ML23151A593

PR-020,050 - 57FR27187 - Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees

ML23151A593
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/18/1992
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-020, PR-050, 57FR27187
Download: ML23151A593 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:DOCUMENT DATE: TITLE: CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD: ADAMS Template: SECY-067 06/18/1992 PR-020,050 - 57FR27187 - REDUCING THE REGULA TORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES PR-020,050 57FR27187 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OP ROLBDKIBG PROPOSED ROLE: PR-020,050 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N ROLE NAKEz REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES PROPOSED ROLE FED REG CITE: 57FR27187 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATEZ 06/18/92 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 07/20/92 NUMBER OP COMMENTSz BXTBNSIOH DATE: I I 31 FINAL ROLE FBD. REG. CITEZ 57FR39353 PINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 08/31/92 NOTES ON PINAL ROLE SIGNED BY THE ACTING EDO. FILE LOCATED ON P1. STATUS OP.~E TO PIHD TllB STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULBMAXIBG HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OP THE RULE PART APPECTED: PR-020 1 050 RULE TITLE: REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES ROPOSBD RULE SECY PAPER: FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: CONTACT1: C. W. NILSEN CONTACT2: JOSEPH MATE PROPOSED RULE SRlll DATE: FINAL RULE SRM DATE: I I I I DATE PROPOSED RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 06/11/92 DATE PINAL RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 10/20/92 STAl'F CONTACTS ON THE RULE KAIL STOP: NLS-139 PHONE: 492-3834 HAIL STOP: BLS-129 PHONE: 492-3795

DOCKET NO. PR-020,050 (57FR27187) DATE DATE OF DOCKETED DOCUMENT In the Matter of REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/25/92 06/11/92 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 07/02/92 06/30/92 COMMENT OF RICHARDS. BARKLEY (

1) 07/08/92 07/02/92 COMMENT OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION (EDWIN H. TOOTHMAN, DIRECTOR) (

2) 07/09/92 07/06/92 COMMENT OF COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP (DANIEL HIRSCH, PRESIDENT) (

3) 07/13/92 07/02/92 COMMENT OF RALPH P. LIETO, RSO (

4) 07/14/92 07/07/92 COMMENT OF USAF RADIOISOTOPE COMMITTEE (DAVID A. SMITH, lLT, USAF, BSC) (

5) 07/lf/92 07/15/92 COMMENT OF AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICIANS (ROBERT J. LULL, MD., ET AL) (

6) 07/16/92 07/16/92 COMMENT OF NUMARC (WILLIAM H. RASIN, VP, DIRECTOR) (

7) 07/16/92 07/14/92 COMMENT OF DONOVAN A. SMITH, CHP (

8) 07 /17 /92 07/14/92 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY (SUSAN L. HIATT, DIRECTOR OCRE) (

9) 07/20/92 07/13/92 COMMENT OF OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (W.G. GATES, DIVISION MANAGER) (

10) 07/20/92 07/15/92 COMMENT OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (G.C. SORENSEN, MANAGER) (

11) 07/20/92 07/16/92 COMMENT OF ACR (GARY W. PRICE, SENIOR DIRECTOR) (

12) 07/20/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR UTILITY BACKFITTING & REFORM GRP (NICHOLAS S. REYNOLDS, ET AL) (

13) 07/20/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (DONALD W. EDWARDS, DIRECTOR) (

14)

DOCKET NO. PR-020,050 (57FR27187) DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/21/92 07/15/92 COMMENT OF NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY (RALPH E. BEEDLE, EXEC. VP) (

15) 07/21/92 07/17/92 COMMENT OF TU ELECTRIC (J.S. MARSHALL, MANAGER) (

16) 07/23/92 07/17/92 COMMENT OF FPL (W.H. BOHLKE, VICE PRESIDENT) (

17) i 07/23/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (W.L. STEWART, SENIOR VP) (

18) 07/23/92 07/20/92 07/23/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF ILLINOIS DEPT. OF NUCLEAR SAFETY (THOMAS W. ORTCIGER, DIRECTOR) (

19)

COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (C.K. MCCOY, VP, VOGTLE PROJECT) (

