Energy Act as well as other laws to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies, the NRC is required to report promptly to the Attorney General any inforetion it may have with retpect to atomic energy which appears to violate or to tend toward violation of antitrust laws or to restrict competition in private enter-prise.

Further, upon request of the Attorney General, the NRC must furnish or cause to be furnished such information as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate for his advice on antitrust aspects of license applications for a utilization or production facility under section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. The Attorney General's request is the basis for the NRC's antitrust reporting requirements.

During the effectiveness of this clearance, the NRC does not anticipate having to report antitrust information to the Attorney General. Thus, burden associated with this provision will be negligible.

5. 50.34(f) TMI Requirements Requires that applications for operating licenses contain the Three Mile Island related requirements relative to the way the requirements will be implemented or satisfied prior to issuance of an operating license.

These requirements include operational safety features, siting and I

-g-design, and emergency preparedness and are intended to provide substan-tial, additional protection in the operation of nuclear facilities based on experience from the accident at Three Mile Island and the various studies and investigations of the accident. Estimated burden for this requirement is zero because the NRC does not anticipate the submittal of applications for operating licenses during the duration of this clearance.

6. 50.36a Technical Specifications Requires each applicant for a license to operate a production or utiliza-tion facility to include in the application proposed technical specifica-tions. (Reference Part 2, " Technical Specifications" of the Supporting Statement for the burden associated with this requirement.) This section further requires that a summary statement of the bases or reasons for such specifications other than those covering administrative controls, be included in the application, but shall not become part of the technical specifications.

7.-

50.59(c), 50.90, 50.91(a) and (b), Application for Amendment of License Section 50.59(c) requires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility who desires a change in technical specifications, or who desires a change in the facility or procedures described in the safety analysis report, or who desires to conduct tests or experiments which involve an unreviewed safety question to submit an application for amendment of the license. Section 50.90 requires the application for amendment of license or construction permit to be filed with the Commission, fully describing the changes and following as far as applicable the form prescribed for original applications.

The requirement for the amendment of the license application is needed to enable the staff to evaluate any changes made at the facility or any new information concerning the facility that may potentially affect the safety public.

of the facility and consequently the health and safety of the See the self-contained Supporting Statement prepared for 50.91(a) and (b), notification and State Consultation, for the burden associated with this regulation (page 15).

s

8. 50.74 (Proposed), Licensee Notification to NRC Proposed 10 CFR 50.74 would require licensees of nuclear power facilities to notify the NRC within 30 days of a change in status of a licensed reactor operator. It is estimated that there will be up to 400 respon-dents a year, that will involve 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months each of staff effort. Thus, the total Federal cost is expected to be $24,000 ($60 X 400). Burden will be imposed on the public when the rule becomes final. :

9. 50.80(b), Application for Transfer of Licenses :

j NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 establish requirements for the licens- l ing of production and utilization facilities. The regulations were t

(

issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Section 50.80, "Tranrfer of

Licenses," specifies in paragraph 50.80(b) that an application for a transfer of a license shall include as much of the information described in sections 50.33 and 50.34 with respect to the identity and technical and financial qualifications of the proposed transferee as would be required by those sections if the application were for an initial license.

Section 50.80(b) also specifies that the Commission may require additional information, such as data with respect to proposed safeguards against hazards from radioactive materials, and the transferee's qualifications to protect against such hazards.

The requirements described above are needed to assure the transferee's financial capability to run the facility safely and to assure the trans-feree's technical capabilty to properly and safely operate the facility in a way that protects the health and safety of the public.

No applications for transfer of licenses are expected during the effective-ness of this clearance. Thus, burden associated with this provision will be negligible.

10. 50.82, Application for termination of licenses Se'ctior. 50.82, Application for termination of licenses, specifies that any licensee may apply to the Commission for authority to surrender a license voluntarily and to dismantle the faci 7ity and dispose of its component parts. The Commission requires infornation, including information as to proposed procedures for the disposal of radioactive material, decontami-nation of the site, and other procedures, to provide reasonable assurance that the dismantling of the facility and disposal of the component parts will be performed such that common defense and security and public health and safety will not be compromised.

The information provided by the licensee will be used by the NRC staff to evaluate the safety and health aspects of dismantling the facility. Upon satisfactory evaluation, the Commission may issue an order authorizing such dismantling and disposal, and the termination of the license upon completion of such procedures. No new applications for termination of licenses are expected during the effectiveness of this clearance. Thus, industry burden associated with this provision will be negligible.

The NRC is currently reviewing 2 applications filed under the provisions of Section 50.82. The staff estimates that a total of 960 person hours will be required for completing the review of each of these applications.

Thus, a total of 1,920 staff hours will be required. Estimated cost to the Federal government is, therefore, expected to be $115,200 (60 X 1,920 hours0.0106 days 0.256 hours 0.00152 weeks 3.5006e-4 months ).

10a. Decommissioning Rule (Proposed)

Licensing activities concerning decommissioning have been made on a case-by-case basis in direct response to licensee's requests to decommission and in current licensing hearing cases. This procedure results in a lack of uniformity of application, inefficiency on the part of the licensee and NRC in implementation, and finally a lack of timeliness and comprehensiveness that affects proper application of

i the ALARA principle in carrying out NRC licensing responsibilities.

In the case of a few non-fuel-cycle licensees, both a lack of avail-able funds to carry out decommissioning and improper temination procedures have occurred. This situation has potential for adverse effects on health and safety. The proposed rules would specify requirements for financial assurance, recordkeeping, and planning and termination procedures. Their implementation through the NRC licensing process would ensure that decommissioning would be handled by the licensee in a way that would result in minimal or even negli-gible impact on health, safety and the environment. This proposed rule encompasses Sections 50.33(k), 50.54(cc), 50.54(dd) and 50.82. Burden will be imposed on industry when the rule is final.

11. Appendix M, Standardization of Design; Manufacture of Nuclear Power Reactors An application for a manufacturing license pursuant to Appendix M shall meet all the requirements of SS 50.34(a)(1)-(9) and 50.34a (a) and (b),

except that the preliminary safety analysis report shall be designated as a " design report" and any required information or analyses relating to site matters shall be predicated on postulated site parameters which shall

. be specified in the application. Such application also includes informa-tion pertaining to design features of the proposed reactor (s) that affect plans for coping with emergencies in the operation of the reactor (s).

Applications for this type of license are not anticipated during the dura-tion of this clearance. Therefore, estimated burden is zero.

12. Appendix N, Licenses to Construct and Operate Reactors of Duplicate Design at Multiple Sites This appendix sets out the particular requirements and provisions appli-cable to situations in which applications are filed by one or more appli-cants for licenses to construct and operate nuclear power reactors of essentially the same design to be located at different sites.

1. Except as otherwise specified in this appendix or as the context otherwise indicates, the provisions of this part applicable to construction permits and operating licenses, including the requirement in S 50.58 for review of the application by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the holding of public hearings, apply to construction permits and operating licenses subject to Appendix N.

2. Applications for construction permits submitted pursuant to Appendix N shall include the information required by SS 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34(a) and 50.34a (a).

No applications for this type of license are anticipated during the du-ration of this clearance. Therefore, estimated, burden is zero.

13. Appendix 0, Staff Review of Standard Design The submittal for review of the standard design shall be made in the same manner and in the same number of copies as provided in S 50.30(a), (c)(1) and (3) for license applications.

This submittal shall include the information described in S 50.33(a)-(d) and the applicable technical information required by SS 50.34(a) and (b),

as appropriate, and 50.34a [other than that required by 50.34(a)(6),

(a)(10), (b)(1), (b)(6), (1), (ii), (iv), (v), (b)(7), and (b)(8)]. The submittal shall also include a description, analysis and evaluation of the interfaces between the submitted design and the balance of the nuclear power plant. With respect to the requirements of SS 50.34(a)(1), the submittal for review of a standard design shall include the site parameters postulated for the design, and an analysis and evaluation of the design in terms of such postulated site parameters.

Applications for this type of review are not anticipated during the dura-tion of this clearance. Therefore, estimated burden is zero.

I4. Appendix Q, Pre-Application Early Review of Site Suitability Issues The submittal for early review of site suitability issue (s) shall be made in the same manner and in the same number of copies as provided in S 50.30(a), (c)(1) and (c)(3) for license applications. The submittal must include sufficient information concerning a range of postulated facility design and operation parameters to enable the staff to perform the requested review of site suitability issues. The submittal contains suggested conclusions on the issues of site suitability submitted for review and shall be accompanied by a statement of the bases or the reasons for those conclusions.

Estimated burden for this type of review is zero because no new requests are not anticipated.

Consultations Outside the Agency Appendix L of 10 CFR Part 50 was developed in consultation with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and has been amended twice at the request of the Department of Justice to refine the information needed for antitrust review.

Estimate Respondent Burden See the Summary Table for application for Construction Permit or Operating License which follows.

Estimated Cost to the Government The annual Summary estimated Table cost to the Government is delineated at the end of the which follows.

l l

_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ -. . _ . __ . . . ~ _ . - _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . _

SlM4ARY TABLE Application For Construction Permit Or Operating License (Part 1)

Annual Annual Number of Annual Annual- Total Cost to Burden Hours Respondents Recordkeeping Reporting Annual Annual Cost Subject Per Respondent Annually Federal Burden Hours Burden Hours Burden Hours To Industry Government 50.30, 50.30a 0 0 0 0 0 2

50.33 50.34, 0 0 (new applications not expected for the next 3 years)*

50.54(bb) and 50.55(d)-

4 50.55(b),const. 200 23 460 4,140 4,600 parait ext.

$276,000 $138,000 -

Appendix K* 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.33a and 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix L* 0 0 ,

l Appendices M, N, 0

and Q*

j 1 50.34(f), 0 0 0 0 0 i 'TMI* 0 0 1 50.36a (see Part 2 of the Supporting Statements for Part 50)

Tech Specs

{

50.59(c) 168 95 1,600 14,400 16,000 $960,000 50.90 and 50.91 $1,020,000 (See page 15 for supportive discussion)

(a) and (b),

license amend.

appl.

I t

i

x. ____.

Table (Continued) . .

Annual Annual Number of Annual Annual

Total Burden Hours Cost to Responde.its Recordkeeping Reporting Annual Annual Cost Federal Subject Per Respondent Annually Burden Hours Burden Hours Burden Hours To Industry Government 50.74 (Burden will be imposed on the public (proposed) when the rule br.omes final) 50.80(b)* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.82, license 0 0 0 0 0 0 $115,200 tsrmination*

(for in-house '

applications) %

Proposed Decom- 0 0 0 0 0 i

0 0 cissioning Rule (50.33(k),50.54(cc), (Burden will be imposed on the public cnd 50.54(dd) when the rule becomes final)

Totals: 368 118 2,060 18,540 20,600 $1,236,000 $1,273,200 I

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

" Notice anc State Consultation," 10 CFR 50.91(a) and (b).

Justification Under SS 50.91(a)(1) and (b)(1) of Part 10 CFR 50 a licensee requesting an amend-ment must provide to the NRC and the State in which its facility is located its amendment application and its analysis about the issue of significant hazards.

To get a quick start on the public notification and State consultation procedures required by legislation, both NRC and the State need licensees' analyses and positions on significant hazards issues because licensees are in the best posi-tion to explain their amendment requests.

Description of Information Collection In addition to needing licensees' analyses of the license amendment requests, this section of the NRC's regulations also involves a reporting requirement con-cerning the issue of significant hazards consideration. The reporting require-ment does not overlap or duplicate any other NRC or Federal information collec-tion requirements. NRC needs licensees' analyses to quickly make and publish for public comment its " proposed determination" on significant hazards issues; -

and the States also need licensees' analyses in order to quickly consult with NRC.

Estimated Burden .

The rule applies to 93 operating nuclear power plants and to two (2) testing facilities. Licensees of these reactors request about 1000 license amendments per year. It is estimated that a licensee will spend approximately 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months per analysis under the examples and standards in Section 50.92, " Issuance of Amendment." For 1000 license amendment requests, the total burden on licensees would be 16,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months annually. Assuming an hourly rate of $60, an analysis request could cost a licensee about $960 (16 x 60). Thus, the total annual cost to industry for 1000 amendment requests would be about $960,000.

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government NRC uses a licensee's analysis as a starting point for its significant hazards review. Including time spent in preparation of Federal Register publication, NRC estimates that a total of 17,000 staff hours will be expended on 1000 requests per year. This is derived from our estimate that 20 percent of the

.0415 staff year per amendment request (17 hours1.967593e-4 days 0.00472 hours 2.810847e-5 weeks 6.4685e-6 months ) involves the significant hazards review and noticing in the Federal Register. Assuming an hourly rate of $60, for 1000 amendment requests the cost to the government is estimated at

$1,020,000.

o .

Part 2 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50.36, 50.36a, 50.36b, and Appendix I*

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Contained in Technical Specifications Contained in Licenses to Operate Nuclear Power Plants" and Each licensee under 10 CFR Part 50 is required to perform reporting and record- -

keeping requirements that NRC has approved as a part of the technical specifica-tions submitted as a part of original applications for licenses. Tha reporting /

recordkeeping requirements are set forth as " administrative controls' in Sec-tion 6 of the Appendix A technical specifications appended to each facility license. They are designed to assure operation of the facility in a safe manner.

The typical reporting and recordkeeping burdens with justifications are ex-plained below. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.16 (Revision 4) " Reporting of Operating Information--Appendix A Technical Specifications", provides the program being used by the NRC staff in order to standardize the reporting requirements section of Appendix' A technical specifications of all operating licenses.

For licensees holding operating licenses without Appendix B environmental -

technical specifications or environmental protection plans, it may be necessary to include those reports identified in Regulatory Guide 1.21, " Measuring, Evalu-ating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," and Regulatory Guide 4.1, " Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," in the technical specifications under the unique reporting requirements section of the technical specifications.

1. Radioactive Effluent Report Section 50.36a of 10 CFR Part 50, specifies that to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable,* each license authorizing operation of a nuclear power reactor must include technical specifications. The NRC staff has developed " Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for PWRs" (NUREG-0472) and " Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for BWR's" (NUREG-0473). The contents of these two documents (as applicable) and the reporting requirements specified therein are being made part of the Appendix A technical specifications for new operating licenses. These same requirements are also being

Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 consists of the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for plant operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive material in light water cooled reactor effluents.

added to existing operating licenses as license amendments. (Appendix A technical specifications are approved by the NRC, are incorporated in the d

facility operating license, and are conditions of the license.)

Routine radioactive effluent release reports covering the operntion of the unit during the previous 6 months of operation are to be submitted within 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year. This report includes a summary of the quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released to the environment and solid waste shipped from the site.

Special reports are required when certain conditions exist or parameters are exceeded, e.g., when the radiation dose for any calendar quarter is equal to or greater than one half the actual limit, or the annual dose -

exceeds twice the annual limit; when the liquid, gaseous or solid rad-waste treatment systems or the building ventilation systems are inoper-able for more than 31 days.

2. Startup Report Section 50.36, " Technical Specifications," of 10 CFR 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," requires that each applicant for a license authorizing operation of a nuclear power plant include in its application proposed technical specifications. These technical specifications as approved by the NRC, are incorporated into the facility license and are conditions of the license. One of the reports normally required by the technical specifications is a startup -

report. This report is submitted within (1) 90 days following completion of the startup test program, (2) 90 days following resumption or commence-

' ment of commercial power operation, or (3) 9 months following initial criticality, whichever is earliest. The report addresses each test identified in the FSAR and should include a description of the test and the test conditions the measured values of the operating condition or characteristics obtained during the test program, and a comparison of these values with design predictions and specifications.

The startup report provides the staff _with evidence that the plant systems are functioning as designed and can be expected to perform as planned, in the safe operation of the plant.

The report is necessary to identify design deficiencies, and to obtain data on plant operation to verify (or provide a basis to modify) techni-cal specification limits for operation. The data is also necessary for guidance in determining core reload requirements based on physics data obtained in testing reveal areas where additional performance verifica-tion testing is required or where further guidance is needed through additional regulatory guides or revision of existing guides.

There is no source for the required information other than the licensees.

3. Sealed Source Leakage Report Section 50.36, 10 CFR Part 50, requires licensees to adhere to technical specifications for the construction and operation of production and

utilization facilities. One specifically identified submission required of licensees by NRC under this authority is the Sealed Source Leakage Report, which includes technical specifications that establish require-ments for testing the integrity of sealed sources transferred and for recording and reporting the test results.

The reporting requirements on sealed sources licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 are included as a Technical Specification appended to the nuclear facility license. For some nuclear facility licenses, the reporting requirements for failed sealed sources require that a special report be submitted within 90 days following a test in which the results indicate removable contamination levels greater than 0.005 mci. Other nuclear facility licenses require reporting of such ta t results only as part of an annual report. Most reporting will be made annually, since any

license that requires more frequent reporting can be amended, at the request of the licensee, to call for annual reports.

The information on any sealed source which exceeds the limitation on removable contamination should be reported annually for the licensed nuclear facility. If such information was not received, the quality assurance record for sealed sources used in operating a nuclear facility would be incomplete and failures would not be reported. Thus, the manu-facturing process for maintaining the integrity of sealed sources under various operating conditions could be deficient, unknowingly.

The information obtained from nuclear facility licensees in Sealed Source Leakage Reports reflects a special type of use for sealed sources and -

provides further assurance that the manufacturing process can produce sealed sources with high integrity.

4. Monthly Operating Report Section 50.36, " Technical Specifications," of 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," requires that each applicant for a license authorizing operation of a commercial nuclear power plant include in its application proposed technical specifications.

These technical specifications, as approved by the NRC, are incorporated into the facility license and are conditions of the license. One of the reports normally required by technical specifications is a report of operating statistics and shutdown experience. This report is submitted to the Commission by the licensees on a monthly basis. -Information is submitted ir. the " Monthly Operating Report" regarding (1) Average Daily Unit Power Level, (2) Operating Data; (3) Unit Shutdowns and Power Reduc-tions; and (4) Spent Fuel Storage Capacity.

Using the data from licensee's monthly reports, plus information received from NRC regional offices, the NRC prepares a monthly report, entitled

" Operating Units Status Report." The report indicates, for each licensed unit, average daily power levels, operating status, unit shutdowns and power reductions, and summaries for all nuclear plant operations, including the capability to off-load spent fuel.

This monthly report is used by the NRC, the Department of Energy and other_ Federal and State agencies. This report is necessary for Federal .'

-- u -

_n and State agencies to keep abreast of current plant operating data, including plant availability, which is of particular use during periods of reduced power output from other energy sources. Copies of the report are sent to the utilities to share with them the operating experience of other operators of nuclear power plants. The report is also available to the public.

The information obtained Irom the utilities is not otherwise available to the Federal Government on a current basis. Without this information Federal and State agencies could not keep abreast of current plant operations.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

5. Non-Routine Environmental Reports Environmental reviews of nuclear facilities often leave sone questions only partially resolved. Data collection efforts authorized under 10 CFR Section 50.36 are intended to resolve these questions. Potentially significant environmental impacts (e.g., fish kills, excessive chemical releases, habitat disruption) need to be reported promptly so that appro-priate action can be taken. To accomplish this result, Non-routine Environmental Reports are generally required by the technical specifica-tions whenever an adverse effect may occur.

The non routine report provides information which specifies and quanti-fies the data concerning the unusual events and provides the basis for -

recommending appropriate action. It provides the data in a timely fashion so that changes in operating procedures or design modifications can be implemented as soon as possible.

The NRC staff performs a detailed analysis of each event which warrants such study. The licensee report and the NRC analysis are placed in the public document room and sometimes a press release is prepared. The staff analysis may recommend mitigative action.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

6. Annual Environmental Operating Report Section 50.36 of 10 CFR Part 50 requires inclusion of te~chnical specifi-cations, based on analyses in the Safety Evaluation Report, in each license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility.

Section 51.52 explicitly authorizes conditioning of a license to protect environmental values (e.g., commercial and sport fisheries, rare and endangered species, recreational land and water use). Nonradiological license conditions are generally incorporated in the license as Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications. The technical specifications dis-cussed in section 50.36 include requirements for an Annual Environmental Operating Report.

The purpose of nonradiological environmental monitoring is to confirm the environmental assessments presented in the Final Environmental Statement

, - - . , , , a-. .n , , , ,,__.4

(FES) which described the impact of the proposed facility. The nonradi-ological programs are also designed to detect unanticipated adverse impacts (i.e., adverse impacts which exceed the predictions of the FES or were not predicted) soon enough to take appropriate action.

The operating procedures of a plant are sometimes conditioned to protect environmental values because of predictions in the FES that a potential for significant adverse impact exists. Monitoring programs are usually incorporated to assess the actual magnitude of predicted adverse impacts.

If the impacts are different from those anticipated, the licensee or staff can take action to change the technical specifications or plant design or operating procedures to more adequately account for the actual effects of facility operation.

If the information in the annual reports were not available there would be no information to assess the effectiveness of license conditions or to process requests for changes in those conditions. Unanticipated environ-mental effects of operation would not be detected and appropriate action could not be taken if the information in the Annual Environmental Operating Report were not available.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

7. Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Section 50.36 of 10 CFR Part 50 provides that reactor operating licenses will include technical specifications which NRC finds appropriate. Each -

reactor license includes a technical specification requiring submission of annual radiological environmental operating reports.

The annual r.adiological environmental operating reports include summaries, interpretations, and an analysis of trends of the results of the radi-ological environmental surveillance activities for the report period, including a comparison with preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate), and previous environmental surveillance reports and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environ-ment. The reports also include tha 21ults of land use censuses required by the Technical Specifications. If narmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected by the monitoring, the report provides an analysis of the problem and a planned course of action to alleviate the problem.

The annual radiological environmental operating reports include summarized and tabulated results in the format of the table in the Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, November 1979,* of all radiological environmental samples taken during the report period. In the event that some results are not available for inclusion with the report, the report is submitted noting and explaining the reasons for the

This document pertains to the radioactive effluent reporting requirements discussed in paragraph 1.

missing results. The missing data are submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report.

The report also includes the following: a summary description of the radiological environmental monitoring program; a map of all sampling

. locations keyed to a table giving distances and directions from one reactor; and the results of licensee participation in the Interlaboratory Comparison Program, required by the Technical Specifications.