20) 07/24/92 07/17/92 COMMENT OF TOLDEDO EDISON (DONALD C. SHELTON, VP - DAVIS-BESSE) (

21) 07/24/92 07/21/92 COMMENT OF UNION ELECTRIC (DONALD F. SCHNELL, SENIOR VP) (

22) 07/27/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (HAL B. TUCKER, SENIOR VP) (

23) 07/27/92 07/21/92 COMMENT OF TVA (MARK J. BURZYNSKI, MANAGER) (

24) 07/27/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (G.J. BECK, MANAGER, LICENSING SECT) (

25) 07/27/92 07/23/92 COMMENT OF MR. MARVIN I. LEWIS (

26) 07/28/92 07/22/92 COMMENT OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER (WILLIAM J. JUMP, GENERAL MANAGER) (

27) 07/30/92 07/29/92 COMMENT OF AMERSHAM/MEDI+PHYSICS (BRYAN W. BAKER, PH.D) (

28) 07 /31/92 07 /22/92 COMMENT OF GULF STATES UTILITIES

{W.H. ODELL, MANAGER - OVERSIGHT) (

29) 08/03/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF SOUTHERN.NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY

{J.D. WOODARD, VP - FARLEY PROJECT) {

30) 08/06/92 08/03/92 COMMENT OF DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY (J.D. SIEBER, VP NUCLEAR GROUP) {

31) 08/26/92 08/19/92 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

c0~~, to $er,,.;--.:.: ** *

• C rig.inal to t ~ *...,. __

)ffice of Ute Fccic:-2! Regi.$/(.;

1,y p~hUcnton.---** - A "k /1/QJ;i;-)7t:J111-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 RIN 3150-AE30 Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. 0 COLI\\L 1 [O ~ 6-01] '92 AUG 26 P 2 :36

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. This action reflects an initiative undertaken by the Commission in response to a Presidential memorandum requesting that selected Federal agencies review and modify regulations that would eliminate any unnecessary burden of governmental regulation and ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. In that spirit, the NRC's Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) identified eight areas where regulations could be revised to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety or the common defense and security. The final amendments address unnecessary regulatory requirements related to the frequency of reporting information, analysis of emergency core cooling syst ems for operating power react ors, and clarification and update of regulations affecting certain material licensees.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1992. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. C. W. Nilsen, telephone (301) 492-3834 ( or Mr. Joseph J. Mate, telephone (301} 492-3795, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 28, 1992, the President of the United States signed a memorandum addressed to selected Federal Agency Heads who are concerned with energy production and protection of the environment.* The memorandum requested the addressees work together to streamline the regulatory process and ensure that the regulatory community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. On the same day, the President signed a second memorandum entitled "Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation. 11 This memorandum, which was sent to all Federal agencies, set aside a 90-day period to review and evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify and accelerate action on initiatives that will eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden. At the end of the review period, agencies were to submit a written report indicating the regulatory changes recommended or made during the review period and the potential savings as a result of the changes. In response to the Presidential memoranda, the Commission decided that it would be consistent with its policy to monitor the impact of complying with 2

NRC regulations by its licensees to instruct its Co1T111ittee to Review Generic Requirements {CRGR) to review existing NRC regulations to determine whether regulatory burdens can be reduced without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety and the common defense and security. In accomplishing their review, the CRGR drew upon previous studies and solicited convnents from the public, other Federal agencies, and the Commission's staff. A Federal Register Notice was published on February 24, 1992 {57 FR 6299) seeking public co11111ent in connection with the revi'ew, and a second Federal Register Notice on March 23, 1992 {57 FR 9985) discussed likely or possible candidates for action, based on CRGR's preliminary evaluation of convnents. An associated public meeting was held on March 27, 1992, in Bethesda, Maryland. After completing their special review, the CRGR reconvnended revising the regulations in eight areas. The proposed revisions met the criteria for reducing the burden without in any way reducing the protection for public health and safety and co11111on defense and security. The Chairman of the NRC sent a report to the President of the United States on April 27, 1992, which su1T111arized NRC's activities concerning the President's directive and advised the President that NRC would pursue the CRGR's recommendations expeditiously within the framework of the procedures and practices for rulemaking. On June 1, 1992, in response to a memorandum from tne President of the United States, dated April 29, 1992, the Commission directed the staff to strive to publish the proposed rule changes in the eight areas identified by ) the CRGR in the Federal Register for comment as soon as possible, but not later than June 15, 1992, with a view to issuing the final rules in the Federal Register no later than August 27, 1992. On June 18, 1992 3