Reports range from around fifty pages to several hundred pages.

The reports provide a timely record of environmental radiation around the plant. The reports are reviewed by the NRC staff to determine whether radioactive material released routinely by nuclear power plants may have resulted in excessive environmental radiation. Without the reports, the NRC staff could not provide adequate assurance that the public is being

protected from such environmental radiation.

j 8. Annual Radiation Exposure Report Section 50.36, " Technical Specifications," of 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic

. Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," requires that each applicant for a license authorizing operation of a nuclear power plant include in its application proposed technical specifications. These technical specifications, as approved by the NRC, are incorporated into the facility license and are conditions of the license.

The report on occupational personnel radiation exposure is submitted annually. The tabulation of occupational exposure data may be submitted along with any report of facility changes, tests or experiments, required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(b), or as a separate submittal at the option of the licensee.

4 The information on occupational personnel radiation exposure submitted by the licensees is necessary to enable the NRC staff to analyze procedures and hardware radiation exposure problems associated with operation, outage, or maintenance. The information provides a basis for evaluation of new plant designs or for modifications to present plant designs with respect to assuring that plants are designed for as low as reasonably achievable occupational radiation exposure.

Using data submitted by the licensees, the NRC also prepares an annual report entitled " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" (NUREG-0713). Included in the report is a compilation of in plant occupational exposure data by work and job function. The infor-mation is required to establish trends among plants and within plants.

9. Recordkeeping Requirements NRC Regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Sections 50.36 and 50.36a establish requirements for recording results of reviews of events reported to the Commission and requirements for recordkeeping as part of administrative

controls. The regulations were issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

Section 50.36(c)(1)(i)(A) requires recording of the results of reviews of events in nuclear reactors in which a safety limit has been exceeded.

Section 50.36(c)(1)(i)(B) requires recording of the results of the reviews of events in fuel reprocessing plants in which a safety limit has been exceeded. Section 50.36(c)(1)(ii)(A) requires recording of the results of reviews of events in nuclear reactors in which an automatic safety system does not function as required. Section 50.36(c)(1)(ii)(B) requires recording of the results of reviews of events in fuel reproces-sing plants in which an automatic alarm or protective device does not function as required. Section 50.36(c)(2) requires recording the results c of reviews of events in nuclear reactors and fuel reprocessing plants in which a limiting condition for operation is not met. Each of the above records of review is required to include the cause of the condition and the basis for corrective action taken to preclude reaccurrence. Section 50.36(c)(5) requires administrative controls, including recordkeeping, ;n technical specifications of a production or utilization facility as necessary to assure aperation of the facility in a safe manner. Details of recordkeeping are delineated in Section 6.10 of Standard Technical Specification, NUREG-0123 for General Electric boiling water reactors, NUREG-0212 for Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, NUREG-0103 for Babcock and Wilcox pressurized water reactors and NUREG-0452 for Westinghouse pressurized water reactors.

The records required by Section 50.36(c)(5) involve such matters as:

a. Records and logs of facility operation covering time interval at each power level,

b. Records and logs of principal maintenance activities, inspections, repair and replacement of principal items of equipment related to nuclear safety.

c. All Reportable Events.

d. Records of surveillance activities, inspections and calibrations required by the Technical Specifications.

e. Records of changes made to Operating Procedures.

f. Records of Radioactive shipments.

g. Records of sealed source and fission detector leak tests and results.

h. Records of annual physical inventory of all sealed source material of record,

i. Records and drawing changes reflecting facility design modifications made to systems and equipment described in the Final Safety Analysis Report.

j. Records of new and irradiated fuel inventory, fuel transfers and assembly burnup histories.

k. Records of facility radiation and contamination surveys.

1. Records of radiation exposure for all individuals entering radiation control areas.

m. Records of gaseous and liquid radioactive material released to the environs.

n. Records of transient of operational cycles for various facility components.

n

o. Records of reactor tests and experiments. ,

p. Records of training and qualification for current members of the plant staff.

q. Records of in-service inspections performed pursuant to the Technical Specifications.

r. Records of Quality Assurance activities required by the QA Manual.

s. Records of reviews performed or changes made to procedures or equip-ment or reviews of tests and experiments pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.59. -

t. Records of meetings of safety review groups.

u. Records of the service lives of all snubbers required by the Technical Specifications,

v. Records of secondary water sampling and water quality.

w. Records of analyses required by the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.

These records are used by the licensees, the NRC and other Federal, State and local government agencies for the review of a variety of activities in the facility, many of which affect safety. The records are also historical in nature and provide data on which future activities can be based. NRC Inspection and Enforcement personnel can spot check the records required by 50.36 to determine, for example, if (1) plant modifi-cations were performed satisfactorily, (2) the plant was operated within the technical specifications, (3) personnel training has been kept current, (4) plant effluents have been kept within allowable values, etc.

Because of the multiple-use nature of many of the records, NRC has estimated only the incremental burden.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

r -.

p - ,r. ----

w -

-e w--

DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY PLAN There are 93 operating power reactors.

There are 75 operating /research/ test reactors licensed to operate.

ESTIMATE OF RESPONDENT REPORTING BURDENS

1. Radioactive Effluent Reports:

These include reports on (a) Exceeding Design Objective Doses, (b)

Inoperable Radwaste Equipment, (c) Dose Contribution from Effluents, (d)

Unplanned Radioactive Release, (e) Exceeding 10 CFR Part 20 Release Limits and (f) Exceeding C1 Content in Liquid or Gaseous Tanks or Cf Release Rate for Offgas System (BWR), which individually affect fewer than 10 licensees annually, which result in a negligible burden and, a Semi-Annual Effluent Report which requires each on 93 licensees of 140 hours0.00162 days 0.0389 hours 2.314815e-4 weeks 5.327e-5 months per report for a total burden of 26,040 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months annually.

2. Startup Report This reporting requirement affects less than 10 licensees annually with a average burden of 100 hrs or 1000 hrs.

3. Sealed Source Report Since the licensee will be required to report only those sealed source test results which exceed the removable contamination limit, burden will be negligible, less than 10 licensees are affected. (160 staff - hrs assuming 16 hrs / report).

4. Monthly Operating Report Ninety-three (93) licensees each submit 12 reports annually, each report imposing a burden for preparation of 50 staff-hours.

93 X 12 X 50 staff hours total 55,800 staff-hours.

5. Non-routine Environmental Report An average of about one report is received from each licensee annually; thus, the preparation burden (50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months per report) upon each respondent is negligible. Total annual burden assuming 45 sites (50 X 45) would be 2250 staff-hours.

6. Annual Environmental Operating Report and Annual Radiological Environ-mental Operating Report Licensees will submit reports for an estimated 45 sites in response to this requirement. Each report causes a preparation burden of 1400 man-hours.

Man-hours per report will be reduced as water quality requirements are deleted from existing licenses.

45 sitesstaff-hours.

63,000 X 1400 staff-hours - A total annual burden for all licensees of

- , . . ~ _ _

O

r 1

7. Annual Radiation Exposure Report The estimated burden upon each power reactor licensee for the preparation of one report is 40 staff-hours.

93 X 40 staff-hours totals 3,720 staff-hours.

The total for reporting burden for all licensees: 151,970 staff-hours ESTIMATE OF RESPONDENT RECOR0 KEEPING REQUIREMENTS These recordkeeping requirements are subject as follows:

93 operating reactors "

75 research test reactors The burden annually for an operating power reactor is estimated to be 7 approximately 2,000 staff-hours.

1

' Ninety-three (93) operating power plants X 2,000 staff-hours totals 186,000 staff-hours.

The burden annually for a research or test reactor is estimated to be approximately 80 staff-hours. 1 Seventy-five (75) research or test reactors X 80 staff-hours totals 6,000.

} Total for recordkeeping burden of all licensees: 192,000 s ta f f-hours.

1 TOTAL BURDEN Total -burden for all reporting /recordkeeping . requirements for technical specifications is 343,970 staff-hours. The total cost to industry at $60-per staff-hour- is $20,638,200/yr.

ESTIMATE OF COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

1. Radioactive Effluent Reports Total Burden Report Reports /yr Staff-hour / report 'taff-hour /yr 4

j 1. Exceeding Design 3 50 'O l Objective Doses

2. Inoperable Radwaste 5 12 60 l Equipment

3. Dose Contribution 2 50 100 from Effluents

4. Unplanned Radioactive 10 24~ 240 i Release i 5. Exceeding 10 CFR Part 5 20 100 -

4 20 Release Limits i

l

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

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

i d

~26-Total Burden Report Reports /yr Staff-hour / report Staff-hour /yr

6. Exceeding Ci Content in 3 40 120 Liquid or Gaseous Tanks or Ci Release Rate for Offgas System (BWR)

7. Semi-Annual Effluent 186 20 3,720 TOTAL 4,490

2. Startup Report There are 10 reports per year at 40 staff-hours per report. 10 X 40 = -

400 staff-hours per year.

3. Sealed Source There are less than 10 reports per year at 40 staff-hours per report.

10 X 40 totals 400 staff-hours.

4. Monthly Ocerating Report The staff hours expended on these reports are approximately 5,400.

5. Non-routine Environmental Report Approximately 160 hours0.00185 days 0.0444 hours 2.645503e-4 weeks 6.088e-5 months of staff effort is expended in reviewing reports and followup acticns with the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the licensees.

6. Annual Environmental Operating Report One to two staff / years (4,160 hours0.00185 days 0.0444 hours 2.645503e-4 weeks 6.088e-5 months ) of staff time are projected for

' reviewing the annual reports. This estimate includes effort reviewing the reports to provide technical support for specific license amendment actions for individual licensees.

7. Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report 20 person-hours / report X 45 reports /yr = a total of 900 staff-hours /yr.

8. Annual Radiation Exposure Report The cost to the Federal Government is approximately 50 staff-hours.

These estimates are based on professional staff experieace and incorporate professional staff time to review submitted reports.

TOTAL COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

Costs estimates are $60 per hour 15,960 staff-hours X $60 = $957,600/yr.

g---

O O 27

Part 3 4

4 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS Called for in 10 CFR 50.55a, 50.55(f), Appendix A. (Criterion 1), and in Appendix 8. -

3- JUSTIFICATION Licensee burden hours will be spent on QA records development and maintenance,

., which pertain to the followir.g list of activities-(i.e. disciplines):

1. Management: QA manual, procedures, and instructions j 2. ' Qualification and training of personnel ;

i 3. Design

! 4. ~ Procurement, items identification / control, acceptance status 1 5. Manufacture, installation / testing

6. Handling, storage and shipping

} 7. . Inspection, testing and qualifying, including inspection status 1

8. Calibration

) 9. Special processes

10. Operation i

11. Maintenance

! 12. Modification and repair l 13. Audits l 14. Non-conformance, corrective actions j

QA records associated with the above activities are used by the licensee, the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, insurance companies i

and the NRC in the review and confirmation of quality related activities. Most states and all nuclear insurers already require that the ASME B&PV Code-(Sec-tion III) be used in the design, construction, testing and inspection of nuclear power reactor,.which imposes many of the above record keeping requirements.

NRC.is preparing a proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a which would incorporate

' by reference the Winter 1982 Addenda, Summer 1983 Addenda', Winter 1983 Addenda, Summer 1984 Addenda and 1983 Edition of Section III, Division 1, and the-Winter 1987: Addenda, ~ Summer 1983 Addenda, and 1983 Edition of Section XI, Divi-sion 1 of.the ASME Code. The edition and addenda have been reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable and not inconsistent with regulatory criteria.

' No changes are proposed to previous supplementary requirements included in the

. regulation. '

l Appendix B requires records for " Safety related" items that are usually found -l on a plant specific Q-list. These record requirements were the basis for the burden hours reported in the last Part 50 to allow for the additional QA records required by Appendix A (but not prescribed by the NRC) in connection with items "important to-safety" but not " safety-related".

+

t

l 28 l

Regulatory Guide 1.28 (Rev. 3), " Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Design and Construction)" and Regulatory Guide 1.33 (Rev.3), " Quality Assurance Pro-gram Requirements (Operation)" describes an acceptable method for complying with QA records requirements,in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50. Except for a few regulatory positions in these. Regulatory Guides, they endorse the common

industry standard ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1983, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements

! for Nuclear Facilities". Maintenance of records as specified above is necessary j- so that evidence can be furnished to show that activities affecting quality i have been accomplished in accordance with NRC regulations. Records required i- to be maintained for a specific activity are specified in the license applica-

i. tion, license condition or permit, or NRC-approved documents. These records,

! some of which will be kept for the life of the facility, are available for in-spection by the NRC, and are reviewed and examined to ascertain whether the activities affecting quality have been accomplished in accordance with NRC f requirements. Also, in case of malfunction or failure of an item affecting safety, availability of plant records is necessary to aid in the determination of the cause of the failure. In addition, records maintenance is necessary for other important specific functions such as providing baseline data for inservice inspection and providing data for trend analysis.

The type of records identified specifically in Criterion XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 are of particular importance to provide adequate evidence that licensee activities affecting quality have been accomplished in accordance with j NRC regulatory requirements. Other records pertaining to itams important-to-safety are not detailed in any specific.NRC requirements document, but are, i

nevertheless, expected to be available for inspection and audit by the,NRC in accordance with Criterion 1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.

1 i

Reporting of changes to the QA program pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.55(f) became a new requirement, effective March 1983. The licensee's QA Program plan, after acceptance by the NRC,-is now considered a license condition. Any changes to this plan must now be reported to the NRC like other license conditions of a similar nature. It is estimated that each licensee / applicant will initiate two i

' such changes per year, and that each such change requires approximately 80 staff hours.

Estimated Reporting Burden:

Each of 34 plants under construction generates a licensee burden of 20,000 burden hours 34 x 20,000 = 680,000 hrs /yr 1

Each of 93 operating reactors generates a licen3ee burden i

of 10,000 burden hours per year 93 x 10,000 = 930,000 hrs /yr 1 Each of four large test reactors causes the licensee '

to expend 250 staff hours per year; 4 x 250 = 1,000 hrs /yr j Total for Appendix B 1,611,000 hrs /yr

Reporting changes, to the QA Program, 131 licensees

! x 160 burden hours 20,960 hrs /yr j Total Burden Hours 1,631,960 hrs /yr Cost is based on $60.00 per hour for licensee; i therefore, cost to industry- = $97,917,600 i

l i-t y.--..

,, -_, 4.. .. .., , , ., , .w,, , , . . .,,y_. -. -.,.,._.,y,,.,,..._,.,,,..,_.,...,.,,.m..,%w. ,,,,,.,.m,#,-,,,,-,m ,,..mm,,w

e .

29 Estimated Recordkeeping Burden A comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits must be carried out by licensees to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program and to determine the effectiveness of the program. The audits are performed in accordance with quality assurance program procedures. Based on NRC's experience and in light of the magnitude of records required for the audits and the overall program during construction, it is estimated that 41% of the total industry re-porting burden (1,631,960 hours0.0111 days 0.267 hours 0.00159 weeks 3.6528e-4 months ; encompasses hours expended annually for record-keeping requirements. Recordkeeping requirements are, therefore, estimated to involve 669,104 hours0.0012 days 0.0289 hours 1.719577e-4 weeks 3.9572e-5 months annually.

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government:

QA records are generated and maintained by licensees. The incremental cost for NRC audits and inspection of QA records is a small part of the total NRC inspec-tion program, consisting of the resident inspectors, the regional inspections, and the special inspections which include, among others, Construction Assessment Team (CAT), Performance Appraisal Team (PAT), and Independent Design Inspection (IDI). It is estimated that 10 percent of the licensee's burden hours are neces-sary for NRC audit and inspection (.10 X 1,631,960 = 163,196 staff hours). This estimate is based on 5 years of experience involving follow-up discussion between the NRC staff representative and Team Leaders for CAT, PAT, and IDI. -

Therefore, the estimated Federal cost is expected to be $9,791,760

($60 X 163,196).

i

e s Part 4 SUPPORTING STATEMENT for Bulletins and Generic Letter Program 10 CFR 50.71 Justification The Bulletin and generic letter program is an adjunct to_the NRC regulatory over-sight program and functions as an extension of the reporBing requirements under 10 CFR 50.71 which require each licensee and each holder of a construction permit to maintain such records and make such reports, in connect.'on with the licensed activity, as may be required by the conditions of the licerse or permit or by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission in efCectuating the purposes of the Act, including section 105 of the Act. NRC periodi: ally issues Bulletins and generic letters to communicate with industry on matters of generic importance or serious safety significance; i.e., if an event at one reactor raises the possi-bility of a generic problem, an NRC Bulletin or generic l2tter may be issued -

requesting licensees and/or permit holders to take specific actions and to submit a written report describing actions taken and other information NRC may need to assass the need for further actions to assure public health and safety.

These Bulletins and generic letters generally require one-time action and reporting.

They are not intended as substitutes for revised license conditions or new regu-latory reqirements. Most Bulletins and generic letters identify the regulatory requirements that are currently contained in 10 CFR 50. Prior to proposing the Bulletin or generic letter, the staff considers the potential additional burden caused by either having the NRC inspectors collect the information or having the licensees / applicants provide the information in a report. Having considered both options, NRC deems it more practical to obtain the necessary information via licensee reporting.

Proposed Bulletins and generic letters that request a response are routinely reviewed by the NRC's Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), except in those rare instances where it is judged by the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), or the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that an immediate emergency action is needed to protect the health and safety of the public.

In those circumstances, no review by the CRGR is necessary and the Office Directors have the authority to issue the Bulletin or generic letter.

Each proposed Bulletin or generic letter to be reviewed by CRGR that does not require emergency action is categorized as either Category 1 or 2 requirements.

Category 1 requirements are those which are needed to overcome problems requiring priority resolution or to comply with a legal requirement for immediate or near term compliance.

/ Category 2 requirements are those which do not meet the criteria for emergency action or designation as Category 1. These are to be scrutinized carefully by the CRGR on the basis of written justification submitted by IE or NRR. Upon notice to the members of the CRGR, and without objection, the CRGR Chairman may exempt any Category 2 proposal from review on the grounds that he concludes that it involves only an insignificant effect on the NRC staff and on licensees.

Based on two years of experience and data, the NRC believes that a reliable estimate of the annual impact of Category 1 and 2 Bulletins and generic letters is possible and that this burden is logically included in 10 CFR 50.71.

Tabulation and Publication Plans Responses to Bulletins and generic letters are made available for public inspec-tion in the NRC's Public Document Rooms.

Time Schedule for Data Collection and Publication The time schedule for reporting is defined in each Bulletin or generic letter, however, licensees and/or permit holders will not be required to respond in fewer than 30 days under this clearance requirement.

Consultations Outside the Agency When appropriate, prior to issuing a Bulletin or generic letter, the NRC seeks comments on the matter from the industry (utilities, Atomic Industrial Forum, nuclear steam system suppliers, vendors, etc.) This technique has proven effec-tive in bringing faster and better responses from licensees.

Estimate of Respondent Reporting Burden The number of licensees and/or permit holders actually affected by a particular Bulletin and generic letter and the associated burden varies in each specific instance; however, an estimated annual average would include 40 respondents to each of 12 Bulletins and 4 generic letters,* each imposing an average burden of 245,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months . This amounts to a total annual burden of 392,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months or an indi-vidual licensee and/or permit holder burden for each response of 612.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months , which represents an annual industry cost of $23,520,000 ($60 X 392,000).

Estimate of Cost to Federal Government Estimate of cost to the Government, which includes preparation of the Bulletin or generic letter obtaining all necessary clearances, mailing, and analysis of responses is estimated at 1,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months per Bulletin or generic letter or 16,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months annually. The total annual estimated cost to the Government is $960,000 (12 bulletins and 4 letters annually X 1,000 = 16,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months @$60).

These 4 generic letters recognize the six generic letters estimated in Part 9, Supporting Statement for 50.54(f).

PART 5 SUPPORTING STATEMENT 10 CFR 50.48 AND APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 Fire Protection J_USTIFICATION 10 CFR Part 50.48 amends the regulations to require certain provisions for fire -

protection in operating nuclear power plants. This action was undertaken to upgrade fire protection at nuclear power plants licensed to operate prior to January 1,1979, by requiring resolution of certain contested generic issues in fire protection safety evaluation reports. The program on which this part is dependent is Appendix R - Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating prior to January 1,1979, which makes requirements of certain items of fire protection guidance that have been used by the staff since the Browns Ferry fire on March 22, 1975, to evaluate the adequacy of fire protection programs at operating nuclear power plants.

Section 50.48(a) requires that each operating nuclear power plant have a fire protection plan that satisfies Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. This fire protection plan must describe the overall fire protection prcgram for the -

facility, identify the various positions within the licensee's organization that are responsible for the program, state the authorities that are delegated to each of these positions to implement those responsibilities, and outline the plans for fire protection, fire detection and suppression capability, and limit-ation of fire damage. The plan must also describe specific features necessary to implement the program described above, such as administrative controls and personnel requirements for fire prevention and manual fire suppression activit-ies, automatic and manually operated fire damage to structures, systems, or components important to safety so that the capability to safely shutdown the plant is ensured. Present licensed cpe sting plants have already met the requirement for a plan, therefore, there is no immediate burden.

Section 50.48(c)(5) requires licensees to submit plans and schedules for meeting the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) within 30 days after the effective date of this section and Appendix R of 10 CFR 50.

Section 50.48(c)(5) requires licensee to submit design descriptions of modifi-cations needed to satisfy Section III.G.3 of Appendix R to this part within 30 days after the effective date of this section and Appendix R of 10 CFR 50 (2/17/81).

Both of these requirements have already been satisfied by all licensees.

Therefore, there is no additional burden.

Appendix R - Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operation, requires manual fire fighting capability at each plant. It states that a fire brigade of at least five persons on each shift shall be maintained at each

o '

nuclear power plant unit. In addition, the rule requires certain minimum levels of training for each brigade member, and training and drills for each brigade as a team.

The rule also requires maintaining certain records of the training and drills provided for the brigades and brigade members. The record keeping requirements have already been agreed to by most licensees as part of the license amendments that resulted from the staff's fire protection review of each plant. These records are required to enable the staff to evaluate the effectiveness of each training program and thus determine the expected effectiveness of each fire brigade to cope with any fire emergency which may occur. The two specific record keeping requirements are:

A. "Section III.I.3.d." -

At three year intervals, drills shall be critiqued by qualified individuals independent of the licensee's staff. A copy of the written report from such individuals shall be available for NRC review.