(57 FR 27187), the NRC published the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for convnent. The comment period expired on July 20, 1992. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments Thirty corrment letters were received on the proposed rule and are available for public inspection, and copying for a fee, at the Commission's Public Document Room located at 2120 L street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. The comments on the proposed rule came from a variety of sources. These included private citizens, publicly-held corporations, citizens' groups, the armed forces, industry representatives, electric power companies or their representatives, and legal finns. Eleven significant points were raised by the commenters. Of the 30 comment letters received, 28 letters were favorable and 2 letters were partially opposed to the regulation changes. The conments and their resolutions are discussed below.

1.

Comment. One commenter suggested that the Commission not only amend § 20.1906(b) concerning contamination monitoring, but also issue a statement that those licensees still operating under the old Part 20 not be required to monitor packages for contamination that meet the conditions of§ 20.1906(b). Response. The NRC does not believe that the suggested change by the commenter is necessary because the amendment of§ 20.1906(b) will make the subject contamination monitoring requirements of the new Part 20 essentially the same as those contained in the existing Part 20 (§ 20.205(b)(l)(iii) and (c)(l)).

2.

Comment. One commenter opposed the rule on the basis that sealed sources routinely leak and, therefore, should not be excluded from monitoring. 4

The corrmenter cited an example where a driver and a truck were contaminated because of a failure to conduct a proper radiation sweep. Response. The final rule does not exempt licensees from monitoring or surveying any packages with evidence of degradation of package integrity, including evidence of potential contamination. Likewise, this revision does not relax the preshipment requirements for monitoring of packages contained in 10 CFR Part 71. The NRC does not have any evidence that supports the commenter's assertion that sealed sources routinely leak and, thus, the NRC believes that the requirements in place are sufficient to detect potential abnormal situations. No amount of regulation can, a priori, preclude all incidents involving leaking sources. However, these incidents can be dealt with through followup inspection and enforcement under the present regulatory scheme.

3.

Comment. Several co11111enters addressed in general terms the need for the NRC to continue its efforts to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees through additional amendments to 10 CFR Chapter I. Response. The NRC will continue its efforts to identify additional amendments that will provide for a reduction in regulatory burden while still assuring adequate protection of the public health and safety.

4.

Comment. One commenter questioned the basis for exempting from external monitoring for radiation levels only nuclear material that was either in the form of a gas or in a special fonn since the external radiation levels are dependent upon radionuclides, quantity, shielding, and distance between radioactive material and the point of interest rather than material form. Response. The NRG agrees with the commenter that the requirement to survey, upon receipt, the radiation levels on the package exterior should be 5

based on the potential radiation hazard. Therefore, the requirement specified in 10 CFR 20.1906(b)(2} that monitor~ng of radiation levels be performed on labeled packages is being revised to delete the exemption that the radioactive material be 1n the form of a gas or in special fonn as defined in 10 CFR 71.4.

5.

Comment. One commenter questioned whether the monitoring requirements were applicable for packages that show evidence of damage. Response. The wording of 10 CFR 20.1906(b){3) has been revised to indicate more clearly that packages with evidence of damage are to be monitored for both radioactive contamination and for radiation levels.

6.

Comment. Several connnenters requested that the proposed wording to 10 CFR 50.71 (e){4} concerning FSAR updates be revised to decouple the FSAR updates from the refueling cycle and that the 24-month requirement for updates is an unnecessary restriction. Response. The proposed changes were not accepted. The majority of facility design changes reflected in an updated FSAR are effected during the refueling outage. The use of the refueling cycle interval provides for a current plant status document that is coordinated with plant changes. The wording of§ 50.71 (e)(4) is not restrictive to plants that will eventually increase their refueling cycle to 24 months.

7.

Comment. Three electric utilities requested that the proposed wording in 10 CFR 50.36(a){2) concerning radiological effluent reporting be revised to specify a particular date. One commenter suggested: 11The report must be submitted as specified in § 50.4 prior to March 31 of each year. 11 Response. The wording of 10 CFR 50.36 (a)(2} gives the licensee maximum flexibility for scheduling submission of radiological effluent reports 6

with the only restriction being that the interval between reports must not exceed 12 months. The reporting requirements remain as proposed.

8.