B. "Section III.I.4" Individual records of training provided to each fire brigade member, in-ciuding drill critiques, shall be maintained for at least three years to ensure that each member receives training in all parts of the training program. These records of training shall be available for review.

Re-taining or broadening training for fire fighting within buildings shall be scheduled for all those brigade members whose performance records show -

deficiencies.

Description of fire protection plan These requirements will not affect the nuclear power plants that were licensed to operate prior to January 1,1979 and that already have the Appendix R require-ments identified in their safety evaluation reports. 50.48(a) does not affect presently licensed plants since they have already completed these requirements with their approved fire protection programs. 50.48(a) will apply to new licensees on a case-by-case basis as applications are submitted to the NRC. No special requirement for a format or form is being imposed with this rule. Each licensee is free to develop the method and forms that best suit its individual operation. No new applications are anticipated in the next three years.

Estimate of Respondent Burden No. of Respondents Staff Hours Annual Appendix R affected per response Burden Section III.I.3.0 95* 24 2,280 Section III.l.4 95* 120 11,400 Total Annual Burden 13,680

Based on 85 licensed plants at the end of 1984 plus an averaged allowance of 10 additional plants to be licensed annually over the next three years.

o

i Therefore, the estimated cost to industry is expected to be $820,800 ($60.00 X 13,680).

Estimate of cost to Federal Government We estimate that the average review time of fire brigade drill and training records per plant is 5 staff-hours. Ninety-five (95) plants are expected to comply with this requirement annually for a total annual cost of $28,500 to the Government (95 plants x 5 staff hours / plant = 475 staff hours; 475 staff hours x $60/hr = 28,500).

Part 6 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR SECTION 50.54(p)

Physical Security and Safeguards Contingency Plans

1. JUSTIFICATION

a. Need for and Practical Utility of the Information Collection Paragraph 50.34(c) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides for the submission of a physical security plan by each licensee who is authorized to operate a production or utilization facility. These plans are for the pur-pose of protection against acts of industrial sabotage and protection of special nuclear material against theft by establishment and maintenance of a physical protection system.

Section 50.34(d) of 10 CFR Part 50 specifies that each application for a license to operate a production or utilization facility shall include a licensee safe-guards contingency plan in accordance with Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 73.

Section 50.54(p) requires that each licensee prepare and maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 73. A licensee desiring to make a change which would decrease the effectiveness of a security plan prepared pursuant to Section 50.34(c), Part.73, or a licensee safeguards contingency plan (except for implementing procedures) prepared pur-suant to Section 50.34(d) or Part 73, as applicable, must obtain prior appro-val from NRC by submitting an application for an amendment to the license pur-suant to Section 50.90. A licensee desiring to make such a change shall submit an application for an amendment to his license pursuant to Section 50.90. Sec-tion 50.54(p) also states that a licensee shall maintain records of changes to the plans, made without prior NRC approval, for a period of two years from the date of the change, and shall furnish to the NRC. a report containing a descrip-tion of each change within two months after the change is made.

Additionally, Section 50.54(p) requires that the licensee review the safeguards contingency plan an,nyally and maintain records documenting the conduct and results of the annui.I review along with any recommendations derived from the review. These records are to be available at the plant for inspection by NRC personnel for a period of two years,

b. Practical Utility of the Information Collection Physical Security Plans include general performance requirements which recognize explicitly the need to provide protection from potential threats originating either externally or from within a licensed facility. The NRC staff utilizes these licensee security plans as it conducts a continuous review to identify the changing kinds and degrees of threats and the vulnerabilities of reactors to such threats. This continuing reactor safeguards program provides a high

O

level of assurance to the NRC and the public that malevolent acts against~ opera-ting nuclear power plants will not result in undue risk to public health and safety.

c. Duplication of Other Collections of Information There are no valid alternatives to the licensee providing the Physical Secu-rity Plans and the Safeguards Contingency Plans and updating them by amendments or other documented changes. The plans are sensitive and are not widely dis-seminated. The applicant is the obvious party to supply the required data and no reasonable alternative reporting procedure exists. These requirements duplicate no other requirements and the reports are not provided by the licensee to any other Federal agency.

d. Consultations Outside The NRC DOE has been consulted on the requirements.

2. Description of Information Collection

a. Number and Type of Respondents The rule applies to each licensee who is authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor,- enrichment or fuel reprocessing plant. There are 93 licensed nuclear power reactors and no enrichment or reprocessing facilities. Thus, 93 respon-dents are subject to the information collection requirements of 10 CFR Sec-tion 50.54(p).

b. Reasonableness of the Schedule for Collecting Information If the licensee desires to make changes that do not! decrease safeguards effectiveness, then he has two months from the time of making such changes to report them to the NRC. This:is reasonable since the time only begins to run once the changes are implemented. His yearly review is reasonable since this-corresponds with NRC inspection periods. Retention of the Changes for two years is reasonable since this' insures that the information on the changes will be available for at least one inspection.

c. Method of Collecting the Information The licensee must review the safeguards contingency plan annually and maintain records documenting the conduct and results of the annual review along with any recommendations derived from the review. He can do this by any procedure he so desires. In addition, the licensee can collect the information necessary for reporting or requesting an amendment _ by any method he so desires. The licensee must' keep records of any changes and notify NRC by mail within 2 months of any changes under Section 50.54(p).

d. Record Retention Requirements The licensee must retain records of any 50.54(p) changes for two year from the date of the change. The licensee must retain annual reviews of the ',0.54(p) changes and recommendations that result from those reviews for a peilod of-two years. This information is necessary for plant inspections by NRC personnel.

l l

j l

e. Reporting Period Reports are to be submitted at irregular intervals as amendments are made,

f. Copies to be Submitted The safeguards reporting rule requires that the licensee submit the original to the Regional office and a copy to Headquarters of the 50.54(p) changes.

3. Estimate of Burden

a. Estimated Hours Required to Respond to the Collection The NRC Estimates that approximately 250 50.54(p) notifications are made annually to the NRC by the Licensees. It is estimated that, on the average, 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months are reqired to prepare, notify NRC, keep records, revise and file each 50.54(p) amendment for a current industry burden of 50,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months per year,

b. Source of Burden Data and Method of Estimating Burden The burden estimates were developed using a review of past 50.54(p) amendments made to the NRC by the industry. Using $60.00 per staff hour gives an industry cost of $3,000,000.

c. Reasonableness of Burden Estimates The burden estimates were derived from consultation with licensee staff responsible for making safeguards reports and NRC staff experienced in documenting and analyzing 50.54(p) amendments.

4. Estimate of the Cost to the Federal Government The annual cost to the government is associated with analyzing and assessing the 50.54(p) amendment reports and reviews. The NRC estimates that accomplish-ing these activities would require approximately 120 hours0.00139 days 0.0333 hours 1.984127e-4 weeks 4.566e-5 months per plant. Thus, 11,200 staff hours (93 plants x 120) are anticipated annually for this effort.

Therefore, at $60,00 per staff hour, Federal cost is expected to be $672,000 per year, i

a l

o .

PART 7 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR Part 50.54(q, r, t) and Part 50, Appendix E Emergency Planning JUSTIFICATION The Nuclear Regulatory Comission requires that all production and utilization facility licensees shall, as a condition of their license, submit emergency plans for NRC review and approval, and maintain the emergency plans up to date.

The Commission's interest in emergency planning is focused primarily on situa .

tions that may threaten to cause radiological risks affecting the health and safety of workers or the public. The Commission and the public have recognized the increasing importance of emergency planning. Emergency plans should be directed toward mitigating the consequences of emergencies and should provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken to protect the public health and safety in the event of an emergency. Although it is not possible to develop a completely detailed plan encompassing every conceivable type of emergency situation, advance planning can create a high order of pre-paredness, including provisions of necessary equipment, supplies, and services, and ensure an orderly and timely decisionmaking process at times of stress.

Emergency 50.34 (a) 10)] (plans are required and FSAR or finaltolicense be submitted application as part

[10 of CFRthe50.34 PSAR(b)(6)(v)]

[10 CFR to address the elements of 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. In addition, copies of State and local government radiological emergency response plans are required to be submitted [10 CFR 50.54(s)(1)]

Section 50.54(q) authorizes licensees to make changes to their emergency plans if such changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet 10 CFR Part 50. It also requires that I copy of these changes be sent to the appropriate NRC Regional Office and 2 copies be sent to the Document Control Desk, NRC within 30 days after the change is made. Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plans are to be sub-mitted to and approved by the Comission prior to implementation and 3 copies of

, such proposed changes are to be submitted.

Part 50, Appendix E Section V requires each licensee to submit to the NRC changes to emergency plan implementing procedures. One copy shall be submitted to the appropriate NRC Regional office and 2 copies shall be submitted to the Document Control Desk, NRC.

1

~ - -

+-e~- -

O

Section 50.54(r) requires that each licensee who is authorized to possess and/or operate a research reactor facility under a license of the type specified in Section 50.21(c) and who had not obtained Comission approval of an emergency plan, as described in Section 50.34(b)(6)(v), prior to obtaining an operating license shall submit such a plan to the Comission for approval as part of the application for a renewal of the operating license. Each licensee who is autho-rized to possess and/or operate any other production or utilization facility who has not obtained Comission approval of an emergency plan, as described in Sec-tion 50.34(b)(6)(v), prior to obtaining an operating license shall submit such a plan for approval.

Section 50.54(t) requires each licensee to provide for the development, revision, implementation, and maintenance of its emergency preparedness program, which shall be reviewed at least every 12 months.

The NRC staff will review new and updated emergency plans and implementing pro-cedures to determine whether or not licensees have devised an effective program for handling emergency situations. NRC Regional Offices will conduct periodic checks at licensee's facilities to assure that the plans and procedures are up-dated to reflect changing conditions.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

practical Utility of Information Collection The NRC must find that the emergency plans conform to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, and that the plans provide reasonable assurance that, in the event of an emergency, appropriate measures can and will be taken to protect public health and safety. The time frame for completing this determination is usually contingent upon adjudicatory actions encompassing the operating license review process and could involve 2-4 years of staff effort.

Estimate of Burden The burden for maintaining the emergency preparedness program is estimated to be 8,000 person-hours per year for each of 93 power reactor licensees (744,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ) and 30 person-hour for each of 75 research/ test reactor licensees (2,250 hour0.00289 days 0.0694 hours 4.133598e-4 weeks 9.5125e-5 months ) for a total of 746,250 hours0.00289 days 0.0694 hours 4.133598e-4 weeks 9.5125e-5 months annually. The cost to licensees for the maintenance of their emergency preparedness program is $44,775,000.

Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government NRC estimates 80 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months per year for each of 68 sites for review of revised power reactor emergency plans and procedures. This results in a total of 5,440 person-hours at a cost of $326,400 to the Federal Government annually, i

2

~--.-c-n-, n ,-- -,, ,v,-. , ~ -' - ,

Part 8 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50, SECTION 50.71(e)

Periodic Update of the Final Safety Analysis Record (FSAR)

JUSTIFICATION <

The NRC, through adoption of section 50.71(e) amended its regulation to require each nuclear power reactor licensee to submit at least annually to the Commis-sion revised Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) pages that reflect changes in information and analyses submitted to the Commission or prepared as a result of a Commission requirement. The amendment is being made to provide an updated reference document to be used in recurring safety analyses performed by the licensee, the Commission, and other interested parties.

The FSAR required to be updated by the rule is the original FSAR submitted as part of the application for the operating license. It would not include the subsequent supplements and amendments to the FSAR or the license that may have been submitted either in response to NRC questions or on the applicant's or -

licensee's own initiative following the original snaittal. These various supplements and amendments must be appropriately Incorporated'into the original FSAR to create a single, complete and integral do ument. The initial revision to be filed will contain those pages from the originally submitted FSAR that are'still applicable plus new replacement pages that appropriately incorporate the effects of supplements, amendments and other changes that have been made.

This will result in a single, complete document, being filed, that can then serve as the baseline for future changes.

This rule is necessary because the volume of written information in the docket files of operating power reactors is large and is increasing at a rapid rate.

By the time a power reactor has been in operation for a few years, much of the information in the FSAR has been modified, supplemented or superseded. This comes about by the applicant's submittal of designs and analyses supporting requested license amendments or technical specification changes, replies to regulatory requests, incident reports, and annual reports describing design and procedural changes. Consequently, it is difficult for anyone, including an NRC staff member, the licensee, or the public to be certain of the current status of a facility's design and supporting analyses.

To properly execute their respective responsibilities, the NRC staff and the licensee must work with accurate information. Problems stemming from a lack of accurate reference documents have existed for some time, but are becoming greater with the passage of time and_the addition of new operating plants.

In general, the older a facility is, the more difficult it is to identify the correct information. The newly licensed facilities are not presently a problem,

but they would become so in a few years without this new update procedure for licensee FSAR sets. In addition, as new staff members and licensee employees are assigned to plants with extensive licensing history and are involved in analyses and decisions affecting facility operation, the volume of reference material involved, due to lack of a single organized reference, is staggering.

In such an event, the possibility of error, due to reference to outdated or incorrect material, is increased and the resultant risk to the public is like-wise affected.

An existing regulation, Paragraph 50.30(c)(2) of 10 CFR Part 50, recognized the need by requiring that the applicant for a construction permit update its application, which includes the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, to eliminate superseded information and provide an index of the updated application when an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is appointed prior to public hearing by the '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. If an operating license hearing is held, the application must be updated at that time. After the operating license is issued, various sections of Part 50 (Section 50.59, for example) require that additional safety analyses be performed for individual facility changes that '

affect facility safety. The present regulations, however, do not require that such changes be incorporated into the FSAR.

All changes to the technical specifications are now treated as license amend-ments and it would be appropriate to have an updated FSAR available at all times. Additionally, safety evaluations after operation of the facility has been initiated, required by proposed license amendments, technical specifica-tion changes and other reasons, warrant at least the same supporting documen-tation as does the hearing process. -

In addition to the uses of FSARs previously discussed, FSARs are currently being used for a variety of other reasons such as:

a. To evaluate proposed changes, tests or experiments made pursuant to Sec-tion 50.59 and to determine the existence of unreviewed safety questions,

b. To supply adverse operating experience to current safety reviews.

c. For operator training by licensees.

d. For project manager training, orientation, and reassignment by the Commission.

e. A reference document by management and by safety review committees.

f. By IE inspectors to assist in their facility inspections.

g. By licensing examiners to prepare exams for facility operators,

h. In planning emergency responses,

i. To evaluate operating data by NRC technical reviewers.

The NRC staff will utilize the updated information supplied by licensees in response to the reporting requirement of section 50.71(e) as a primary reference

source to be employed during the numerous safety studies undertaken by licensees, the Commission, and other interested parties.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

Description of the Survey Plan This reporting requirement would affect 93 licensees.

Consultations Outside the Agency On November 8, 1976, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (41 FR 49123) a notice of proposed rule making inviting written suggestions or comments on the proposed rule by December 23, 1976. A notice of correction and extension of comment period was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 27, 1976 (41 FR 56204) in which the comment period was extended to January 26, 1977. The notices concerned proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to require each applicant for or holder of a power reactor license which would be or was issued after January 1, 1963 to periodically submit to the Commission revised pages for its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) that indicate changes made in the facility or the procedures for its operation and any analyses affected by these changes.

In response to the comments received, the Commission modified the rule to (a) extend its applicability to all power reactors licensed to operate, (b) exclude applicants for operating licenses, (c) clarify the wording of the rule, (d) reduce its impact on power reactor licensees by relaxing some of the time requirements, and (e) require the initial revision to be a complete FSAR.

Estimation of Respondent Reporting Burden Approximately 93 licensees will be affected by this reporting requirement.

The average burden per licensee for the updating is estimated to be 1,000 staff-hours. Therefore, the annual burden for all licensees is 93,000 staff-hours. The estimated cost to the licensees is expected to be $5,580,000

($60 x 93,000).

Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government The NRC anticipates that approximately 5 staff hours will be involved annually in the handling and document control / filing systems of the updated FSAR. Thus, annual estimated cost to the Federal Government is expected to be $27,900 (5 staff hrs x 93 plants = 465 staff hours; $60/hr x 465 staff hours = $27,900).

43 Part 9 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR SECTION 50.54(f)

Collection of Information Under Oath or Affirmation JUSTIFICATION NRC regulations, 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.54(f), adopted January 19, 1956 (21 FR 355), provide that the licensee upon request by the Commission, submit written statements under oath or affirmation to enable the Commission to deter-mine whether a license should be modified, suspended, or revoked. When the staff has identified a potential health, safety, or environmental problem at a particular plant or series of plants, the staff may require the licensee or licensees to submit information to evaluate the particular situation and to make a determination whether the situation is serious enough to require that the license be modified, suspended, or revoked.

Periodically there are equipment failures, construction problems, and issues discovered or raised by the technical staff during the safety review and brought to the attention of the NRC through licensee reporting procedures, the safety review process itself, and by the NRC inspection staff.

Since many of the flaws and malfunctions which are detected are novel, there is -

little data available which would enable the NRC to predict, with certainty, what the consequences might be. To develop a reliable data base, accurately appraise the potential long-term significance of the anomaly, and determine what, if any, corrective measures may be necessary, NRC must obtain information.

from licensees. Should the information provided by the licensees show that there is only minor safety significance associated with the problem / situation, the facility license would not be modified, suspended, or revoked. On the other hand, the Commission may issue an Order that does modify, revoke, or suspend the license to operate a nuclear reactor.

Without the information provided in the licensee's writter. statements, timely staff action could not be taken and unsafe conditions could continue to exist, thereby potentially endangering the public health and safety.

The Commission requests specific information either from one licensee, on a problem or situation believed to be unique to a particular facility, or from more than one licensee on a problem or situation believed to be generic in na-ture, i.e. , that may affect more than one facility. Before licensees are re-quested to provide such information, the staff will have identified the problem or situation as one having potential safety or environmental significance.

Based on the information obtained from licensees or applicants and the staff's evaluation of the problem, new regulatory requirements may be identified. De-pending upon the nature of the problem and its resolution, these new require-ments could be imposed by regulation, or they could be imposed on affected

44 facilities individually by amendment to the technical specifications or condi-tions of their construction permit or operating license (see 50.109, Back-fitting). In addition, the NRC could issue a Regulatory Guide which would describe the nature of the problem and the method or methods found adequate by the regulatory staff for its resolution.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

Description of survey plan This reporting requirement can affect any of about 200 licensees and construction permit holders. There are 93 operating power reactor licensees, 75 research/

test reactor licensees, and 34 construction permit holders.

a Estimation of rescondent reporting burden The burden is made up from the sum of the burden for requests of one license for a plant-specific concern and for requests of a generic nature which could a

apply to a category of licensees or applicants.

I Plant Specific Concern It is estimated that perhaps as many as five requests to a single licensee will be made each year. Our estimate of the burden is that on the average each request would require several people about 2 weeks to answer. There-fore, 300 hours0.00347 days 0.0833 hours 4.960317e-4 weeks 1.1415e-4 months per request for each of five requests totals 1500 hours0.0174 days 0.417 hours 0.00248 weeks 5.7075e-4 months .

] Generic Considerations e

A review of the list of generic letters sent to the industry that requested information shows that not only does the annual number of letters vary, but so does the number of respondents and the level of effort required to pre-pare the different responses. It is estimated that there will be six*

generic letters / year. Of the six, two are likely to be minor, but affect

'T a large number of licensees.

2 letters x 50 licensees x 120 hrs / letter = 12,000 hrs I

One significant request is likely.

4 1 letter x 25 licensees x 600 hrs / letter = 15,000 hrs Three reactors average requests to utilities with operating or soon-to-operate power 3 letters x 90 utilities x 200 hrs = 54,000 hrs The total respondent burden is 82,500 hrs. Therefore, the cost to the respondents is $4,950,000 (82,500 hrs x $60).

These 6 letters recognize the 4 [non-50.54(f)] generic letters estimated in 50.71, part 4 of the Supporting Statements.

45 Estimate of cost to the Federal Government Prior to requesting information from the respondents, the NRC staff assesses the potential problem and identifies the needed information and how the infor-mation is to be used. This is-estimated to take 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months for each plant spe-

cific request and 640 hours0.00741 days 0.178 hours 0.00106 weeks 2.4352e-4 months for each generic letter. Each specific generic letter request for information is carefully justified prior to review by the NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements. In addition, staff review of the i

responses will require an additional 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months for the plant specific informa-tion and 640 hours0.00741 days 0.178 hours 0.00106 weeks 2.4352e-4 months for the generic letters. This corresponds to 400 hours0.00463 days 0.111 hours 6.613757e-4 weeks 1.522e-4 months for each of 5 plant specific letters and 1280 hours0.0148 days 0.356 hours 0.00212 weeks 4.8704e-4 months for each of 6 generic letters or a total of 9,680 hrs. The total federal cost is $580,800. (9,680 hrs x $60) =

$580,800) l, i

h i

1 l

i 1

,.. ,, ,-,y_ . .. . - . . . . . . - . ...m. ,.y,, ,. - , . . , _ . . _ . . . _ , , _ , . - , . . . -,,-........,-i....-._,4 ~_y...,.. , . , ., .~

4 Part 10 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50.72(a), (b), and (c), 50.54(z)

Notification of Significant Events JUSTIFICATION

, Following the accident at Three Mile Island on March 28, 1979, the NRC staff i acted to ensure the timely and accurate flow of information from licensees of operating nuclear power plants following significant events. Dedicated tele-i phone lines were installed at all operating power plants to facilitate direct and rapid communications between licensees and the NRC Operations Center (and Regional Offices). A line is located in each control room with provisions made for extensions to be located at other specified locations at the facility.

When these phones are picked up to report significant events, they automatically ring at the NRC Operations Center and can be held open as long as needed.

NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement (0IE) issued Bulletins and sent -

letters to each licensee asking that current procedures for notification of NRC following significant events be reviewed carefully. The letters were intended to ensure that the licensees would promptly notify NRC when a reactor was determined to be in an uncontrolled or unexpected condition of operation.

After this notification, a continuous communication channel was to be established and maintained between the licensee and NRC.