Comment. Two commenters suggested that the amendments indicate that the changes in reporting requirements of the new regulations take precedence over the existing license technical specifications or license conditions where there may be a conflict. Response. The proposed amendments are generic and licensees may request administrative amendments to any conflicting license condition or technical specification as needed.

9.

Comment. Two commenters suggested that NRC reconsider the need for licensees to submit 10 CFR 50.36a (2) effluent release reports and 10 CFR 50.59 reports concerning.annual design changes. The commenters noted the requirement for these reports was issued before the Final Safety Analysis Reports were required to be updated periodically and before resident inspectors were assigned to all reactor sites. The commenters also observed that these reports are now available on site for review by inspectors at any time and that most design changes are reflected in the FSARs. Further, the commenters did not believe that these reports are routinely reviewed by the NRC staff. The commenters believed that if the requirement to submit such a report were eliminated, there would be no impact on safety, the required evaluations would continue to be perfomed, and the reports would continue to be available for review. The commenters believed that the deletion of these requirements would contribute to significant increased savings by licensees. Response. The consequence of eliminating the requirements for these reports requires significant additional assessment. Thus, the proposed revisions have not been modified in order not to delay the benefit of burden 7 r

reduction. Although this proposal will not be addressed in the current rulemaking, these suggested revisions will be evaluated as part of an ongoing NRG effort.

10.

Comment. One commenter questioned whether the changes in reporting frequency of facility changes under 10 CFR 50.59, FSAR updates, and radiological effluent reports would impair the ability of the NRC to review the information in a timely manner. Response. The resident inspector program along with regional regulatory programs provide timely and in some cases day-to-day review of facility operations. The changes being made will not impair NRC's ability to review the information.

11.

Comment. One commenter {Yankee Atomic Electric Co.) stated that the FSAR update changes discussed in Action Item l in the proposed rule and in Action Item 7 of this document emanated from a petition for rulemaking that they submitted to the NRC on February 9, 1990 (PRM 50-55). The notice of receipt for this petition was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 1990 (55 FR 18608). The petitioner originally requested that nuclear power plant licensees be allowed to file FSAR reports at periods greater than annually. They suggested that § 50.71(e){4) be revised to read as follows: "Subsequent revisions shall be filed no later than 6 months after completion of each planned refueling outage for a licensee's facility. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR, the licensees shall designate the refueling outage schedule on one of the multiple facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR. The FSAR revisions shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filing." 8

't During the comment period on this proposed rule, Yankee Atomic Electric Co. stated that the period between successive FSAR updates should not be limited to 24 months as proposed. Their rationale was that the restriction of 24 months was unnecessary. Response. Upon receipt of the Yankee Atomic-Electric Co. comment letter of July 20, 1992, the NRC again reviewed the petition (PRM 50-55) submitted by Yankee Atomic Electric Co. and the corrments submitted in response to the Notice of Receipt. Based on this review, the NRC believes that the current action being taken to reduce the burden on nuclear licensees is substantially similar to the relief requested in the petition. The 24-month interval for successive FSAR updates is addressed in comment number 6 above. It should be noted that the petition did not contain a specific reference to a number of months regarding successive FSAR updates. With respect to the petitioner's concern about multiple facilities sharing a common FSAR, licensees will have maximum flexibility for scheduling updates on a case-by-case basis. This final rule does not address multiple facilities. This final. rule is.~onsidered by the NRC to grant the petition submitted by the Yankee Atomic Electric Co. This final rule constitutes final NRC action on the petition. Discussion The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to implement the eight proposed actions identified below and also identified in the report on "Special Review of Existin~ NRC Regulations" that was completed by the CRGR and that was attached to Chairman Seiin's letter to the White 9

House dated April 27, 1992. These actions will not reduce the protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security. Each of the eight actions is discussed below. I. Posting of Rooms Occupied by Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine Patients (10 CFR 20.1903(b)}. The revision reduces the posting requirements for rooms in hospitals occupied by patients administered radioactive materials who might otherwise be released from confinement under the provisions of 10 CFR 35.75. The e~timated savings to licensees is $300,000 for elimination of the need for posting.

2.

Contamination Monitoring of Packages (IO CFR 20.1906{b)). This action clarifies the regulations and reduces the monitoring burden for packages containing radioactive material in the form of a gas or in a special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4. The estimated savings to licensees is $10.1 million.

3.

Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports {10 CFR 50.36a). This action reduces the requirements for the submission of reports concerning the quantity of principal nuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents from semiannually to annually. The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $16,800,000 for licensees and $360,000 for the NRC.

4.

Use of Fuel with Zirconium-Based {Other than Zircalov) Cladding {10 CFR 50.44, 50.46, and Appendix K to Part 50). This action revises the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.44 and 50.46, relating to evaluations of emergency core cooling systems and combustible gas control applicable to zircaloy clad fuel to include ZIRLO clad fuel. This

revision to include ZIRLO as an acceptable zirconium based cladding material along with zircaloy will reduce the licensee burden but will not reduce the protection of the public health or safety. The NRC will address, through an appropriate separate rulemaking, the use of other similar'zirconium based cladding materials when all of the necessary safety evaluations for those materials have been completed. The estimated savings for eliminating the need to process recurring exemptions to the regulations to licensees is $2 million and the savings to the NRC is $50,000. This estimate is based on six plants per year requesting the use of ZIRLO clad fuel over the next 8 years.

5.

Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste {10 CFR 50.54). This action is addressed in a separate rulemaking. For additional infonnation, see the proposed rule entitled "Receipt of Byproduct and Special Nuclear Material" published in the Federal Register on April 24, 1992 (57 FR 15034).

6.

Annual Design Change Reports {10 CFR 50.59). This action revises the requirements for the annual submission of reports for facility changes under§ 50.59 (Changes, tests, and experiments) to confonn with the proposed change for updating the FSAR (see Item 7). This action does not affect the substance of the evaluation or the documentation required for§ 50.59 type changes. It only affects the interval for submission of the information to the NRC. Instead of submitting the information annually, the information can be submitted on a refueling cycle basis, provided the interval between successive reports does not exceed 24 months. 11

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

7.

Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Updates (10 CFR 50. 71). This action provides licensees with an option from the current requirements for the annual updating of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). In lieu of an annual submission, licensees may choose to provide the required information once per each refueling outage. Updates to the FSAR can be submitted 6 months after each refueling outage, provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months. This action does not affect the substance of FSAR updates. The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $11,100,000 for licensees and $910,000 for the NRG.

8.

Elimination of Unnecessary Event Reports (10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73). This action is addressed in a separate rulemaking. For additional information, see the proposed rule entitled 11Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28642). Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC determined that the final regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(2) and (3). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final regulation. 12

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final ru1e amends infonnation collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number, 3150-0014 and 3150-0011. The reduction of the public reporting burden for this collection of* information is estimated to average 208 hours per response for operating power reactors and 1 hour per response for certain materials licensees, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send coments regarding ~his burden reduction or any other aspect of this decrease in the ~ollection of information including suggestions on this reduced burden to the Infonnation and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the1Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019 (3150-0011, 3150-0014), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Regulatory Analysis The* NRC is ~mending its regulations to *reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. This action reflects an initiative on the part of the NRC and responds to the spirit of President B~sh's memoranda of January 28, 1992, which requested that selected Federal agencies review and modify regulations that will reduce unnecessary burden of governmental regulation and ensure that 13

• ~ '.,:*:Y'* ">.?_?!:*,,(f,,'....,~ :tf.'.~t the regulated community 1s not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. The NRC has identified eight rulemaking actions that would eliminate duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.

Six of the actions are included in this package. Two of the eight actions are being processed as separate rulemakings and are not discussed here. The eight actions are as follows:

~ ~ '

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

to include. exceptions for posting requirements for rooms in hospitals for patients administered radiophannaceuticals for diagnostic tests (10 CFR 20.l903(b)).

2.

Contamination Monitoring of Packages--to eliminate certain provisions for contamination monitoring of packages containing certain types of radioactive material (10 CFR 20.1906(b)).

3. Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports--to change the frequency of reports on power reactor radiological effluents from twice per year to once per year (10 CFR 50.36a).

4.

Use of Fuel with Zircon_ium-Based Cladding--to eliminate the need to obtain exemptions in order to use a certain fuel cladding material not presently addressed in the regulations (10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K).

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

6. Annua 1 Oes*i gn Change Reports--to. change the frequency of reporting changes at power reactors from once per year to once per refueling cycle (10 CFR 50.59(b)).

14

7.

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

8.