The NRC staff evaluated licensees' responses to OIE's letter and Bulletins and determined that the reporting procedures were not providing the prompt notifications expected by the Commission. The Bulletins issued to licensees by OIE did not impose reporting requirements and as a result, in several in-stances licensees did not notify NRC promptly. The Commission, therefore, deter-mined that in order to protect the health and safety of the public, a rule was required. Rulemaking was initiated immediately thereafter, and resulted in an immediately final regulation (10 CFR 50.72) published in the Federal Register on February 29, 1980 (45 FR 13435). Meanwhile, the Congress provided for prompt notification in Section 201 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authori-zation Act for Fiscal Year 1980 (Pub. L. 96 - 295) by amending Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with a new subsection f at the end as follows:

"f. Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or sec-tion 104 b. shall require as a condition thereof that in case of any accident which could result in an unplanned release of quantities of fission products in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission, the licensee shall immediately so notify the Commission. Violation of the condition prescribed by this subsection may, in the Commission's discretion, constitute grounds for license revocation. In accordance with section 187 of this Act, the Commission shall promptly amend each license for a utilization

i

1 i

j of enactment of this subsection to include the provisions subsection."

4 i The Conference Report accompanying Pub. L.96-295 stated that the conferees tions which would require immediate notification. recognized the nee The conferees further in-

] tended that the Commission establish specific guidelines for the identification i of accidents which could result in an unplanned release of radioactivity in

excess of allowable limits, and that the immediate notification requirement would take effect when such guidelines were established. H. Conf. Rep.

No. 96-1070, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 30 (June 4,1980).

Although the regulation, 10 CFR 50.72, was published as immediately effective without views and comments.

a prior public comment period, the public was invited to submit its Therefore, in response to the above Congressional actions and after obtaining the experience about receiving notification as required by the rule, the rulemaking on December Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed proposal was made to meet two objectives;21, 1981 (46 FR 61894) The and invited section 201 of the NRC's 1980 Fiscal Year Authorization Act and changeC 10 CFR 50.72 to'immediately notify to more NRC. clearly specify the significant events requiring licensees j

on August 29, 1983, (48 FR 39045).These changes were published in the Federal Regi i

Section 50.54(z) requires that each licensee with a utilization facility the NRC Operations Center of the occurrence of any eve .

i The NRC staff will evaluate the information transmitted te the Com to provide adequate assurances regarding actual or potent safety.

' There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

Description of the Information Collection Examples of events requiring notification:

a) 4 Declaration Plan; of emergency situations as required by the Site Emergency b)

Any deviation from the plant's Technical Specifications; i c) E Any that poses naturala phenomenon threat to the plant; (forest fire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane) d)

t Injury or illness of personnel involving radioactive contamination; and e) i Initiation of a plant shutdown required by plant Technical Specifications.

) These reporting requirements will affect 93 operating nuclear plants.

? - -

g 6

4

O

Estimation of Burden It is estimated that 40 reports annually will be received from each of 93 operating plants in response to the reporting requirement of 50.72.

The burden for each phone call is estimated to be 15 minutes. Therefore, the total annual burden for all licensees covered by this reporting requirement is estimated to be:

93 plants x 40 reports per year = 3,720 reports 3720 reports x .25 hours2.893519e-4 days 0.00694 hours 4.133598e-5 weeks 9.5125e-6 months = 930 person hours Cost to industry is, therefore, estimated to be $55,800 (930 person hours x

$60), d Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government Events Analysis The cost to the Federal government is estimated as follows:

1. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation - 3 person years (2,080 person hours /

per year x 3 person years = 6,240 person hours)

2. Office of Inspection and Enforcement - 7 person years (2,080 person hours x 7 person years = 14,560 person hours) -

3. Five Regional Offices - 1 person year each (2,080 person hours x 5 =

10,400 person hours)

Event Report Receipt

1. 7 Persons to man the Operations around the clock (2,080 X 7 = 14,560 staff hours) 14,560 X $60 = 873,600

2. Cost of the Emergency Notification System line for reporting events $3.5 million Based on the above, annual Federal cost for events analysis associated with these regulations is estimated to be (31,200 annual person hours x $60)

$1,872,000. When this is added to the Federal Cost involving the receipt of the event report, the total annual cost to the Federal government is expected to be $6,245,600.

Part 11 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50.55(e)

Reporting of Significant Design and Construction Deficiencies Justification

" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" as an Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilitics," requires an applicant for, or holder of a license to construct or operate, a nuclear power plant to establish a quality assurance program. This program is to assure, among other things, that all conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformance, are promptly identified and reported to appropriate levels of management. The requirements of 10 CFR Section 50.55(e) were added to the regulations in 1972 to ensure that the more significant of these deficiencies be reported to the Commission. Without the reporting requirement of 10 CFR .

Section 50.55(e), the Commission would only be notified of deficiencies occurring during the design and construction of nuclear power plants through its Inspection during the design and construction of nuclear power plants thrcogh its Inspection staff or through reports submitted by holders of construction permits, either voluntarily or as requested by the Commission on a case-by-case basis.

The reports submitted under Section 50.55(e) are necessary to ensure that the staff is promptly informed of deficiencies identified in design and construction so that a timely inspection and evaluation of the deficiency can be made. Timely evaluation is necessary to adequately protect public health and safety frcm the potential consequences of the deficiency at the plant reporting and from other similar plants, shculd the deficiency be generic.

Specific uses made of the data reported under S2ction 50.55(e) include evaluation of impact of the deficiency on the quality of construction and of the adequacy of planned corrective action, identification of generic problems, inspection and enforcement personnel, and identification of problems in management or implementation of the quality assurance program.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

Description of the Information Collection This reporting requirement affects approximately 34 plants under construction.

50 -

Estination of Burden The preparation burden per plant is approximately 500 staff-hours. 34 x 500 staff hours = A total annual burden for all licensees of 17,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months at a cost of $1,020,000 ($60 x 17,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ).

Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government The burden is expected to be 4,900 hours0.0104 days 0.25 hours 0.00149 weeks 3.4245e-4 months at a cost of $294,000 (560 x 4,900 hou rs ). .

r -- - , , e , , - . , - . .

G

Part 12 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50.59(b)

REPORTS AND RECORDS FOR CHANGES, TEST AND EXPERIMENTS JUSTIFICATION Section 50.59 of NRC regulations allows a holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility (i) to make changes in the facility as described in the Safety Analysis Report, (ii) to make changes in procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report, and (iii) to conduct tests or experiments not described in the Safety Analysis Report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an un-reviewed safety question.

The records are used by licensees to interrelate subsequent changes and to pre-pare reports concerning changes, tests or experiments as required by this Section of the Regulation.

These records are also frequently used by NRC regional inspectors. The records provide background information needed by the NRC inspector during his visit to a licensed facility. He uses these records to confirm the appropriateness of changes, tests or experiments, or during evaluation of abnormal occurrences.

The records and reports assist the NRC staff in evaluating the potential effects of these changes in relation to the health and safety of the public. The ulti-mate value is received in the form of assuring the health and safety of the public and is well worth the cost of collecting, storing, and reporting the data.

Description of the survey These recordkeeping and reporting requirements affect 93 power reactors and 75 research/ test reactor licensees.

Estimation of Recordkeeping Requirements Based on the staff's experience and in light of the extensive records which

' have to be maintained on site to meet the requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.59(b), 1 the staff estimates that licensees for 168 facilities evaluate approximately 100 changes a year. It is also estimated that approximately 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months of burden is required for records associated with the analysis of 100 changes annually.

l Thus, recordkeeping burden encompassed within 50.59(b) is estimated to be (1,600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months x 168 plants) 268,800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months . Accordingly, annual recordkeeping cost to industry will be ($60 x 268,800) $16,128,000.

Estimation of Respondent Reporting Burden i The reporting burden consist of 168 licensees submitting a summary of the i

. changes, that have been evaluated annually. It is expected that approximately 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months are required to summarize and prepare reports for approximately 100 i changes per year. Thus, the reporting burden for this provision of the regu-i

. lation is expected to involve 67,200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months annually (400 hours0.00463 days 0.111 hours 6.613757e-4 weeks 1.522e-4 months x 168 plants).

The annual cost to industry is, therefore, expected to be (67,200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months x $60) =

$4,032,000.

t j

Total industry burden annually would, therefore, be 336,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ; total annual cost would be $20,160,000 ($60 x 336,000).

Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government 4

There is an additional burden to the Federal Government of 80 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months per licensee; (93 power reactor licensees and 75 research/ test reactor licensees); 168 licensees x 80 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months = 13,400 staff-hours. Therefore, the cost to the Federal '

Government is expected to be $806,400 ($60 x 13,440).

I i

a l

i 1

i

4 Part 13 i

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX G AND APPENDIX H, SECTION IV; 50.60 i

Fracture Toughness Tests, Surveillance and Reports JUSTIFICATION Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 specifies minimum fracture toughness requirements for the reactor coolant pressure boundary of water-cooled power reactors. Sec-tion V specifies how radiation damage to the reactor beltline is to be accounted for in the fracture control plan for the reactor. Paragraph V.C. requires that certain extra steps be taken in the event that the normal fracture analysis requirements specified in Paragraph V.B cannot be satisfied. Paragraph V.D.

requires a thermal anneal of the reactor vessel beltline if the procedures of Paragraph V.C. do not indicate the existence of an adequate safety margin.

Paragraph V.E. requires that the proposed programs for satisfying the require-ments of Paragraphs V.C. and V.D. be reported to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for review and approval at least three years prior to the date when 3

the predicted fracture toughness levels will no longer satisfy the requirements of Paragraph V.B.

The information in the report required by Paragraph V.E. will be used by the staff to perform a safety evaluation of the reactor vessel. This evaluation will be the basis for approval to continue operation for a specified time and for approval of the additional procedures that will be required to continue operation beyond that time. The three year lead time is needed to provide time to obtain supplemental fracture toughness data on archive material that has been subjected to accelerated irradiation, and to evaluate the fracture analyses that willl be submitted which use that data.

Section III.B contains the materials test requirements for the Charpy V-notch tests and drop weight tests. Paragraph III.B.5 specifies that records are to be kept on (1) the test results, with traceability to the material in each component, (2) the qualification of test personnel, and (3) the calibration of test equipment.

The records maintained by licensees for the life of the facility in response to this requirement are available for inspection by the staff to determine compliance with Appendix G. There is a continuing requirement that certain pieces of the data will be needed to support a licensee's fracture control plan or fracture analysis for some component in an operating plant. The data will be used by the NRC staff in making its safety evaluation of the licensee's submittal. Material properties of the actual material in the component are an essential input to such evaluations.

1

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

The records that must be retained per Appendix G are of considerable value to the plant owner in the event of some sort of material deterioration problem or the discovery of a flaw that requires a fracture analysis. The frequency of occurrence of such situations for a given plant is difficult to estimate -

perhaps once every three years on the average. The value to the plant owner lies in the ability to provide a sound basis for estimates of material toughness that are an essential part of the fracture analysis.

The impact of not obtaining the information from records would be that the

' acture analyses woule have to be based on conservative estimates derived from tne published data base of typical material properties. The impact of an overly-conservative analysis could be the removal of some unimportant defect found in inspection with considerable economic loss due to the power outage and unnecessary exposure of maintenance personnel to radiation.

There is no source for the required information other than the licensees.

Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50 requires a material surveillance program for each reactor vessel to monitor changes in the fracture toughness of the reactor vessel beltline materials resulting from their exposure to neutron irradiation and the thermal environment. Paragraph IV requires: (a) the test results obtained from the specimens contained in each surveillance capsule shall be repurted to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, for each capsule withdrawal, and (b) new pressure-temperature operating limits for the reactor, based on the surveillance test results, shall be reported.

Surveillance reports are reviewed by Division of Licensing staff, whose evalua-tion is the basis for approval of the proposed pressure-temperature operating limits for the reactor.

The impact of not obtaining the reports required by Paragraph IV would be that the pressure-temperature limits for the reactor would have to be checked agains*,

conservative estimates of radiation damage such as those given in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 1. At the present time there are too many uncertainties in the assessment of radiation damage to a reactor vessel to permit a licensee to forego monitoring radiation damage and reporting the surveillance test results to the NRC. Without the information required by Paragraph IV of Appen-dix H there would be insufficient basis for approval of continued operation beyond a few years' life.

Section 50.60, acceptance criteria for fracture prevention measures for light water nuclear power reactors for normal operation, provisions are as follows:

(a) Except as p,ovided in paragraph (b) of 50.60, lightwater nuclear power reactors must meet the fracture toughness and material surveillance program i

requirements for the reactor coolant pressure boundary set forth in Appendices G and H. (b) Proposed alternatives to the described requirements in Appendices G and H may be used when an exemption is granted by the Commission. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that (1) compliance with the specified require-ments would result in hardships or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, and (2) the proposed alternatives would provide an adequate level of quality and safety. This information is needed to assure that the reactor vessel does not exceed radiation embrittlement limits and meets the requirements of General Design Criterion 31 and 32, speci-fled in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.

i

There is no source for the required information other than the licensees.

Description of the Survey Plan The reporting and recordkeeping required effect 5 licensees for Appendix G Section V.E., 93 for Section III.B. and 127 for Appendix H.

Estimation of Respondent Reportina Burden Appendix G Section V.E. Negligible Section III.B 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months , 93 X 100 = 9,300 hours0.00347 days 0.0833 hours 4.960317e-4 weeks 1.1415e-4 months annually Appendix H 160 hours0.00185 days 0.0444 hours 2.645503e-4 weeks 6.088e-5 months , (per report), 127 X 160 = 20,320 hours0.0037 days 0.0889 hours 5.291005e-4 weeks 1.2176e-4 months annually.

Thus, estimated industry cost is (29,620 hours0.00718 days 0.172 hours 0.00103 weeks 2.3591e-4 months X $60) $ 1,777,200.

Cost to the Federal Government Appendix G Section V.E. requires 160 hours0.00185 days 0.0444 hours 2.645503e-4 weeks 6.088e-5 months per report 160 x 5 = 800 staff-hours at a total cost of $48,000 ($60 X 800).

Section III.B is negligble Appendix H requires $38,400 based on staff experience.

Therefore, the total estimated Federal cost is $86,400 ($48,000 + $38,400).

Part 14 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX J Primary Reactor containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors n

'JdSfIFICATION 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, " Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactor," provides for preoperational and periodic verification, by tests, of the leakage integrity of the primary reactor containment and systems and components which penetrate containment of water-cooled power reactors.

Tests are conducted upon completion of construction of the primary reactor containment building (con +.ainment), periodically during each 10 year service period-(approximately every 3-1/3 years), and during shutdown for refueling (approximately every 18 months but in no case at ir.tervals greater than 2 years).

The Appendix also establishes acceptance criteria for such tests. One of the conditions of all operating licenses for water cooled power reactor is that primary reactor containments shall meet containment leakage test requirements -

set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.

Section V.B., " Inspection and Reporting of Tests," requires submission to the NRC of a summary technical report, " Reactor Containment Building Integrated Leak Rate Test," approximately 3 months after the conduct of each preopera-tional and periodic test. Furthermore, such reports must include a separate accompanying summary report analyzing and interpreting the test data for any tests that failed to meet the acceptance criteria of Appendix J. Results and analyses of the supplemental verification test employed to demonstrate the validity of the leakage rate test measurements are also required to be included.

The primary reactor containment is designed to contain any operational or post-accident releases of radioactivity within specified limits. Calculation:

of the impact of a radiclogical release on public health and safety are depen-dent upon predictable leakage from containment. The required tests make sure that the containment is built as designed, and that leakage limits are not exceeded.

Reports of preoperational leakage tests are needed by the NRC (Inspection and Enforcement and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation) since these tests are the only means by which it can be verified that these structures have in fact been built within the leakage levels specified as a condition of licensing by the NRC. Information included in the report is reviewed to detcrmine the results achieved, as well as to judge the accuracy and validity (reliability) of the data.

--,,; -,e y_e- ,+,w w ,.- --

- = - -

. o The reports of the periodic leakage tests are needed by the NRC (IE and NRR) in order to verify that containment leakage is maintained below the specified level throughout its operational life. Periodic information is needed for the same reasons as preoperational test information, but in addition, is compared with that in the preoperational test report and previous periodic test reports.

If the preoperational or a periodic leakage test was not successfully completed, operation of the reactor would not be permitted.

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

Description of the Survey Plan Out of 93 operating reactor licensees, the NRC anticipates 63 reports

annually.

Estimation of Respondent Reporting Burden The burden on licensees for preparation of each report is estimated to be 366 hours0.00424 days 0.102 hours 6.051587e-4 weeks 1.39263e-4 months .

Approximately 63 reports are submitted annually.

63 x 366 man-hours = A total annual burden for all licensees of 23,058 man-hours. Therefore, estimated industry cost is expected to be $1,383,480

($60 X 23,058).

Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government The cost to the Federal Government for the review of each report is estimated to be $60.00.

Approximately 63 reports are submitted annually:

63 x $60.00 = $3,780.

Each licensee submits a report on the average of every 18 months.

.- -. -. . _. . . = _ -- -

\ .

. 58 .

PART 15 SUPPORTING STATEMENT l

FOR 10 CFR 50.35(b)

Periodic Research and Development Reports JUSTIFICATION Section 50.35, Issuance of Construction Permits, specifies in paragraph 50.35(b) that "The Commission may, in its discretion, incorpo.3te in any construction o permit provisions requiring the applicant to furnish periodic reports of the progress and results of research and development programs designed to resolve safety questions". This procedure allows the Commission, by special reference in a facility construction permit, to request information concerning ongoing R&D activities that are in support of a construction permit. However, reports are not currently being filed under Section 50.35(b).

These reports would keep the staff apprised of the progress and findings of licensee R&D programs and increase the likelihood that any safety problems would be resolved in a timely manner.

The NRC Staff would evaluate the results obtained from licensee R&D programs.

The staff would then determine what, if any, corrective measures were appropriate ,

and develop regulatory procedures including revisions to existing review processes and possible facility modification, if necessary.

I There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

Description of the survey plan This reporting requirement is not currently being utilized to obtain information from licensees.

Estimation of respondent reportino burden This rtporting requirement is not being employed by NRC to obtain information from licensees at this time and therefore imposes no respondent burden. NRC requests renewal of the clearance for this section, however, in order to receive timely information from licensees on potential new technological developments

, for both power reactor and fuel reprocessing systems. Ongoing R&D programs throughout the industry create the possibility of safety-related issues arising at any time. The NRC staff must be able to obtain information from licensees concerning current research projects in order to make informed judgements about the effects of current research on future licensing actions.

Estimate of cost to the Federal Government Negligible

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

Part 16 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50.71(b) and APPENDIX C ,

Annual Financial Report and Financial Requirements JUSTIFICATION The requirement for the annual financial report, including the certified finan-cial statements, arises from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Sec-tion 182 " License Applications." Section 182(a) provides, among other things, that each application or a license shall state such information as the Commis-sion, by rule or regulation, may determine to be necessary to decide such of the financial qualifications of the applicant as the Commission may deem appro-priate for the license.

Section 10 CFR 50.71(b) provides for the filing of annual financial reports, including certified financial statements, of facility licensees with the Commission. The fundamental purpose of the financial qualifications provision is the protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security. An applicant's financial qualifications may affect his ability to meet his responsibilities on safety matters.

The Commission reserves the right to require additional financial information during the operation of a facility, particularly in cases which the nuclear power plant will be commonly owned by two or more existing companies, or in which financial depends upon long-term arrangements for the sharing of the electric power output of the facility by two or more electric power generating companies. The annual financial report is the only financial document routinely filed by a license after a construction permit has been issued for a nuclear power plant.

The annual financial reports are used by NRC staff for financial monitoring of the respondents. If it appears that any respondent is experiencing financial difficulties, this information is provided to NRC management for their consi-deration. The information is also placed in NRC docket files and Public Document Room, and thereby made available for inspection by the public.

On September 12, 1984, the Commission promulgated a final rule which climinates requirements with respect to financial qualifications for electric utility applicants for a license to operate a production or utilization facility as presribed in Section 50.21(b) or Section 50.22. (See Appendix C.)

There is no source for the required information other than licensees.

l

. . . - _ . _ _ . - = _ .

60-Description of the Survey Plan This reporting requirement affects approximately 127 licensees annually.

Estimation of Respondent Reporting Burden The annual burden per licensee is estimated by the staff to be I hour.

i 127 x 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months = A total annual burden for all licensees of 127 hours0.00147 days 0.0353 hours 2.099868e-4 weeks 4.83235e-5 months .

This is based on staff's experience. Therefore, industry cost is estimated to be ($60 x 127) $7,620.

Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government -

The annual burden is estimated to be 1 staff-hour / report 127 x 1 = 127 staff- i 1

hours total for a total cost of $7,620 ($60 x 127 staff hours).

l 1

, _, .-,y - , , ________..,,.,,---,,3 , , . - , ._,m,_,, ,..- . . .c. ,

Part 17 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR Property Damage Insurance 10 CFR 50.54(w)(4)

Justification .

Licensees of commercial nuclear power plants are required to submit annually proof that they carry onsite property damage insurance available from private sources in an amount specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) or as established by Commission in response to a request for exemption. This reporting requirement arises out of a Commission regulation promulgated on March 31, 1982 that such insurance be obtained. The information submitted by licensees is used by the NRC staff to assure that licensees are complying with the requirement to maintain onsite property damage insurance.

Description of Survey Plan Reporting requirement affects 50 licensees. .

Tabulation and publication plans There are no plans to publish the data Time schedule for data collection and publication Information will be collected from licensees as long as they remain licensees and the insurance and reporting requirement remains in effect. The infor-mation will not be published as such.

Consultations outside the agency Regulation received public comment during proposed rule stage.

Estimation of respondent reporting burden Average reporting burden to each licensee is a letter to NRC of usually no more than one paragraph indicating both the amount of onsite property damage insurance being carried by the licensee :nd the insurer (s) frcm whom the insurance was obtained. Time to complete this is estimated to be no greater than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months per licensee. No significant variation in burden among licensees

-is expected. There are currently 50 licensees affected by the reporting requirements. Thus, the current annual burden is 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months . The estimated industry cost is $12,000 ($60.00 x 200) .