Elimination of unnecessary event reports--separate rulemaking (10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73). Each of these actions considers the elimination or relaxation of regulatory requirements currently imposed on NRC licensees. Action Items 1 and 2 would affect material licensees while Action Items 3 through 8 would affect power reactor licensees. For each regulatory action, the NRC has evaluated the health and safety implications and the cost impacts relative to a status quo alternative. The NRC finds that each would result in a reduction in burden without reducing protection of the public health and safety. The public health and safety determination aP,pears in a document entitled "Report on Special Review of Existing NRC Regulations b.Y the Committee to Review Generic Requireme~ts" issued on April ~3, 1992. Additionally, an analysis of the saf~ty implications of Action Item 4 is available in a U.S. NRC letter to Westinghouse Corporation dated July 1, 1991, entitled "Acceptance For Referencing of Topical Report WCAP-12610 "Vantage+Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report" {TAC NO. 77258)." The* cost savings to both the licensee population and the NRC appear below. Dollar impacts are expressed on a 1992 present worth basis in 1992 dollars. The basis for these cost estimates is available in a report*entitled "Analyses of Potential Cost Savings for Selected NRC Reforms" dated June 10, 1992. 15

Total Discounted'1l Cost Savings Associated With Proposed Regulatory Revisions (1992 $ in millions) 8EGULAIQRY BE~ISIO~ LICEHSEES NRC ITEM 1 0.3 -0.100<2) ITEM 2 10.1 -0.100(2 ) ITEM 3 16.8 0.360 ITEM 4 2.0 0.050 ITEM 5 N/A<3> N/ A <3l ITEM 6 1.5 0.400 ITEM 7 11.1 0.910 ITEM 8 N/A<3l N/A ('3) NOTE: (1) Assumes an annual real discount rate of 5%. (2) Negative cost savings represent a cost expenditure. (3) Not applicable--separate rulemaking. The NRC concludes that each of these proposed regulatory revisions is justified due to the net cost savings that will accrue without reducing public health and safety. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that, this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NRC has 16

adopted size standards that classify a small entity as a small business or organization, one whose gross annual receipts do not exceed $3.5 million, or as a small governmental jurisdiction whose supporting population is 50,000 or less. The first two issues involve the relaxation of requirements which will affect approximately 5,000 material licensees. Although many of these licensees may be small entities, there should be no adverse impact on these small licensees because the regulations are being relaxed. The remaining six issues affect 112 power reactor licensees. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entitiesw set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the NRC Size Standards. Backfit Ana1ysis The NRC has detennined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(l). List of Subjects Part 20 - Byproduct material, Criminal penalty, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Spe~ial nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal. 17

Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For reasons set out 1n the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50

• PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

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

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended {42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 20.408 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, (42 u.s.c. 10155, 10161). For the purposes of sec. 233, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); r §§ 20.101, 20.102, 20.103{a), (b), and {f), 20.104 (a) and (b), 20.105 (b), 20.106 (a), 20.201, 20.202 (a), 20.205, 20.207, 20.301, 20.303, 20.304, and 20.305, 20.1102, 20.1201-20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1207, 20.1208, _20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1591, 20.1502, 20.160l{a) and (d), 20.1602, 20.1603, 20.1701, 20.1704, 20.1801, 20.1802, 20.190l(a}, 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1906, 20.2001, 20.2002, 20.2003, 20.2004, 20.2005 (b) and (c}, 20.2006, 20.2101-20.2110, 20.2201-18

20.2206, and 20.2301 are issued under sec. 16l(b}, 68 Stat. 948 as amended (42 / U.S.C. 2201 (b)); § 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and§§ 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-20.407, 20.408(b), 20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.1204(c), 20.1206 (g) and (h), 20.1904(c){4), 20.1905 (c) and (d), 20.2005(c), 20.2006(b)-(d), 20.2101-20.2103, 20.2104(b)- (d), 20.2105-20.2108, and 20.2201-20.2207 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2.

Section 20.1903 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 20.1903 Exceptions to posting requirements {b) Rooms or other areas in hospitals that are occupied by patients are not required to be posted with caution signs pursuant to§ 20.1902 provided that the patient could be released from confinement pursuant to § 35.75 of this chapter.

3.