Sensitive ouestions i

Not applicable.

l l

l

t Estimate of Cost to Federal Government Staff. review time of 15 minutes / licensee is expected. Total staff review time per year is 15 minutes / licensee x 50 licensees = 12+ staff hours. Given the assumption of salary per hour of $60.00, the total dollar cost to the Federal government is expected to be $720 annually.

O 6-e U

.s 1

f 4

4 t

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

Part 18 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

" Guidance for Implementation of the Standard Review Plan Rule (10 CFR 50.34(g)) NUREG-0906"

1. JUSTIFICATION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is authorized by Congress to have responsibility and authority for the licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants. To meet this responsibility, the NRC conducts a detailed review of all applications for licenses to construct and operate such facilities. In March 1982, the NRC adopted a final rule, 50.34(g), which requires the appli-cants for a construction permit (CP), operating license (OL), preliminary design approval (PDA), or final design approval (FDA) provide, as part of the material currently required by 10 CFR 50.34, an evaluation of the differences from the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) acceptance criteria, for those applications docketed after the effective date of the rule. NUREG-0906, the subject of this statement, is proposed guidance to applicants to assist them in complying with the rule.

The Standard Review Plan (SRP) reflects the NRC's detailed interpretations of the acceptable means to satisfy the applicable regulatory requirements, which assure that the proposed facilities can be constructed and operated without any undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Because of limited resources, the NRC staff conducts audit reviews of the Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) submitted in accordance with an application, in accordance with the review procedures in the SRP.

The material currently found in SARs does not lend itself to ready identifica-tion of the differences from tne SRP acceptance criteria. These differences are often found in responses to staff questions or during meeting discussions.

Consequently, a concern has been raised regarding the thoroughness of the staff's review and the degree to which the plants conform to the applicable regulatory requirements. Differences from the SRP acceptance criteria do not necessarily imply nonconformance with regulatory requirements; however, they do reflect a departure from accepted practice that should receive a thorough staff review.

The objective of the requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.34(g) and of the imple-menting guidance of NUREG-0906 is to allow the limited NRC staff resources to quickly focus on those areas involving differences from the SRP acceptance cri- ,

I teria in order to make the most effective use of the staff's resources. I Experience has shown that such differences usually involve issues of safety significance and require the greatest amount of time to resolve. Since the i applicants are intimately familiar with their plant's designs, they are in a l

better position to identify the differences from the SRP acceptance criteria during the normal course of preparing the technical supporting information for an application.

2. DESCRIPTION Section 50.34(g) requirements would affect all new applications for cps, Ols, and PDAs, and FDAs.

There is no requirement for a separate report; the rcporting requirement is satisfied by additional information in the SAR, a document required as part of the application.

3. ESTIMATE OF BURDEN AND COSTS

Over the next three year period, the NRC does not expect any new CP, OL, PDA or FDA applications. Thus, burden and cost associated with this regulation is expected to be negligible for the next 3 years.

Part 19 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR HYDROGEN CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 10 CFR 50.44(c)

1. JUSTIFICATION The accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2) resulted in a severely damaged or degraded reactor core, a concomitant release of radioactive material to the primary coolant system, and a fuel cladding-water reaction which resulted in the generation of a large amount of hydrogen. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken numerous actions to correct the design and operational limitations revealed by the accident. Included in these actions are several rulemaking proceedings intended to improve the hydrogen control capability of light-water nuclear power reactors. On October 2, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register (45 FR 65466) a notice of proposed rulemaking on " Interim Requirements Related to Hydrogen Control and Certain Degraded Core Considerations" (Interim Rule). The notice concerned proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to -

improve hydrogen management in light-water reactor facilities and to provide specific design and other requirements to mitigate the consequences of accidents resulting in a degraded reactor core.

On March 23, 1981, the Commission published in the Federal Register (46 FR 18045) a notice of proposed rulemaking on " Licensing Requirements for Pending Construc-tien Permit and Manufacturing License Applications." The notice proposed a set of licensing requirements applicable to construction permit applications that stemmed from lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident. On May 13, 1981, the Commission published in the Federal Register (46 FR 26491) a notice of proposed rulemaking on " Licensing Requirements for Pending Operating License Applications" (OL Rule).

As a follow-up to the October 2, 1980 notice of proposed rulemaling, the Com-mission published a notice of final rulemaking on December 2, 1381 (46 FR 58484) en hydrogen control requirements related to inerting of Mark I and II boiling water reactors, hydrogen recombiner capability and high point vents.

The Commission has considered the ability of all light-water nuclear power re-actors, particularly pressurized light-water reactor facilities with ice conden-ser type containments and boiling light-water reactor facilities with Mark III type containments, to withstand an accident with the concomitant generation of large amounts of hydrogen, such as the type which occurred at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2). As a result, three new amendments to the regulations were pro-posed for public comment on December 23, 1981 (46 FR 62231). The final amend-ments require: (a) improved hydrogen control systems for boiling water reactors with Mark III containments and pressurized water reactors with ice condenser

type containments: (b) that those light-water nuclear power reactors not relying upon an inerted atmosphere for hydrogen control show that certain important safety systems must be able to function during and following hydrogen burning; and finally (c) analyses to be submitted to justify the hydrogen control systems selected and to provide assurance that containment structural integrity will be maintained and important safety systems will continue to function following a hydrogen burn, for those plants in (a) and (b) above.

The subject of this supporting statement is the requirement that analyses should be submitted under (c) above. The information contained in the analy-ses is necessary to permit the NRC staff to perform an evaluation to determine if the requirements for hydrogen control and safety equipment functioning during a hydrogen burn are met. Without this information the NRC staff could not evaluate the design of the hydrogen control systems selected or determine whether or not needed safety equipment could indeed function during a hydrogen burn.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION The requirements to submit analyses for both the hydrogen control system and the demonstration of survivability during a hydrogen burn would apply to Mark III BWRs and ice condenser PWRs in various stages of the licensing process.

Due to the similarities between plants, it is estimated that six reports will be received from power reactor licensees, on a site basis.

The requirement for submittal of the analyses would be on a one time only basis and would not be repeated except to correct deficiences in the reports. -

3. ESTIMATE OF COMPLIANCE BURDEN The reporting of the design and survivability analyses for the six plants (three Mark III BWRs and three ice condenser PWRs) will require approximately 1,500 hours0.00579 days 0.139 hours 8.267196e-4 weeks 1.9025e-4 months per plant for a total of 9,000 burden hours annually. Therefore, cost to industry is expected to be $540,000 (560 X 9,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ).

4. ESTIMATES OF COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The evaluation of the reports by the NRC staff will require 960 hours0.0111 days 0.267 hours 0.00159 weeks 3.6528e-4 months for each Mark III BWR and ice condenser PWR for a total of 5760 (staff hours) or $345,600 annual cost (at 60.00 per hour professional staff time.)

. . l i

Part 20 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 10 CFR 50 Section 50.49 Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to

, Safety for Nuclear-Power Plants Justification Nuclear power plant equipment important to safety must be able to perform its safety functions throughout its installed life. The final rule is designed to -

assure the NRC that the electrical equipment will be able to perform its accident mitigation functions under the postulated environmental conditions.

To accomplish this objective, the rule requires licensees and applicants to qualify the essential electrical aquipment. Qualification methods include -

testing as the primary method and analysis in combination with partial type.

test data or operating experience.

By its Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21, dated May 23, 1980, the Commission '

directed that the " DOR

Guidelines for Evaluating Envirommental Qualification of Class 1E Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors," and NUREG-0588,

" Interim Staff Positi. , of Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," form the basis for the requirements licensees and '

applicants, respectively, must meet for environmental qualification of electri -

cal equipment. This Memorandum and Order also included certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements with which licensees of the operating nuclear power plants are required to comply. The recordkeeping requirements, in general terms, are contained in Sections XI and XVII of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. The ,

rule codifies the Commission's current requirements for the qualification of electrical equipment and explicitly states the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The information collection requirements contained in the rule consist of the following:

A. 50.49(d): establishment of records listing all electrical equipment covered by the rule, its performance characteristics, its electrical characteristics, and the environmental conditions in which it must operate.

B. 50.49(g): identification of the electrical equipment already qualified prior to the effective date of the rule and submission of a schedule for qualifying or replacing the remaining electrical equipment.

C. 50.49(h): notification of any significant equipment qualification problems that may require extension of the completion date within 60 days of its discovery.

This stands. for Division of Operating Reacters, which is currently known as the Division of Licensing.

t 0

, D. 50.49(1): submission of an analysis by an applicant for an operating license to ensure that the plant can be safely operated pending completion of the environmental qualification of electrical equipment.

! E.

50.49(j): maintenance of records of electrical equipment qualified under i

these regulations, retained for the entire period during which the item is installed or stored for future use. ,

Description The rule applies to 93 operating power reactors and 34 construction

permit holders (127 respondents).

Time Schedule The electrical equipment covered by the rule for the operating nuclear power plants must be qualified by the end of the second refueling outage after March 1982 or by March 31, 1985, whichever is earlier. NRC's Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may grant requests for extensions of this deadline to a date no later than November 30, 1985, for specific pieces of equipment if these requests are filed on a timely basis and demonstrate good t

.cause for the extension. In exceptional cases, the Commission itself may con-sider and grant extensions beyond November 30, 1985, for completion of enviran- l j mental qualification.

i i

Information under provisions of Section 50.49(d) is not required to be submitted to NRC. Submission.of schedule under Section 50.49(g) was required on a one-

' time-only basis within 90 days after the effective date of the final rult and has been completed.

Information under Section 50.49(h) shall be submitted only when a problem occurs. Submission of analysis under Section 50.49(i) is required on a one-time basis only for those components for which full qualifi-cation cannot be demonstrated. Recordkeeping requirements under Section 50.49(j) must be completed no later than March 31, 1985 for all operating nuclear power

] plants unless an extension is granted to the individual licensee.

Consultations Outside the Agency NRC staff participates in the development of national IEEE standards. Since 1975, these IEEE standards have included specific requirements for qualification documents.

i I l l

L - --- ---

Estimate of Burden

~

Annual .

Compliance Burden For 93 Operating For 34 plants under construc-Reporting Nuclear Power Plants tion, 10 to be licensed each Requirements (h/ plant) year (h/ plant) .

To To To To Licensees Govt. Applicants Govt.

50.49(d) Development of list of electrical Completed 2000 40 equipment and its characteristics (one time only) 50.49(g) Submission of a schedule for qualification and Completed N/A N/A and replacement (one time only) 50.49(h) Reporting of significant qualification problem 20 4 20 4

.(Average 2 responses annually per plant) 50.49(i) Submission of a safety analysis r'eport N/A N/A 100 20 5, (one time only) ?

Sub Total Licensee / Applicant 3urden 20 h/ plant 2,120 h/ plant Total Licensee /Applican'c Burden: 20 h/ plant x 2,120 h/ plant x 93 plant = 34 plants =

1,860 + 72,080 = 73,940 hours0.0109 days 0.261 hours 0.00155 weeks 3.5767e-4 months 1,860 h 72,080 h Sub Total' Burden to Government 4h/ plant 64 h/

plant Total Burden to Government: (4 h/ plants x (64 h/ plant 93 plants) = x 34 plants) 372 + 2,176 = 2,548 hours0.00634 days 0.152 hours 9.060847e-4 weeks 2.08514e-4 months 372 h . = 2,176 h Estimates of Cost to Industry Tha total cost to industry is estimated to be (73,940 hr x $60) $4,436,400 [ includes annual cost (60 x 20 x 127) =

$152,400]

Estimates of Cost to Federal Government Tha total cost to the Government is estimated to be (2548 hr x $60) $152,880 [ includes annual cost (60 x 4 x 127) =

$30,480] -

i

-69a-Recordkeeping Reouirements 10 CFR 50.49(j) requires that a record of qualification be maintained in an auditable form for the period of time during which a covered item is installed or stored for future use. This " qualification file" must demonstrate that the equipment is qualified for its application and meets its specified performance requirements for the duration of its qualified life.

4 e '

G S

O I .

e e %

e S

e 9

Estimate of Burden Annual Compliance Burden for 93 Operating For 34 plants under construc-Recordkeeping Nuclear Power Plants tion, 10 to be licensed each R quirements (h/ plant) year (h/ plant) .

To To To To Licensees Govt. Applicants Govt.

50.49(j) Maintain records which demonstrate 40 N/A 40 qualification N/A Sub Total Licensee / Applicant Burden 40 h/ plant 40 h/ plant Total Licensee / Applicant Burden: 40 h/ plant x 40 h/ plant x 93 plant = 34 plants =

3,720 + 1,360 = 5,080 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months 3,720 h Total 1,360 h Sub Total Burden to Government N/A N/A A

e Total Burden to Government: N/A . N/A Y

~

None '

Estimates of Cost to Industry The total annual cost to industry is estimated to be (5,080 hr x $60) $304,800.

Estimates of Cost to Federal Government The total annual cost to the Government will be negl(gible.

9 I

0 9

b

l

. . )

l 4

Part 21 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT WITHOUT SCRAM 10 CFR 50.62

1. Justification A. Need for the Information Collection An anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) is an expected operational transient (such as a loss of feedwater, loss of condenser, or loss of offsite power to the reactor) which is accompanied by a failure of the reactor trip system (RTS) to shut down the reactor. The reactor trip system consists of those power sources, sensors, initiation circuits, logic matrices, bypasses, circuit breakers, interlocks, racks, panels and control boards, and actuation and actuated devices, that are required to initiate reactor shutdown, and includes the control rods and control rod mechanisms as well. That portion of the RTS exclusive of the control rods and control rod mechanisms is referred to as the scram system. ATWS accidents are a cause of concern because under certain postulated condi-tions they could lead to severe core damage and release of radio activity to the environment. The ATWS question involves safe shutdown of the reactor during a transient, if there is a failure of the RTS. There have been precursors to an ATWS; the latest being failure of the auto-matic portion of the RTS at the Salem 1 nuclear generating station on February 25, 1983, although manual shutdown was accomplished after 30 seconds, and no core damage or release of radioactivity occurred. The Commission has amended its regulations to require improvements in the design and operation of nuclear power plants to reduce the likelihood of failure of the reactor protection system to shut down the reactor following anticipated transients, and to mitigate the consequences of anticipated transients, and to mitigate the consequences of anticipated transients without scram events. This will significantly reduce the risks of nuclear power plant operation.

The rule requires the installation of certain equipment in nuclear power plants, in order to prevent and mitigate ATWS events. The licensee for a nuclear power plant will be required, by 10 CFR 50.62(c)(6), to submit a copy of the design and installation plans to the NRC to ensure that the

. design and installation of the equipment will perform its intended safety function.

In addition, 10 CFR 50.62(d) requires the licensee to submit a schedule to the NRC for implementing the requirements of the rule. This provision allows the establishment of implementation schedules that are tailored to

the safety priority needs and resources of the individual licensee.

B. Practical Utility of the Information Collected The NRC would review a proposed design to ensure that it will perform its intended safety function.

C. Duplication With Other Collections of Information The rule does not duplicate the information collection requirements contained in any other generic regulatory requirement.

D. Consultations Outside the NRC On November 24, 1981, the Commission invited comments on three alternative proposed rules related to ATWS (46 FR 57521). Each of the three alterna-tive proposed rules had the objective of reduction of risk from ATWS and each had its own approach of achieving that objective. One alternative emphasized individual reactor evaluation to identify needed improvements.

The second alternative emphasized reliability assurance and would have also required certain hardware modifications. The third alternative, proposed by the Utility Group on ATWS (PRM 50-29), prescribed specific changes that were keyed to the type of reactor and its manufacturer. The industry proposal provided considerable information on alternative requirements and costs of implementation. A number of negative comments were received from the industry on an alternative involving extensive 4 reporting requirements in the form of a reliability assurance program.

This alternative was not selected.

2. Description of the Information Collection A. Number and Type of Responses The reporting requirement will apply to 93 operating nuclear power plants and 34 plants to be licensed in'the future, for a total of 127 respondents.

B. Reasonableness of the Schedule The scheduling requirements in 10 CFR 50.62(d) allows licensees to propose schedules keyed to their individual operating situation.

C. Method of Collection The licensee will submit a copy of all plans and specifications to the NRC.

D. Adequacy of the Description of Information The designs which are required to be submitted for review are specified in the rule.

l

E. Record Retention Period None (No recordkeeping required).

F. Reporting Period One-time only.

G. Copies In order to reduce the time spent in reviewing the licensee submittal, ten copies are required. This will allow simultaneous review by the relevant organizations within NRC.

l

3. Estimate of Burden A. Estimated Hours Required to Respond I

Each respondent must submit a copy of all drawings and diagrams for the required equipment, plus a short explanatory narrative. This will take sixteen hours of professional staff time and four hours clerical time for a total of 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months per respondent. Total burden would be 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months x 127 respondents or 2,540 hours0.00625 days 0.15 hours 8.928571e-4 weeks 2.0547e-4 months . The scheduling report required by 10 CFR 50.60(d) will entail 32 hours3.703704e-4 days 0.00889 hours 5.291005e-5 weeks 1.2176e-5 months per respondent, for a total burden of 4,064 hours7.407407e-4 days 0.0178 hours 1.058201e-4 weeks 2.4352e-5 months . Total annual reporting hours for the entire rule are 6,604.

B. Estimate of the Information Collection At fifty-two hours per response, the total annual industry cost is estimated to be $396,240 (127 responses X 52 hours6.018519e-4 days 0.0144 hours 8.597884e-5 weeks 1.9786e-5 months / response = 6,604 hours0.00699 days 0.168 hours 9.986772e-4 weeks 2.29822e-4 months ; 6,604 hours0.00699 days 0.168 hours 9.986772e-4 weeks 2.29822e-4 months X $60/ hour = $396,240).

C. Reasonableness of Burden Estimates The estimates are in the same range as the hours expended to comply

.with similar requirements i.e., submittal of design information.

4. Estimate of Cost to Federal Government Approximately two days will be required to review the designs submitted under 10 CFR 50.62(c)(6) for a cost of $960 (16 x $60).

Approximately one day will be required to review the proposed implementation schedule submitted under 10 CFR 50.62(d), for a cost of

$480 (8 x $60).

Total Government costs per response are $480 + $960; or $1440. Total Government costs are $1440 x 127, or $182,880.

)

1

-Ms. =gh Part 22 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED 10 CFR 50.61,

" FRACTURE TOUGHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST

PRESSURIZED THERMAL SH0CK EVENTS"

1. Justification (a) Need for the Information Collection The issue of pressurized thermal shock (PTS) arises because in pressurized water reactors (PWRs) transients and accidents can occur that result in severe overcooling (thermal shock) of the reactor pressure vessel, concurrent with or followed by repressurization.

In these PTS events, rapid cooling of the reactor vessel internal surface results in thermal stress with a maximum tensile stress at the inside surface of the vessel. The magnitude of the thermal stress depends on the temperature profile across the reactor vessel wall as a function of time. The effects of this thermal stress are compounded by pressure stresses if the vessel is pressurized.

Severe reactor system overcooling events which could be accompanied by pressurization or repressurization of the reactor vessel (PTS events) can result from a variety of causes. These include system transients, some of which are initiated by instrumentation and control system malfunctions including stuck open valves in either the primary or secondary system, and postulated accidents such as small break loss-of-coolant accidents, main steam line breaks, and feed-water pipe breaks.

4 As long as the fracture resistance of the reactor vessel material is relatively high, such events are not expected to cause vessel failure. However, the fracture resistance of reactor vessel materials decreases with exposure to fast neutrons during the life of a nuclear power plant. The rate of decrease is dependent on the metalurgical composition of the vessel wall and welds. If the fracture resistance of the vessel has been reduced sufficiently by neutron irradiation, severe PTS events could cause propagation of ,

fairly small flaws that might exist near the inner surface. The assumed initial flaws might initiate and propagate into a crack through the vessel wall of sufficient extent to threaten vessel integrity and, therefore, core cooling capability. ,

The data collection aspects of the proposed 10 CFR 50.61, " Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Events" are as follows:

50.61(b) to require each PWR licensee to determine the plant RT (Reference Temperature for Nil Ductility Transition) accordT0h to a method uniformly defined for all plants;

50.61(c) to require analyses of flux reduction options that will prevent or delay the plant from operating above the defined RTNDT; and 50.61(d) to require plant-specific PTS risk analyses be submitted before operation beyond the defined RT is considered.

NDT Collection and analysis of the information is necessary to identify needed corrective actions before operation above the identified RT NDT value can be considered.

(b) Practical Utility of the Information Collection The information and analyses will be reported on the plant's docket through the NRC Licensing Project Manager (LPM). The LPM will coordinate review of the information and analyses by the appropriate branches (depending upon technical subjects covered) leading to a coordinated NRC staff recommendation to the Commission regarding necessary corrective actions before plant operation can be considered at RT values above the screening value. The review will be perfoNd by the staff on a schedule that will ensure adequate time for implementation of any corrective requirement prior to reaching the screening criterion.

(c) Duplication with Other Collections of Information There are no other NRC requirements regarding analyses for flux reduction or plant PTS safety analyses. However, materials infor-mation leading to calculation of an RT value for the reactor vesselissubmittedinresponsetothe$quirementsofAppendices G and H,10 CFR Part 50. For new plants, it appears in the FSAR.

During the operating life, the information is updated by the individual plant submittals that support requests for changes in the pressure-temperature limits given in Technical Specifications.

The new request for materials information (RT va in this proposed regulation is required becau b (lues) 1) thecontained calcula-tion of RT for PTS involves a new trend curve formula that contains nbel as one variable, and this represents a change from past practice which has yet to be adopted for normal operation; and (2) the calculation of RT for PTS purposes requires precise, updated data obtained in b y cases by the licensee in response to NRC concerns regarding PTS. In normal operation, there are cases where upper-bound estimates are used in the absence of complete data. For PTS, this can, in some cases, be unnecessarily conserva-tive, and an extra effort to obtain the data is required. For plants where complete data were available initially, this request will result in a verification (with quality assurance acceptable for PTS use) of earlier submittals.

(d) Consultations Outside NRC We have reviewed our overall PTS recomendations on several occasions with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),

. including the information gathering aspects. The ACRS was in basic agreement with our recomendations (letter to Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman, NRC, from P. Shewmon, Chairman, ACRS, October 14,1982).

We have also reviewed our recomendations with consultants under contract with us at Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Their recomendations are similar to ours. (NUREG/CR-2837, July 1982).

(e) Other Supporting Information None

2. Description of Information Collection (a) Number and Type of Respondents The licensees of all PWR plants would be subject to the regulation.

With respect to the three data collection aspects of the proposed regulation, it is estimated that forty seven plants would be affected by item (1), RT NnT assessment; approximately fifteen plants would be affected by item (2), flux reduction analyses; and between one and four plants would be affected by item (3), plant specific analyses.

(b) Reasonableness of schedule for Collecting Information The schedule is stated in 10 CFR 50.61.

50.61(b) The initial RT determination "must be submitted (three monthsaftertheeNctivedateoftheregulation)andmustbe updated whenever changes in core loading, surveillance measurements, or other information indicate a significant change in projected values."

We feel that it is vital to quickly assess, with reliable information, which PWR plants are nearest the screening criterion so that we know as early as possible which plants most quickly need to complete the flux reduction analyses (see 50.61(c)) and the safety analyses (see 50.61(d)) which results in identification of necessary corrective actions. Appendix H,

" Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements,"

10 CFR Part 50, requires monitoring the change in the reactor beltline region resulting from exposure to neutron irradiation

'and thermal environment. This information is available to both

< the licensee and the Commission. It would require only verification by the licensee and submittal to the NRC by letter to the docket. Therefore, the proposed schedule is reasonable.

, e l

50.61(c) "For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which the value of RT is projected to exceed the PTS screening criterion bbre the expiration date of the operating license, the licensee shall submit by (six months after the effective date of the regulation) an analysis and schedule for implementation of such flux reduction programs as are reasonably practicable to avoid exceeding the PTS screening criterion."

The flux reduction option must be implemented as soon as possible for maximum effectiveness. Without this early reporting of flux reduction analyses, when the PTS safety analyses (see 50.61(d)) are submitted, it may be too late to make use of this option.

Due to their own interest in safety and economy, licensees will have already analyzed flux reduction options before this rule is

, promulgated. Therefore, the schedule proposed to prepare and submit a report on the docket is reasonable.

50.61(d) "For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which the analysis required by 50.61(c) indicates that no reasonably practicable flux reduction program will prevent the values of RT from exceeding the PTS screening criterion before the exhation date of the operating license, the licensee shall submit a safety analysis to determine what, if any, modifica-tions to equipment, systems, and procedures are necessary to provide acceptable protection against potential failure of the reactor vessel as a result of postulated pressurized thermal shock events. This analysis shall be submitted at least three years before the value of RT is projected to exceed the PTS screeningcriterionorby(o$Tyear after the effective date of the regulation) whichever is later."

4 This is the final step to which all others lead, the identification of needed corrective actions. We believe the three year " lead time" before the screening criterion RT is exceeded represents the minimum time necessary to reviewN Ne analyses, recommend actions, promulgate a requirement by Commission action (if necessary), and have the licensee implement the necessary corrective actions. If less than three years are allowed and the required actions are not completed, plant shutdown could be necessary. Since this would be a plant-specific analysis, we believe a report on the plant's docket to be the most efficient submittal.

(c) Method of Collecting the Information The data and analyses are plant-specific and plant-unique and must be l required from each plant. They are vitally necessary for the NRC 4

I

staff's use in evaluating a potential safety concern and identifying corrective actions that may be required to alleviate that concern.

The staff members that will perform the evaluation are in the Washington, D.C. (NRC Headquarters) area and are in several different NRC organizational units. Reports filed on the plant docket and subsequently distributed to the reviewers appear to be the most efficient method. The flux reduction analyses and the RT analyses would probably be performed by different technical person E within the licensee's (or vendor's) organization. If the licensee wishes to combine the two reports into a single report with two major sections, that would be acceptable. This would require, however, that the entire report be submitted on a schedule compatible with the schedule of the RT assessment (the earliest due section). We would distributbopiesofthepropersectionstotheappropriateNRC organizations.

(d) Record Retention Period Compliance to the requirements of Section IV, " Report of Test Results" of Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50 ensures that the RT history is retained for the life of the plant. Therefore,tb regulation will not impose an additional licensee burden.

The flux reduction and safety analyses should also be retained until and unless the analyses are modified or revised.

(e) Reporting Period The RT and flux reduction information would be re-reported only when shificant changes are indicated, as already discussed.

(f) Copies Required to Be Submitted The required analyses will be prepared by the licensees and the report submitted for the docket. If additional copies are required of portions of the report (s) due to the number of reviewers involved, then they would be made internally.

3. Estimate of Licensee Burden The licensees of all PWR plants would be subject to the regulation. Our estimate is that forty seven plants would be subject to RT a and fifteen plants would be subject to flux reduction analhs.ssessment Depending on the success of these analyses, we estimate that from one to four plants would be subject to PTS safety analyses. The estimates shown below apply only to costs due to the actual reporting requirements. That is, they do not include costs of performing the assessments which would still be necessary even if there were no requirements to submit reports to the NRC.

(a) Estimated staff-hours

1) RT assessment - 100 staff hours per plant - (47 x 100 = 4,700 stNIhourstotal)

2) Flux reduction analyses - 100 staff hours per plant - (15 x 100 = I 1,500 staff hours total)

3) PTS safety analyses - 400 staff hours per plant (Estimate 2 plants = 800 staff hours).

Therefore, our total estimated annual staff hours will be 2.333 based on a total estimated staff hours expenditure of 7,000 staff-hours

, distributed over a three year period.

(b) Estimated cost

1) RT assessment - $5,000 per plant - $235,000 total

2) FlbTreduction analyses - $5,000 per plant - $80,000 total

3) PTS safety analyses - $20,000 per plant - from $20,000 to $80,000 (average of $40,000 for two plants).

Therefore, our estimated annual cost will be $118,300 based on a total expenditure of $355,000 distributed over a three year period.

The annual recordkeeping burden is included in our estimate.

(c) Source and method for estimating:

RT NDT assessment and flux reduction analyses.

1 The basic information is available to each licensee through ongoing reactor vessel integrity and surveillance programs. . The method for i

estimating is based on engineering judgment by the NRC staff and our understanding of the assessment of the integrity of the vessel. The cost estimate is based on $100,000 per staff year.

PTS safety analysis The estimate is based on the use of existing computer codes and modeling procedures. The estimate is based on the use of ten man-years, plant-specific modeling time, and twelve transient 4

calculations. Engineering judgment by the NRC staff and their consultants was the method used for the estimates.

. (d) Reasonableness of estimate !

The estimates given above represent the best judgment of the NRC staff, and are baseo on actual experience with the cost of such PTS j

analyses now being performed by NRC/RES contractors at ORNL, INEL, ;

and LANL.

)

O 4 l

i 4

4. Estimate of Cost to Federal Government The submittals by the licensee will be evaluated by the staff, at the estimated cost given below. Our estimate is based on the use of a charge of $100,000 per staff man-year, an average currently used by the national laboratories for estimation purpose.

1) RTNDT assessment We estimate that an RT determination will be submitted by forty seven licensees three N0kths after the effective date of the regula-tion. An RT assessment was completed by the staff as part of the PTSprojectNSbreportedinAppendixPofthe"NRCStaffEvaluationof Pressurized Termal Shock," November 1982.

The submittals will be evaluated by the Materials Engineering Branch and the Core Performance Branch. The total review time is estimated at 400 staff hours at an estimated cost of $20,000. The expenditure-will be equally divided in FY-83 and FY-84.

2) Flux reduction j It is estimated that an analysis and schedule for implementation of flux reduction programs will be submitted by fifteen licensees six months after the effective date of the regulation.

The submittals will be reviewed and evaluate'd by the Core Performance

+

Branch with assistance from Consultants and the Materials Engineering Branch. The total review time is estimated to be 600 staff hours at a cost of $33,000. The expenditure will be made in FY-84.

3) PTS safety analysis It is estimated that a PTS safety analyses will be submitted by from one to four licensees three years prior to the reactor vessel reaching the screening criterion or one year after the effective date of the regulation, whichever is later.

4 4

h

The PTS safety analyses will be reviewed and evaluated by the Core Performance Branch, Materials Engineering Branch, Reactor Systems Branch, Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch, and Procedures and Test Review Branch. We estimate the total review time for one submittal as follows:

Branch Staff Hours Consultant Total CPB . 240 $ 50,000 $ 30,000*

MTEB 100 -

5,000 RSB 1,500 $100,000 195,000**

RRAB 500 -

25,000 PTRB 100 -

5,000 Total 2,440 $150,000 $260,000

$3,000 computer time

- $40,000 computer time The expenditure will be made in FY-85 at an estimated cost from 3260,000 to approximately $1,000,000 depending on the number of submittal for review.

In summary, we estimate the annual cost to the Government at $155,000, based on a total estimated expenditure of $463,000 distributed over a three year period.

The total cost to the government is $463,000.

Staff Staff Consultant Total Task Branch Hours Cost Cost Cost RT ANNssment MTEB/CPB 400 $20,000 -

$20,000 Flux Reduction CPB/MTEB 600 $33,000 -

$33,000 PTS CPB 240 $30,000* $50,000 $80,000*

MTEB 100 5,000 -

5,000 RSB 1,500 195,000 100,000 295,000**

RRAB 500 25,000 -

25,000 PTRB 100 5,000 - 5,000 TOTAL 3,440 $313,000 $150,000 $463,000

Plus $3,000 computer time.

- Plus $40,000 computer time.

Part 20 OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT 10 CFR 50.64 (Proposed)

Limiting the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Research Reactors

1. Justification A. Need for the Collection of Information The Commission is considering amending its regulations to limit the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel in research and test reactors (nuclear non-power reactors). The proposed amendment generally would require that new non-power reactors use low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel and that existing non-power reactors replace HEU fuel with LEU fuel when available. l A Commission policy statement published August 24, 1982 (47 FR 37007), explains NRC's interest in ceducing the use of highly enriched uranium in research reactors. This interest stems from NRC's licensing responsibility for both domestic use and for export -

of HEU and concern about risks of theft or diversion of this material.

The policy statement also describes a continuing program to develop and demonstrate the technology ,that will facilitate the use of reduced enrichment fuels. The reduced enrichment for research and test reactors (RERTR) program was initiated by the Department of Energy (00E) and is managed by the Argonne National Laboratory. Its objective is to prove the ability of new low enriched uranium (LEU) fuels to replace existing HEU fuel without significant changes to existing reactor cores or facilities, or significant de.ce4-tm in per-formance characteristics of the reactors.

Information considered to date indicates that conversion of most non-power reactors from HEU fuel to LEU fuel will be technically fea-sible prior to or upon completion of the RERTR program. The informa-tion also shows that a major consideration is the cost of conversion.

NRC shares the licensees' expressed view that conversion costs should largely or entirely be financed by the Federal government. Histor-ically, the DOE and its predecessor agencies have provided signifi-cant support to research and test reactor programs. The availability.

of Federal support will be ccasidered in determining the availability of LEU fuel and final schedules for conversion.

The RERTR program's progress and anticipated success have encouraged NRC to undertake a rulemaking proceeding which would cause reduction

i in the use of HEU fuel in nuclear non-power reactors. In this pro-ceeding, the Comission considers that licensed non-power reactors now using HEU fuel are operated without significant risk to the health and safety of the general public and improved reactor safety is not the objective. The proceeding is intended only to cause replacement of HEU. This reduction is desirable because HEU, in appropriate form and quantity, can be used to make an explosive device.- LEU has relatively little value for this purpose.

The proposed rule is intended only to reduce the risk of theft or diversion of HEU fuel used in non-power reactors. The reduction in domestic use of HEU fuel may encourage similar action by foreign research reactor operators, and thersby reduce the amount of HEU fuel -

l in international use.

Under the proposed rule, non-power reactors would be required to use

' 'EU fuel or use HEU fuel of enrichment as close to 20% as is available and acceptable to the Commission. Section 50.64(d)(1) of the proposed rule states that any request with supporting documentation for a determination that a reactor has a unioue purpose must be submitted within 6 months of the effective date of the rule.

Section 50.64(d)(2) of the ' proposed rule requires each non-power reactor licensee authorized to possess and use HEU fuel to develop and submit, within 12 months of the effective date of the rule, to the NRC's Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a proposed schedule for conversion to LEU fuel or to use HEU fuel as .

close t 20% as is available and acceptable to the Commission. This proposed schedule will be based upon the availability of replacement fuel acceptable +.o the NRC and consideration of other factors such as the availability of shipping casks, financial support, and reactor usage. A final schedule will then be determined by the Director.

Section 50.64(d)(3) states that in cases where replacement of HEU fuel with LEU fuel does not change the technical specifications incorporated in the license or involve an unreviewed safety question, that licensee shall maintain records and furnish reoorts as specified in 10 CFR 50.59(b). In those cases -in which conversion to LEU changes the technical specifications incorporated in the license or involves an unreviewed safety question, the licensee shall file an amendment in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90.

B. Practical Utility of the Collection of Information A respondent will submit a request with supporting information pursu-ant to 10 CFR 50-64(d)(1) to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The Director will use the information to make a determination that the nuclear non-power reactor has a unique purpose as defined in 10 CFR 50.64(b)(3).

A respondent will develop and submit to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.64(d)(2) a proposed

schedule for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.64c)(2) or (3).

The proposed schedule must be based upon availability of replacement fuel acceptable to the Commission and consideration of other factors such as the availability of shipping casks, fincncial support, and reactor. The director will use the proposed schedule plus the results of the successful accomplishment of the tasks set out in DOE's RERTR program and the development of commercially available replacement fuel to determine a final schedule.

C. Duplication of Other Collections of Information A rulemaking is under consideration on 10 CFR 73.67, addressing the problem of improving physical security provisions at non-power reactors <

using HEU, as an interim measure, until such time as those non-power reactors are converted to LEU. However, information collected under 650.64 will not duplicate information collected under 673.67.

D. Consultations Outside the NRC The development of the proposed rule has considered extensive com-nents from the U.S. State Department, the Department of Energy, and the non-power reactor owners. Implementation of the rule as proposed will require extensive coordination between NRC, DOE, and the affected licensees.

2. Description of the Information Collection -

A. Number and Type of Respondent The NRC anticipates 31 respondents on a one-time basis during the 1-year time period following the effective date of the rule. Each of these non-power reactor owners will also have the uption of applying for an exemption from converting to LEU fuel based on the unique pur-pose of the non-power reactor. It is anticipated that between 2 to 6 respondents will request a unique purpose determination

, [950.64(d)(1)] and all of the 31 respondents will submit a proposed schedule for conversion to LEU fuel or for use of HEU fuel of enrich-ment as close to 20% as is available and acceptable to the Commission

[150.64(d)(2)].

B. Reasonableness of the Schedule for Collecting Information Request for unique purpose under -10 CFR 50.64(d)(1) will require an evaluation of facility purpose against the definitions in 10 CFR 50.64(b)(3). Six months is believed to be a reasonable schedule for comparing existing facility " purpose" against 10 CFR 50.64(b)(3) provisions.

The proposed schedule for_ meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2) or (3) will require a comparison between the licensee's existing fuel design and fuels developed or projected for development

under the documented RERTR program. Coordination with NRC to formu-late proposed schedules for regulatory review and with DOE to develop fuel procurement and supporting eouipment schedules will be required.

Twelve months is considered a reasonable time for development of the 4

proposed schedule.

C. Method of Collecting the Information Submission of a letter with supporting documentation or a proposed schedule is the only perceived method of transmitting the required information that will allow careful and complete review.

D. Format of Information to be Maintained or Submitted o The information will be submitted in letter form.

E. Records Retention Period i

The records referenced in 650.64(d)(3) have a retention period that is specified in 10 CFR 50.59(b) for the holder of a license authoriz-ing operation of a utilization facility.

F. Reporting Period These requests and proposed schedules will be submitted once during o -

the facility 10 CFR 50.64(c)p(erating 2)or(3).lifetime prior to meeting the requirements in G. Copies Required to be Submitted The NRC will accept one original copy to allow the Director to make the determinations in 10 CFR 50.64(d)(1) and (2) of the rule.

3. Estimate of Burden A. Section 50.64(d)(1). Approximately 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months per response for each of between two and six respondents will be required to develop the request with supporting documentation for a " unique purpose" deter-mination to be submitted to the Director of the Office of Nuclear P.eactor Regulation. This is a one-time response within 6 months of the ~ effective date of the rule, so the total burden for the respon-

. dents is between 400 and 1,200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months . Total cost at $60 per hour is between $24,000 and $72,000.

B. Section 50.64(d)(2). Approximately 120 hours0.00139 days 0.0333 hours 1.984127e-4 weeks 4.566e-5 months per response for each of approximately 31 respondents will be required to develop the proposed schedule and submit the proposed schedule to NRC. This is a one-time response within 12 months of the effective date of the rule, so the total burden is approximately 3720 hours0.0431 days 1.033 hours 0.00615 weeks 0.00142 months . Total cost at $60 per hours is $223,200.

~

C. Section 50.64(d)(3). This section references information collection requirements (recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.59(b) or application for an operating license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(c) and 10 CFR 50.90) that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under approval number 3150-0011. The approval covers information collection burdens for all holders of licenses authorizing operation of a utilization facility.

D. Burden estimates based on discussions with NRR staff who have been through the licensing process with these reactors previously.

4 Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government A. Section 50.64(d)(1). NRC staff time for making a determination for each of the two to six " unique purpose" reactor requests will require approximately 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months . The total staff time for the (estimated) two to six requests would be between 1,200 and 3,600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months . Total cost at $60 per hours would be between 572,000 and $216,000.

B. Section 50.64(d)(2). NRC staff time for consideration of a schedule proposed by a non-power reactor licensee and determination of a final schedule will require approximately 140 hours0.00162 days 0.0389 hours 2.314815e-4 weeks 5.327e-5 months for each of approxi-mately 31 licensees for a total of 4,340 hours0.00394 days 0.0944 hours 5.621693e-4 weeks 1.2937e-4 months . Total cost at $60 per hour is $260,400.

C. Section 50.64(d)(3). This section references information collections -

for which costs to the Federal government (review of applications for an operating license amendment) have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under approval number 3150-0011.

4 I e

REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS Document Number Document Title Un-numbered Lists Regulatory Guides NUREG-0642 Revision 1 A Review of NRC Regulatory Processes and Functions Regulatory Guide 1.70 Rev. 3 Standard Format and Safety Analysis Report for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition)

NRC Form 366 Licensee Event Report Regulatory Guide 1.28 Quality Assurance Program Require-Revision 2, and ments (Design and Construction)

Revision 3 (Proposed)

Regulatory Guide 1.88 Collection, Storage, and Mainte-Revision 2 nance of Nuclear Pcwer Plant Quality Assurance Records NUREG-0660, Volumes 1 and 2, NRC Action Plan Developed as a Revision 1 Result of the TMI 2 Accident NUREG-0737, and Supplement 1 Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements NUREG-0546 Technical Specifications Regulatory Guide 1.15 Reporting of Operating Information Revision 4 Appendix A, Technical Specifica-tions Regulatory Guide 1.21 Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Revision 1 Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants Regulatory Guide 4.1 Programs for Monitoring Radioac-Revision 1 tivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants NUREG-0472 Draft Radiological Effluent Tech-Revision 3 nical Specifications for PWR's NUREG-0473 Draft Radiological Effluent Tech-Revision 2 nical Specifications for BWR's s , _ _ _ - __ . _. _ _ . __.

REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS (Continued)

Document Number Document Title Issued by letter Branch Technical Position, Revi-dated November 27, 1979 sion 1, dated November 1979 from W. Gammill, NRC, to (Radiological Assessment)

All Power Reactor Licensees NUREG-0161 Instructions for Preparation of Data Entry Sheets for Licensee Event Report (LER) File Regulatory Guide 4.8 Environmental Technical Specifi-cations for Nuclear Power Plants NUREG-0713 Volume 1 Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commerical Nuclear Power Reactors 1979 NUREG-0654 Revision 1 Criteria for Preparation and Evalua-tion of Radiological Emergency-Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants NUREG-0452 Revision 4 Standard Technical Specifications -

for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors NUREG-0212 Revision 2 Standard Technical Specification (STS) for Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR)

NUREG-0103 Revision 4 STS for Babcock and Wilcox PWR NUREG-0123 Revision 3 STS for Boiling Water Reactors (BWR/5)

NUREG-0799 For Comment Draft Criteria for Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan NUREG-0906 Guidance for Implementation of Standard Review Plan Rule 50.34(g)

Regulatory Guide 1.99 Effects of Residual Elements on Revision 1 Predicted Radiation Damage to Reactor Vessel Materials CRGR Charter NUREG-1070 (unpublished) Severe Accident Policy w . - -. . - -. .

~^

4 %

REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS (Continued)

Document Number Document Title NUREG-0588 Interim Staff Position on Environ-Revision 1 mental Qualification (EQ) of Safety-Related Electrical Equip-ment.

Regulatory Guide 1.89 EQ of Safety-Related Electrical Revision 1 Equipment -

Regulatory Guide X.XX Guidance and Acceptance Criteria (proposed) regarding the Pressurized Ther-mal Shock Rule, 10 CFR 50.61 NUREG-1055 Improving Quality and the Assurance (proposed) of Quality in the design and Con-struction of Nuclear Power Plants NUREG-0844 NRC Integrated Program (Draft) for the Resciution of Unresolved Safety issues A-3, A-4, and A-5 Regarding Steam Generator Tube -

Integrity NUREG/CR-3137 Guidelines for Seismic and Dynamic (unpublished) Qualification of Safety related Electrical and Mechanical Equip-ment.

! NUREG-1061 Report of the U.S. Nuclear Volumes 1 Regulatory Commission Piping Review Committee s

..y -. . , _ .

. s -

. .T-Enclosure 4 Proposed 10 CFR 50.4 1

}

i I

l

{

._. _ . . -\

1 N '

11884 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 58 / Tuesday. March 25, 1985 / Proposed Rules Th2 Commission's ultimate goalis'the our understanding of phenomena for demonstration of an advanced reactor approval of essentially complete which analytical methods are needed in concept prior to finallicensing of a standard plant designa. However, regulatory activities. commercial facility?

advanced reactor designers and prosprctive construction permit Questions Dated at Washington. D.C. this :tst day of March 1985.

applicatts are encouraged not to wait A number of basic issues were until detailed designs are complete. but identified in development of this pol. icy For the Nuclear Regulatory Comunission.

ts submit technicalinformation on their statemer4.The Commission requests Iohn C. hoi I** ,

proposed conceptual designs as far in comments from allinterested parties on Acting Secretary of the Comau,ssion.

advcnce of application as practicable, the foUowing questions, as well as on [HL Doc. abrisa Filed 3 25-as; eas am) si that NRC staff may evaluate any other aspects of the policy neo coon rue w fundtmental safety characteristics in a statement:

timely manner 1. Should NRC's regulatory approach To enhance Commission participation be revised to reduce dependence on to CFR Part 50 End contm' us'ty m' the review f prescripuve regulatmns and. instead.

advanced reactors, and advanced establish less prescriptive design Communications Procedures reactors group as been established in objectives, such as performance Amendmenta the Office of Nuclear Reactor standards?!f so. In what aspects of -

nuclear p wer plant design (for a QENcy: Nuclear Regulatory Regulation.This group will be the focal Cmission.

example. reactor core power density, pomt for NRC interaction with the Dip!rtment of Energy, designers reactor core heat removal. containment. O'c Pmpose .

(domtstic and foreign) and potential and siting) might the performance standards approach be applied most suumany: The Nuclear Regulatory applicants and will prepare a plan for Commission (NRC) proposes to enend the development of regulatory criteria effectively? How could implementation of these performance standards be its regulations that establish the for licensir:g proposed advanced verified? procedures for submitting reactors. In addition. the group wit provide guidance on an NRC. funded 2. Should the regulations for advanced correspondence, reports applicationa, or reactors require more inherent safety other written communications pertaining advanced reactor research program to ensure that it supports and is consistent margin in their design? If so, should the to the domestic licensing of production emphasis ce on providing features that and utilizatics facilities. The proposed with. the Commission's advanced rsactor polic/. The Advisory Committee permit more time for operator response amendments indicate the correct matimg to off-normal conditions. or should the address for delivery of the on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will play communications and specify the number a significant role in reviewing proposed emphasis be on providing systems that advanced reactor design concepts and are capable of functioning under of copies required to facilitate action by .

conditions that exceed the design basis? the NRC. 'Ite proposed amend:.ents. if supporting activities.

3. Should licensing regulations for adopted. are expected to resolve a The Commission would also like to be advanced reactors mandate simplified number of problems that have informed as early as possible of new desig=s which require the fewest developed during the past several years design concepts under construction by operator actions. and the mimmum . regarding the sub=ittal cf applications the nuclearindustry so that the staff can number of components needed fer and reports. In addition to clarifying the review and comment on their safety achieving and maintaining safe procedures, these amendments will and. If necessary, support confirmatory shutdown conditions, thereby result in a reduction in reproduction and restarch on them. While the NRCitself facilitating operator comprehension and postage costa for the affected !;censees.

do:s not develop new designs. the reliable system function for off.nor:qal naTE: Comment period expires May 23 Commission intends to develop the conditions?

capibility for timely, appropriate 1985. Comments received after this date 4.Should the NRC develop general will be considered if it is practical to do assissment and response to innovative design criteria for advanced reactors by sad advanced designs that miist be so, but assurance of consideration modifying the existing regulations, cannot be given except for those prisInted for NRC review. Prior which were developed for the current exp:rience has shown that new reactor comments received on or before this generation of light water reactors. or by date.

designs-even variations of established developing a new set of general design design-may involve technical problema criteria applicable to specific concepta anoRassts: Interested persons are that must be identified and solved in which are brought before the invited to submit written comments and ordIt to assure adequate protection of Commission? suggestions to the Secretary of the tha public health and safety.N eather 5. Should the NRC favor advanced Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory such design problems are Identified, the reactor designs that concentrate the Commission. Washing'on. DC 20555.

eartirr satisfactory resolution can be primary safety functions in very few Attention: Docketing and Services achieved. When informing the NRC of large systems (rather than in multiple &anch.

new concepts under consideration, subsystems), thereby mwh~ the FOR FURTHER INFORMaTION COPrrACTt prospective applicants should need for complex benent and cost Steve Scott. Document Management undirstand that they are responsible for balancing in the engineering of safe Branch. Division of Technical all research necessary to support any reactors? Information and Document Control, sp:cific license application. NRC 6. What degree of proof would be Office of Administration. Nuclear rssearch is conducted only to provide sufficient for the NRC to find that a new Regulatory Commission. Washington, the technical bases for rulemaking and design is based on technology which is DC 20555. Telephone: (MI) 492-8585. '

r:gulatory decisions: to support either proven or can be demonstrated by sueet.ansestrany wonwarioec Because licensing and inspection activities: to a satisfactory technology development essess the feasibility and effectiveness of recent revisions to the NRC's program? For example. is it necessary or requirements for the submittal of cf safety improvements: and to increase advisable to reqmre a prototypical information by applicants and licenseen.

O 6 M Federal ~ Register /.Vol. 50. No. sa / Tuesday. March 28. 1985 / Proposed Rules 11885 confusion has arisen with regard to copy Act of 1980 (44 US.C. 3501 et seq.). .

PART 50-(AMENDED 1 requirements and proper submittal These requirements were approved by procedures. In an effort to clarify these the Office of Management and Badget The authority citation for this matters, the NRC issued Regulatory approval number 3150-0011. document is:

Guide 10.1 (Revision 4) " Compilation of . (Sedet. Pub.1. as-m3. ea Sts t, s4a. a:

Reporting Requirements for Persons Regulatory Analysis amended (4 U.SE ::ct), and Sec. :02. Pub.

Subject to NRC Regulations." and on The Commission has prepared a draft L 93-4s8. as Stst.1:4:(4 U.S.C.so42D August 8.1982 the Director. Division of 1.icensing. Office of Nuclear Reactor . regulatory analysia on this proposed 1. Section 50.4 is revised to read as Regulation. lasued Generic letter 82-14 regdat on.ne analysis enmines the foUows:

" Submittal of Documents costs and benefits of the alternatives Regulatory Commission.,to the considered by the Cc= mission. The Nuclear I 50 4 " " * " * * * * " * * * * " * -

While these efforts at clarincanon resolved =uch of draft analysis is available for inspection (a) Addnss requimments.ne signed

'" in the NRC Pubuc Document Room.1717 original of all correspondence, reports.-

on de tons e conce a:id H Street NW. Washington. DC 0535. applications and other written Single copies of the analysis may be communications frem the applicant or r f re. t h issuin t a r e to obtained from Steve Scott. Office of licensee to the Nuclear Regulatory specify copy requirements and provide Administration. US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning the regulations mailing instructions.The rule also Commission. Washington. DC 20555: in this part or individuallicense ,

clariSes the current requirement in telephone 301-492-28585. conditions must be addressed to the US.

I 50.30 for making an updated copy of The Commission requests public Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ATTN:

the application available at an comment on the draft regulatory apprcpriate oDice near the site for hy5*nt Centrol Desk. Washington.

analysis. Comments on the draft inspection by the public. analysis may be submitted to the NRC (b) Distribution requirements. Copies This rule supersedes all existing as indicated under the ADDRESSES of a Correspondence. reports, and other

'l requirements and guidance with respect heading. written communications concerning the to the number of copies and mailing regulations in this part orindividual procedures.This rule codifies NRC Regulatory Flexibility Certiacation license conditions =ust be submitted to actions to reduca copy requirements. For Statement the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at exa=ple i 50.30 would be amended to the locations and in the quantities set reduce copy requirements for B* *d " " the info **D' " ***ilab!*

" gi,]' forth below (addresses for the NRC amendment applications from 60 to 40; t ,g p c ,e and in ace rda with the Y "" " " "

copy requirements for heensee reports

ch*

would be reduced to three.De Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby (1) Pemuts.hcenses, and proposed rule would reduce overaU the cedEn M If Pto ted. Ws & cmendments. Each licensee er apph, cant nu=ber of copies transmitted to the shan submit any written Commissio::.These changes would will not have a significant economic impact epon a substantial number of communications as definedin result in reduced reproduction and paragraphs (b)(1) (i) through (xxi) of this postage costs for licensees, small entities. The proposed rule would The proposed rule would also remove ~ amend to CFR 50 by spec @ing section, which are required for an from i 50.4. special submittal submittalprocedures which facilitate application for a construction permit.

operating license, or amendment of .

require =ents for the Fort St. Vrain - NRC processing. The rule is expected to these, as follows, except as otherwise Nuclear Cenerating Station. The rule affect nuclear generating facilities by speciEed in this sectiom the signed would not affect the authority and reducing the overall regulatory burden original and 37 copies to the Nuclear responsibility delegated to the Regional of reproducing and transmitting Regulatory Commission. Document Administrator of Region IV for submittsls to the Commission. Control Desk. Washington. DC 20535.

imple=enting selected parts of the Therefore;it is not expected to have a one copy to the appropriate Regional nuclear reactor licensing program for the significant economic i= pact on any Office and one copy to the appropriate Fort St. Vrain Cenerating Station. licensee. However, comments on the Undesignated paragraphs in the NRC Resident inspector. if applicable:

expected economicimpact of this (1) Application for exemption pursuant amended text have been designated and proposed rule on any small entity are obsolete titles of URC personnel have welcome. to i 50.12:

been update i to reflect current NRC (ii) Application (including any titles. I.lst of Subjects in 10 CTR Part 50 applicable drawings, maps, photographs. modela, or computer Environ:rantal Impact: Categorical Antitrust. Classified informa tion. Fire pnntouts) for an operating license.

- Faclusion prevention. Incorporation by reference, construction permit. or amendment Intergovernmental relations. Nuclear The NRC has determined that this pursuant to i150.30 through 50.49, and power plants and reactors. Penalty. any communications from the applicant preposed rule is the type of action a Radiation protection. Reactor siting to the Commission pertaining to an a n h'3 che criteria. Reporting und recordkeeping application except as otherwise envirenmentalimpact statemer.t nor an mnmen a. speciDed in Ws section:

environmental assessment has been For the reasons set out in the (iii) AdditionalThu.related prepared for this proposed rule. preamble and under the authonty of the requirements pursuant to i 50.34(f):

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended. (iv) Request for approval of design the Energy Reorganization Act of1974. feature or speci5 cation pursuant to his proposed rule amends as amended, and 5 U.S.C.553 the NRC l 50.35(b):

information collection requirements that is proposing to adopt the following (v) Analysis of hydrogen control are subject to the Paperwork Reduction amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. system pursuant to I SOL 44(c)(3)(vi)( A):

l

J M886 Federal Registee / Vol 50. No. 58 / Tuesday, March *

8.1985- / Proposed Rules (vi) Proposed schedule for meeting the Office, and one copy to the appepriate (xx) L!censee Event Report (LER) and requirements for a hydrogen control ' NRC ResidentInspector,if applicable: supplemental information pursuant to systm pursuant to i 50.44(c)(3)(vii)(A); . (i) Periodic report of the progress and i 50J3 (c) and (dh (vil) Analysis to ensure safe plant resulta of research and development (xxi)Information regarding operation pending completion of . programs pursuant to i 50.35(b) modification of structures, systems, or (quipment qualification pursuant to (ii) NotiScation of exceeding any components of a facility pursuant to i 50.49(i): safety limit for nuclear reactors (viii) Application for amendment of pursuant to i 50.36(c)(1)(i)(A): - i 50.109(c):

tecimical specifications pursuant to (iii) Notification of exceeding any (xxii) Information regarding reactor safety limit for a fuel reprocessing plant vessel beltline materialinservice i 50.55a(s)(5)(iih program pursuant to Appendix G.V.E. of (ix)Information demonstrating pursuant to i 50.36(c)(1)(1)(Bh compliance with requirements for (ly) Notification of failure of an reduction of risk from anticipated automatic safety system to function as this[

( i]art Proposed withdrawalschedule required for nuclear reactors pursuant to g g transients without scram (ATWS) ,

( ) Ap for xemp o o o of failure of an (xxiv) Repon of capsule dawal g). automatic alarm or protective device to and fracture toughness tests pursuant to i) li or transfer oflicense function a,s required for a fuel Appendix H.III.A of this part pursuant to 150.80(b). reprocessmg plant pursuant to (xxv) Report of release in excess of, (xii) Application for termination of 150.36(c)(1)(li)(B): design object 2ves pursuant to Append 2x (vi) Notification of failure to meet

~

licinse pursuant to i 50.82(a): 1.IV.A.3 of this part:

(xiii) Application for amendment of limiting conditions for operating (xxvi) Reactor containment building lic:nse or construction permit pursuant (Licensee Event Report) pursuant to lategrated leak rate test pursuant to to l.50.90, except as provided in i 50.36(c)(2h Appendix J.V.B of this part.

p:ragraph (b)(4) of this section relating (vil) Reports required by approved technical spec'fications pursuant to (3) Acceptance review opplication.

In safeguards information: .

Written co=munications required for an (xiv) Analysis of no significant 150.36(c)(5). These reports include but application for determination of huards consideration pursuant to are n t limited to the following startup suitability for docketing pursuant to y g gg. reports periodic operating reports.

source age repons, annual I 50.30(a)(6) must be submitted as (xv)Information concerning the follows: the signed original and 13 modification of structures, systems or envir nmentalreports (Parts A and B).

copies to the Nuclear Regulatory components of a facility pursuant to and n nroutine environmental operatin8 Commission. Document Control Desk.

I 50.109, upons:

S a Washington. DC 20555 and one copy to (xvi) 5 valuation of the potential for ase *

, the appropriate Regional Office.

effects from lor:g-term buildup of (ix) Schedule for qualification of I4I 8'###I'TEIC" C#d #'IC'#d radioactive materialin the environment al ' . submit!c!s. Written communications, as pursuant to Appendix 1" Concluding

'I E" ' af' p ,".a, to i f9

defined in paragraphs (b)(4) (i) through Statement of Position of the Regulatory (iv) of this section must be submitted as Staff. A.3.a of this part: (x) Reguest for extension of submittal deadline pursuant to i 50.49(g). follows: the signed origmal and three (xvii) Complete listing of each copies to the Nuclear Regulatory computer program used in emergency (xi) Notification of a significant problem requiring extension of Commission. Document Control Desk, core cooling system (ECCS) evaluatson completion date pursuant to i 50.49(h); Washington, DC 20555, and two copies model pursuant to Appendix K.II.1.c of to the appropriate Regional Office:

this pan: (xii) Change to the Safety Analysis (xvm) Application for a manufacturing Report quality assurance program (l) Physical security plan pursuant to licease pursuant to Appendix M of this description pursuant to i 50.54(a)(3) or l 50.34:

pan: i 50.55(fll3): (ii) Safeguards contingencrylan (xix) Application for h,eense to (xii ) Statement to enable the pursuant to i 50.34:

construct and operate nuclear power Commission to determine whether a (lii) Change to security plan or license should be modified. suspended. safeguards contingency plan made reactors of the same design pursuant to or revoked pursuant to i 50.54(f):

Appendix f of this part (xiv) Report of levels of insurance or without prior Commission approval (xx) Preliminary or final standard pursuant to i 50.54(p):

financial protection pursuant to d; sign for a nuclear power reactor - (iv) Safeguards information contained pursuant to Appendix 0 of this part and 150.54(w)(4)$uction deficiency in an application for amendment report (xv) Const pumant 2 i M

, (xxi) Application for early site and interim deficiency report pursuant suitability review pursuant to Appendix to i 50.55(e)(3): (5) En*ergencyplon ondre/oted Q of this part. (xvi) Notification of impracticality of submitrols. Written communications as (2) Reports andother conforming with code requirements defined in paragraphs (b)(5) (i) through communications. Written pursuant to I 50.55a(g)(5)(iii); . (iii) in this section. must be submitted as ,

communications.as defined in (xvil) Annual report of changes. tests follows:"the signed original to the l paragraphs (b)(2) (i) through (xxvi) of and experiments pursuant to I 50.59(b): Nuclear Regulatory Commission. '

this section, that are required of holders (xviii) Reports required by the Nuclear Document Control Desk. Washiraton, cf cperating license or construction Regulatory Commission pursuant to DC 20555. two copies to the appropnate ptrmits. must be submitted as follows: 150J1(a). e.g responses to Bulletins Regional Office and one copy to the the signed original to the Nuclear issued by the Nuclear Regulatory approprtate NRC Resident inspector:

Regulatory Commission. Document Commissicru (i) Emergency plan pursuant to i 50.34:

Control Desk. Washington. DC 20535. (xix) Annual financial report pursuant (ii) Change to an emergency plan ene copy to the appropriate Regional to i 5051(b): pursuant to 150.54(q):

I

Federal Regist:r / V$t. 50.' Nr. 58 / Tu:sday. March 26. 1985 / ProposId Rules 11C37 (iii) Emergency implementing

2. In i 50.12. the introductory language accordance with the requirements of procedures pursuant to Appendix E.V of of paragraph (b)is revised to read as this part.

this part. follows: (5) At the time of filing an application.

(e) UpdatedESAR. An updsted Final the Commission will establish a Local i sea 2 specmc esempuona. Public Document Room near the site of Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or * * * *

replacement pages. pursuant to the proposed facility, for the use of the i 50.71(e) must be submitted as follows: (b) Any person may request an public, where a copy of the application.

the signed original and to copies to the exemption permitting the conduct of subsequent amendments, and other Nuclear Regulatory Commission, activities pnor to the issuance of a records pertinent to the facility will be Document Control Desk. Washington. construction permit prohibited by available for public inspection and DC 20555 one copy to the appropnate i 50.10.The request must be submitted copying.

Regional Office, and one copy to the as specified in i 50.4.The Commission (6) The serving of copies required by appropriate NRC Reg! dent inspector. may grant such an exemption upon this section must not occur until the (7) Quality assurchce topicaireport considenng and balancing the following application has been docketed pursuant changes. A change to,an NRC. accepted factors: to i 2.101(a) of this chapter. Copies must quahty assurance tcpicai report . . . .

be submitted to the Commission, as desenption pursuant to i 50.54(a)(3) or 3. In i 50.30. paragraphs (a) and (b) specified in i 50.4. to enable the 150.55(f)(3) must be submitted as are revised to read as follows and Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor follows: one signed original to the pragraph (c) is removed. Regulation. or Director. Office of ~

Nuclear Regulatory Commission- Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

Document Control Desk. Washington. I 50.30 . Finng of appdcanon for Heensea; as appropnate, to determine whether the DC:0555. catn or stormsuon. application is sufficiently complete to (c) Form ofcommunications. All (a) Serving of applications. [1) Each permit docketing.

copies submitted to meet the filing of an application for a license to (b) Cath or effirmetion. Each

.. . requirements set forth in paragraph (b) construct and/or operate a production application for a license, including of this section must be typewntten. or utilization facility (including whenever appropriate a construction printed or otherwise reproduced in amendments to the applications) must permit. or amendment of it, and each permanent form on unglazed paper. be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear amendment of each application must be Excepuons to these requirements may Regulatory Commission in accordance executed in a signed original by the be granted for the submittal of with ! 50.4. applicant or duly authonzed officer (2) An additional 10 copies of the thereof under oath or affirmation.

h I orms. r to a ing any generalinformati n and 30 copies of the . . . . .

submittal in other than paper form, the safety analysis report, or part thereof or 4. In 5 50.36 paragraph (c)(5) is revised applicant or licensee must contact the amendment thereto. must be retained by to read as follows:

Division of Technical Information and

e a e e nstructim I m36 Technical speemeaum:

o i ion, as DCic 55 of the Director. Office of Nuclear . .

r

Telephone (301) 492-6585. to obtain Reactor Regulation, or the Director.

specifications, copy requirements, and (c) * * '

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and (5) Ac'ministrative controls.

pner approval. Safeguards as appropriate. Administrative controls are the (d) Delivery of communications.

Written communications may be (3) Each applicant shall. upon provisions relating to organization and notification by the Atomic safety and management. procedures.

delivered to the Document Control Desk I.lcensing Board appointed to conduct recordkeeping. review and audit. and at 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, MD.

the public hearing required by the reperting necessary to assure operation between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 4:00 Atomic Energy Act for the issuance of a of the facility in a safe manner. Each p.m. Eastern Time. licensee shall submit any reports to the (e) Citation of regulatory tequirement. construction permit. update the All correspondence, reports, and other application and serve the updated ' Cern .itrir muant to approved copies of the application or parts of it, technical spee..'. cations as specified in written communications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission eliminating all superseded information. I 50.4.

pursuant to the regulations of this part together with an index of the updated . . . . .

must cite in the upper right corner of the application.as directed by the Atomic 5 In 50.36a. paragraph (a)(2)is revned first page of the submittal the specific Safety and ucensing Board. In addition. to read as follows:

' rerdato?i requiring submission. at that time the applicant shall serve a I #f) Conflicting requirements. If there is copy of the updated application on the 150.36a Technical specitications on l Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal emuents from nuclear power reactors.

a conflict between the Commission's regulations in this part, a hcense Panel Any subsequent amendment to (a) * *

condition or technical specification, or the application must be served on those (2) Each licensee shall submit a report other written Commission approval or served copies of the application and to the Commission within 60 days af ter authorization pertaining to the submittal must be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear January 1 and July 1 of each year. that requirements for the same type of Regulatory Commission as specified in specifies the quantity of each of the application or report. the submittal I 50.4. pnncipal radionuclides released to requirements specified in the regulations (4)The applicant must make a copy of unrestncted areas in liquid and in in this part for the applications and the updated application available at the gaseous effluents during the previous six reports apply unless the Commission. public heanns for the use of any other months of operation. including any other pursuant to i 50.12 grants a specific parties to the proceeding. and shall information as may be required by the exemption from the submittal certify that the updated copies of the Commission to estimate maximum requirements specified in the regulations application contain the current contents potential annual radiation doses to the in this part. of the application submitted in public resulting from effluent releases.

~

s.: . .

U883 Federal Regrstar / Vol. 50. No. sa / Tuesday, March 26, iss5 / Proposed Rules ne report must be sub=itted'as consideration prior to the granting of an license pursuant to i 50.s0. De beensee speciSed in i 50.4. If quantities of operating beense and must include. . may make changes to the security plan r-dioactive matenals released during - where appropriate, consideration of: or to the safeguards contingency plan th2 reporung period are @cantly * * * *

without prror Commirsion approvalif r bove design objectives, the report must 8. In 50.54. tb introductory language the chacger do not decreare the cover this specfically. On the basis of of paragraph (a)(3).(a)(3)(il.(f) the safeguards effectiveness of the plam ne these repons and any addit >cnal introductory language of (p) (q). and licensee shad maintain reccrds of informabon the Commission may obtain (w)(4) are revised to read as follows: changes to the plana made withcot prior from the licensee or others, the Commission approval for a period of Commission may require the licensee to j 54.54 conduone of sems.

two years from the date of the change, take action as the Commission deems and shall submit, as specified in 150.4. a appropriate. (a) * *

report containing a description of each (3) After March 11.1983, each lic,ensee change within two months after the

8. In i 50.44. paragraphs (c)(3)(vi)(A) . describeo in paragraph (a)(1) of this change is made. Pnor to the safeguards and (c)l3)(vGl!A) are revised to read as sect 2cn may make a change to a contingency plan being put into effect.

fonows: previously accepted quality assreance tha ucensee shah have propam description included or * * * *'

j 50.44 Standards for combust 2de gas referenced in the Safety Analys:s -

control erstem in itsnt water cooled poww Report, provided the change does not (q) A licensee authorized to possess

"**** and/or operate a noclear powerreactor

* * *

reduce the commitments in the pregam description previously accepted by the shall follow and maintain in effect ICI * *

NRC. Changes to the quality ass 2rance emergency plans which meet the (3} , progam description that do not reduce standards in 150.47(b) and the

.(vi)(A) Each appb. cant fer or holder cf the ecm=it=ents rnust be subcutted to requirements in Appendix E to this part.

cn operating bcense for a boiling light- the NRC at least annually in accordance A licensee authorized to possess and/or water nuclear powerreactor with a with the reqmrements of i 5071. operate a researth reactor or a fuel Marx III type of containment or for a Changes to the quality assursnee facility shaU follow and maintain in pressu-ized light water nec! ear power effect emergency plans which meet the propam desenption that do reduce the

- reaeto wt a::1ce ' P* c mmitmenta must be submitted to NRC requirements in Appendix E of this part.

g g , d s uc on and receive NRC approval prior to ne nuclear power teactor licensee may permit before March 2.19:'9. shad implementatloc. as follows: make changes to these plans without submit an analysis to the Coc:=ission (i) Changes made to the Safety Commission approvalonlyif the as specined in 15at Analysis Report must be submitted, as changes do not decrease the speci5ed in i 50.4. Changes made to effectiveness of the plans ar.d the plans. -

(di)(A) By June 25.1985 each NRC-accepted quality assurance topical as changed. continue to meet the apph.eant for or holder of an operatin8 report dese:iptions must be submitted. standard cf I 50.47(b) and the license subject to the require =ents of . as specified in i 50.4. requirements of Appendix E of this part.

~

pararaphs (c)(3) (iv). (v) and (vil cf this . . . .

De research reactor licensee and/or the

, section shau develop and submit to the (f) ne licensee sbil at any time fuel facility IIcensee may make changes Ccc:missica. as specified in i 50.4. a to these plans without em wn;on before expiration si the license, upon preposed schedcle for meeting these approval, only if these r2 unges do not request of the C'.ama:ission submit. as s h ' be specSed in l',0.4. wntten statementa, decrease the eIIectiveness of the plans

{ j'd s eF d d"E^8 'stgned unde oath or affir=ation. to and the plans, as changed, conti:nre to systems previously approved for the enable the Commission to determine meet the requirements of Appedix E of I cility by the NRC. this part. Proposed changes that

, , whether or not the license should be modified. suspended, or revoked. decrease the effectiveness of the

7. In [ !M9. parapaph (h) and the . * * *

approved emergency plans abau nct be introductory language of paragaph (i) implemented without application to and (p) ne licensee shaU prepare and are redsed to read as follows- approval by the Comminion. The maintain safeguards contirrgency plan j $0.49 Environmental quauncauon of proce%2s in accordance with licensee shall submit. as specified in e6+ctrte ecuepment important to satety foe Appendix C of Part 73 of this chapter for 6 50.4. a report of each proposed change nuctaar poww plants. making decisierrs and the actions for approval. If a change is made contained in the Responsibility Matrix without approval, the licensee shall (h) Each licensee shall notify the of the safeguards contingency plan. The submit. as specified in i 50.4. a report of

- Commission as specified in i 50.4 of any licensee may make no change which each change within 30 days after the significant equipment qualification would decrease the effectiveness of a change is made. -

problem that may require extension of seamty plan prepared pursuant to a * + + +

the completion date provided in i 50.34(c) or Part 73 of this chapter. or of (wj . . .

cecordance with paragraph (g)of this the first four categories ofinformation g gg g ,, ,,

section within 80 days of its discovery. (Beckg-ound, Generic Planning Base, specified in 5 50.4. on Aptd 1 of each (i) Applicants for operanng licanses 1.tcensee Planning Base. Responsibility granted after February r 1983.but prior Matrix) contained in a licensee the penis d Wm a to November 30.1985. shall perform an s afeguards contingency plan prepared ec main os a the analysis to ensure that the plant can be pursuant to i 50.34(d) or Part 73 of this i safely operated pending completion of chapter without pnor approval of the l equipment qualificaoon required by this Commission. A licensee desiring to 9. In i 50.55, paragraphs (e)(3). (f)(3). '

section.This analysis must be make such a change shall submit en and (f)(3)(1) are revised to read as submitted. as specified in i 50.4. for application for an amendment to a'. follows:

I

. **T i

iE Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 58 / Tuesd'ay. March 26.2985/ Proposed Rules n889 i So.55 Conditions of construction period during which the provisions requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)

P*'a ts- become applicable, as deter =ined by through (c)(5) of this section. Each shall I * * * * '*

paragraph (g)(4) of this section. include an explanation of the schedule (e)

- - (iii) If the licensee has determined that along with a justification if the schedule (3)(i) The holder of a construction confonnance with certain code calls for finalimplementation later than permit shall also submit. as specified in requirements is impractical for its the second refueling outage after July 28.

I 50.4. a written report on a reportable facility the licensee shall notify the 1984. or the date ofissuance of a license deficiency within 30 days. Commission and submit, as specified in autherining cperation above 5 percent of (ii) The report must include a i 50.4. information to support the full power. A fmal schedule shall then description of the deficiency, an determinations. be mutually agreed upon by the analysis of the safety implications and . . . *

Commission and licensee.

the corrective action taken. and II. In i 50.59, paragraph (b) is revised sufficient information to permit analys,s 13. In 150 71 hs (a) (b) and i to read as follows: o re as follows:

and evaluation of thetieficiency and of (e)(1) are rebs the corrective action.If sufficient i Sm Changes, tests, and experiments. I 50.71 Walntenance of reconsa, making of information is not availabh for a reporta.

definitive report to be submitted within (b)(1) he licensee shall maintain (a) Each licensee and each holder of a 30 days, an interim report containing all records of changes m the facility and of construction permit shall maintain all available information shall be filed. as changes in procedures made pursuant to ,g , ,

specified in i 50.4. together with a this section, to the extent that these connection with the activity, as may be statement that indicates when a changes constitute changes in the required by the conditions of the license complete report will be filed. facility as desenbed in the safety

, or permit or by the rules, regulations.

. . . . . analysis report or to the extent that they and orders of the Commission in gr) . . . constitute changes in procedures as effectuating the purposes of the Act.

~- (3) AfterMarch11.1983.each described in the safety analysgs report. including section 105 of the Act. Reports c:mstruction permit holder described in The bcensee shall also maintam records must be submitted in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section may of tests and experiments carned out g g,g make a change to a previously accepted par ph a of th ections (b) With respect to any production or quality assurance program description {suant utilization facility of a type described in ase for e te t a t at th II 50 b or o a tes 3 acility, a sis Re o r vd d e a e 6 does not reduce the canrrdtments in the change, test. or expenment does not 2 s sub as s "

by c 'R a g st e qua ee al s e' n nef description Ela$y chs s Com M on 8 pe&d b i m up6n at educe t e o r mu t e 1ssuance cg the repet.

submitted to NRC within 90 days, and experiments, including a summary , , *

Changes to the quality assurance of the safety evaluation of each.The ,

program description that do reduce the report must be submitted annually or at (e) * *

commitments must be submitted to NRC such shorter intervals as may be (1) The licensee shall submit revisions and receive NRC approval before speciSed in the license. containing updated information to the

' implementation. as follows:

(3) The records of changes in the Commission as specifed in 150.4 on a (i) Changes to the Safety Analysis . facility shall be maintained until the replacement.page basis that is date of termination of the license, and accompanied by a list which identifies Report must be submitted for review as specified in i 50.4. Changes made to records of changes in procedures and . the current pages of the FSAR following NRC-accepted quality assurance topical needs of, tests and experiments shall page replacement.

I report descriptions must be submitted as be maintamed for a period

of five years.

specified in i 50.4 14. In i 50.73, paragraphs (c). (d), and

. . . . . 12. In i 50.62 paragraph (c)(6) and (d) (f) are revised to read as fellows:

10. In 150.55a. paragraphs (g)(5)(ii) are revised to read as follows:

I' "'

and (g)(5)(iii) are revised to read as I 5c.62 Requirements for reduction of risk ', , , ,

follows: from anticipated trananents without screm (ATWS) events for tight. water. cooled (c) Supplementalinformation.De 150.55a Codes and standards. nuceear powerplanta. Commission may require the licensee to

* * * * . . . . . submit specific additionalinfor=ation (g) Inservice inspection requimments. (c) . . . beyond that required by paragraph (b)

(6)Information sufficient to of this sectionif the Commission finds (5) * *

demonstrate to the Commission the that supplemental materiali necessary-(ii)If a revised inservice inspection adequacy of items in paragraphs (c)(1) for complete understanding of an program for a facility conflicts with the through(c)(5)of this section shallbe unusually complex or sigruficant event.

technical specification for the facility, submitted to the Commission as Dese requests for supplemental the licensee shall apply to the specified in 150.4. information wd! be made in wnting and Commission for amendment of the (d) Implementation. By 180 days after the licensee shall submit. as specified in j technical specifications to conform the the issuance of the QA guidance for i 50.4. the requested information as a '

I technical specification to the revised non. safety related components each supplement to the initial LER.

program.The licensee shall submit this licensee shall develop and submit to the (d) Submission of reports. I.icensee application. as specified in i 50.4. at Commission, as specified in i 50.4. a Event Reports must be prepared on least six months before the start of the proposed schedule for meeting the Form NRC 368 and submitted within 30 l

1 l

t ,

Y MB90 Federal Register / Vol 50. No. 58 / 'Itesday. March 28. 1985 / Proposed Rules d:ys of discovety of a nportable event 18. bt i Sa109. paragraph (c)is revised 21. In Appendix Fr. section n. persgraph B.3 or situation to the U.S. NocliNsr to read as foIlows: . and section III. paragraph A are revised to Regulatory Commiazion. ~as specified in read as follows:

i 50.4.

f . Appendix H-Raactor Vessel Material (c) The Cornmitaion may at any time " C" D*" I *""**""

y require a holder of a constmetion permit * *- * *

u t requirements under this section must or a license to submit. aa specEed in II.Surveillonce Progrcm Criterio include adequate justification and be 15a4. any infomation concerning the addition or proposed addition the B.* *

submitted as specified in i Sa4. Upon a 3. A proposed withdrawal achedule must rIquest or at the initiation of the NRC eluntnation or poposed ehmination, or tha m dification or proposed be subrnitted with a techmcallustiScation as staff, the NRC Executive Director for specified in I sa4.The proposed schedule Operations may, by a letter to the modiEcation of structures. systems, or must be approved pnar to implemen:ation.

licensee, grant exemptions to the camp nents of a facility thatit deems . . . . .

reporting requirements under this a o s x h n. 9n ppendix E, section V is revised III. Report of Test Resaler

* * *

to read as follows: A. Each capsule withdrawal and the test

15. In l 50.82, paragraph (a) is revised Appendix E--Emergency P! ann.mg and results must be the nbject of a summary Pnparedness for Production and teh=1 report to be submated as spectied ~

12 read as follows: in 150.4 wittun one year after capsule Utlization Facilities

withdrawalunleas an extenaion is g anted by 5 50.22 Appucations for termmation of . . . . .

licenses. the Director. OfScs of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

(a) Anylicensee may submit an V./mplementirs Proceares . . . . .

e;plicanon to the Co= mission as No less than too days prior to the ,,

ikpecified in 150.4 for authority to scheduled issuance of an operattng IIcense In Appendix L section IV, surrender a license vehmtarily and to for a nuc! ear power reactor or a 1; cense to Paragraph A.3.and paragraph A.3.a of dismantle the facility and dispose ofits possess nacient matenal the applicanra the *, Concluding Statement on Position component parts.The Commission may d*d'd i" Pl ** " d"8 P'"C'd"" 'I 'It* d..the Regulatory Staff (Docket-RM-5G-requin informahn, including emergency plan shall be submitted to the Commission as specEad in i Sat. Licensees

2) are revised to read as follows:

information as to proposed procedures who an autherued to operate a nuclear Appendix I-Numen. cal Guides for for the disposal of radioactive material, power facility shall submit any changes to Design Objectives and Umiting decentammation cf tha site.and other the emergency plan or procedures to the Conditions for Operation to Meet the procedures, to provide reasonable Commission, as specSed in I sa4, within 30 days of sirch changes.

Criterion "As Iow As la Reasonably cssurance that the dismantling of the freility and disposal of the component Achievable" for Radioactive Materialin -

20. In Appendix G. section V. Ught Water <:ooled Nuclear Power parts will be performed in accordance paragraph E is revised to read as Reactor Effluents with the regulations la this chapter and followst . . . . .

will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health Appendix G-Tractum Toughnese Sec. IV. Guidae on sec. Weal specifications and safety of the public, Requinmesa for limiting conditiocs for operction for lips.

* * * * * * * *

water <ociednuclea: power reactorr

/- licensedutyler M CFR Part sa

16. Section Saso is revised to read as V. Inservice Requirements--Reactor vessel * * * *

f:llows: ge:::ine Material A. * *

f 50.90 Apr*=% for amendment o( . . 3. Report these actions as speci!!ed in bcense or constmedon permrt, ! 50.4. within 30 days from the end of the

,, y"*C D quarter donng w4dch the release occurred.

Whenever a holder of a license or appendix must be submstted as spec $ed in * * * * * -

construction permit desires to amend i so.4.for review and approval on as Concluding Statement on Positions of the the license orpermit application for an ;tidrvidual case basis at leset three years Regulatory Staff (Docket-RM-5o-2).

cmeridment must be filed, as specified in pnor to the date when the predicted fracture A. * *

I 50.4 with the Commission. fully toughness levels will na longer satisfy the 3. * *

describing the changes desired. and requirements of section v.B.of this appendix. a.The applicant submita. as specfied in fillowing as far as applicable the forus 150.4. an evaluation of the potential for prescribed for original applications. ' NitC staff has denloped two resolaiorr suk'se,

- effects from lona-term buildup on the 2.s "Emersency Planmrie for Re artn Resciars.- L.vtrorument in the victnity cf the site of 17.In $ 50.91 paragraph (a)(1)is and 34s " Emergency Pianmapa Fwl Cyde radioacuve matenal, wsth a radioactive half-

,i l revised to read as follows- Facdities and Plants I.icensed Undet to CTit Perte life greater than one year. to be released; and So and rn" and a jomt NRC/FD4A report Ntl REC- . . . . .

5 50.91 Notice for putrisc commertt; State om ID4A-REP-1 "Crtiana for Properscos mad consultauen. . Evehanan el Radialcgical Emersency Response 23.In Appendix j. sect!on V.

e . . . . Pim and hependnm en Support of Nudm Power Ptems for tnterum t!se end Comment

paragraph B.I. la revised to read et (a) Noticeforpublic comment (1) At lanwy iene6 to pamde e. dance is dewioome g0[]0**:

the time a licensee requesta an Pl *** for caPas *5th ***rv*= Copwot th" amendment. it must provide, se Appendix J-Primary Reactor specified in 150 4. to the Commission its dQ';", *" *'*d'rYs'

, ,,, 3n [ Containment Leakage Testing for Water.

cc msss. Co,we of th= doewnera mer be Cooled Power Resctors anal)sie, using the standards in i 50.92. purcha.ed arm the Cowrament Pnanna Oma. . . . . .

about the issue of no significant hazards !al**-a wwn' P*** **F be commed by considerathon. ""'"'S *******"C*""~**

- M"'s*&s.'Attennen; Pubhcauona V. Inspect >orr endReparong of Tenne e . . . e Waskeetoa. DC 20 g,% . . . . .

y -

Fedwal Regist;r / Vol. 50. No. 58 / Tuisdry. March 26. 1985 / Proposed Rules 11891 B. Report of test reeults. t. The . 2.The submittal for review of the standard when required. to extinguish an engine preoperational and penodic tests must be the design must be made in the same manner and {[re, subject of a summary technical report in the same nurnber of copies as provided in submitted to the Commission as specified in 11 So.4 and 50.30 for heense applications. DATES: Comments must be received no i SOL 4 approximately three months after the . . . . . later than May 20.1985.

conduct of each test.The report must be - AcoRassts: Send comments to the titled Reactor Containment Building 28.In Appendix Q. paragraph 2 is revised to read as follows: proposal in duplicate to FAA. Northwest Integrated Leak Rate Test.

Mountain Region. Office of the Regional Appendix Q-Pre. Application Early Counsel. Attention: Airworthiness Rules

24. In Appendix K. section IL Review of Site Suitability issues Docket No. 84-NM-140-AD.17900 paragraph 1.c. is revised to read as . . . . *

Pacific Highway South. C-eaD66. Seattle, follows: 2.De submitta! for early review of site Washington S8168. The applicable Appendix K-ECCS evaluation models suitabihty tssue(s) must be made in the same service bulletm may be obtained from manner and in the same number of copies as Lockheed-Georgia Company. Field provided in il 50.4 and 50.30 for license Service Office. 86 South Cobb Drive.

11. Required Documentation N* ' ***'

Marietta. Geor@a 30063.or may be 90lll'*

7 ,9 , , ",* , ,7 1.*** postulated facility design and operation examined at FAA. Central Region.

C. The bcensee shall submit to the parameters to enable the Staff to perform the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.

Commission as spectfied in i 50.4. a complete requested review of site suitabihty issues. 1075 Inner Loop Road. College Park, listmg of each computer program. in the same The submittal must contain suggested Georgia 30337. ,

form as used in the etluation model. conclusions on the issues on site suitability

* * *

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

submitted for review and must be Arthur W. Nelson. ACE-140A. Atlanta

25. In Appendix M. Paragraph 2 is accompanied by a statement of tne bases or the reasons for those conclusions. The Aircraft Certification Office. FAA.

revised to read as follows: Central ReI ion.1075 Inner Loop Road, submittal must also list. to the extent Appendix M-Standardization of possible, any long-range objectives for College Park. Georgia 30337; telephone

. Design: Manufacture of Nuclear Power ultirnate development of the site. state (404) 763-7435.

Reactors: Construction and Operation of whether any site selection process was used $UPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION:

Nuclear Power Reactors Manufactured in prepanns the submittal. desenbe any site Pursuant to Commission IJcense selection process used, and explain what Comments Invited

. consideratiert.if any.was given to alternative sites. Interest persons are m.vited to

2. An a; plication for a manufactunng . . . . . participate in the making of the license pursuant to this Appendix M must be

- subruitted as specified in i 50.4 and meet all Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, this 14th day proposed rule by submitting such of March 1985. Written data, views, or arguments as a' For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. they may desire. Communications a (a) a (b). ex o e 1 nary safety analysis report shall be designated as should identify the regulatory docket William J. Dircks. number and be submitted in duplicate to a " design repert* and any required Executive Directorfor operouans.

information or analyses relatmg to site **

matters shaU be predicated on postulated site ((R Doc. 85-7140 Filed 345-85: 8:45 am] communications received on or before parameters which must be specified in the s u o cooeisswei.as the closing date for comments specified application.The application must also above will be considered by the include information pertaining to design Administrator before taking action on features of the proposed reactor (s) that affect DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the proposed rule.The proposals perst on of Federal Aviation Administration contained in this Notice may be changed react ris in light of the comments received. All 14 CFR Part 39 comments submitted will be available.

26. In Appendix N. paragraph 2. is both before and after the closing date revised to read as follows: loocitet No. 44434 140-A01 for comments . in the Rules Dockets for Appendix N-Standardization of Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed examination by interested persons. A Nuclear Power Plant Designs: L! censes rep rt summartzing each FAA/public Modeia 382 and 3828/E/F/G Series c ntact concemed with the substance of To Construct and Operate Nuclear Airpt8"**

Power Reactors of Duplicate Design at this proposal will be flied in the Rules Multiple Sites ACEMcy: Federal Aviation Docket.

. . . . . Administration (FAA) DOT. Availability of NPRM

2. Applications for construction permits ACTicac Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .

submitted pursuant to this Appendix must (NPRM). Any person may obtain a copy of this include the mformation required by 11 50.33. .

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM) 50.33a. 50.34(al and 50.34a tal and (b) and be suMuARY:This notice proposes to add by submitting a request to the FAA.

submitted as specified in i 50.4.The an airworthiness directive (AD), that Northwest Mountain Region. Office of apphcant shall also submit the information woud require inspection and/or the RegionalCounsel. Attention:

required by i 51.50 of this ch4pter. ' *

removal, as necessary, of certain Holex Airworthiness Rules Docket No. 84-NM-fire extinguisher cartridges (squibs) used 140-AD.17900 Pacific Highway South.

27.In Appendix 0 paragraph 2is in the fire extinguishers installed on C-68966. Sea ttle. Washington. 98168.

revised to read as follows: Lockheed Models 382 and 382B/E/F/G DI'C"8'I""

series airplanes.The proposed AD is Appendix O-Standardization of

necessary because some of the squiba Certain models of the Lockheed Design: Staff Review of Standard may indicate electrical resistance Hercules Model 382 airplanes utilize fire Designs . beyond acceptable limits which could extinguisher squibs manufactured by prevent the squib from discharging. Holex.Inc of Hollister.Califemia.

~~- - - - _ ~

ML20205D291

Text

Navigation menu

Search