Section 20.1906 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 20.1906 Procedures for receiving and opening packages. {b) Each licensee shall--- 19 l -

a PWF3V cnneerae:rmm==effeerrmtmwervmennmoxrex:rntR?1etttcr.., (1) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled 34 package for radioactive contaminatio,n unless the package contains only radioactive material 1n the form of a gas or in special fonn as defined in 10 CFR 71.4; (2) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled 34 package for radiation levels unless the package contains quantities of radioactive material that are less than or equal to the Type A quantity, as defined in§ 71.4 and Appendix A to Part 71 of this chapter; and (3) Monitor all packages known to contain radioactive material for radioactive contamination and radiation levels if there is evidence of degradation of package integrity, such as packages that are crushed, wet, or damaged. PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING)Qf PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

4.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 223u, 2239, 2282)~ secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 584Z, 5846). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C_. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 3*Labeled with a Radioactive White I, Yellow II, or Yellow III label as specified in U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, 49 CFR 172.403 and 172.436-440.. 20

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 {42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 {42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended {42 U.S.C. 2273); §§ 50.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54 (c) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220l{b)); §§ 50.5, 50.7(a), 50.IO(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (e), 50.44{a)-{c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a), (c), {d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), (i), (i)(l), {1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v), and {y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), {c}-(e), {g}, and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a), 50.62(b), 50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.B0(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 16li, 68 Stat. 949, as amended {42 U.S.C. 220l(i)); and§§ 50.9, 50.49(d), (h) and (j), 50.54(w), (z), (bb), {cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.6l(b), 50.62(b), 50.70(a), 50.7l(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 5O.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

5.

Section 50.36a is amended by revising paragraph {a)(2) to read as follows: 21

§ 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. (a} (2) Each licensee shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquie and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of operation, including any other information as may be required by the Comission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. The report must be submitted as , specified in§ 50.4, and the time between submission of the reports must be no longer than 12 months. If quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting period are significantly above design objectives, the report must cover this specifically. On the basis of these reports and any additional information the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may require the licensee to take action as the Commission deems appropriate.

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

§ 50.44 Standards for combustible gas control system in light-water-cooled power reactors. (a} Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, must, 22

as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, include means for control of hydrogen gas that may be generated, following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), by -- (b) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with the capability for -- (c)(l) For each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, it must be shown that during the time period following a postulated LOCA, but prior to effective operation of the combustible gas control system, either:

7.

Section 50.46 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(l)(i) to read as follows: § 50.46 Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors. (a)(l)(i) Each boiling and pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with an emergency core cooling system {ECCS) that must pe designed so that its calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this sect1on. ECCS cooling performance must be calculated in 23

accordance with an acceptable evaluation model and must be calculated for a number of postulated loss-of-coolant accidents of different sizes, locations, and other properties sufficient to provide assurance that the most severe postulated loss-of-coolant accidents are calculated. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(l)(ii} of this section, the evaluation model must include sufficient supporting justification to show that the analytical technique realistically describes the behavior of the reactor system during a loss-of-coolant accident. Comparisons to applicable experimental data must be made and uncertainties in the analysis method and inputs must be identified and assessed so that the uncertainty in the calculated results can be estimated. This uncertainty must be accounted.for, so that, when the calculated ECCS cooling performance is compared to the criteria set forth in paragraph {b} of this section, there is a high level of probability that the criteria would not be exceeded. Appendix K, Part II, Required Documentation, sets forth the documentation requirements for each evaluation model.

8. Section 50.59 is amended by revising paragraph (b){2) to read as follows:

,§ 50.59 Changes, tests, and experiments. {b) {2) The licensee shall submit, as specified in§ 50.4, a report contajning a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a su11111ary of the safety evaluation of each~ The report may be 24

-...------- ~--~ submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by§ 50.71{e), or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license.

9.

Section 50.71 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows: § 50.71 Maintenance of records, making of reports. (e) (4) Subsequent revisions must be filed annually or 6 months after each refueling. outage provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months. The revisions must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filing. Dated at Rockville, Maryland,. this J.!l.E-day of fl v..-9 1,<,,s.f ~d , 1992. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Executive Director fo 25 J

Duquesne Lig1t Company JOHN D. SIEBER Vice President - Nuclear Group Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule, "Reducing the Regulate Licensees, " 57 FR 27187 In response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request for

comments, the Duquesne Light Company (DLC) would l ike to submit these comments.

The proposed rule, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees," would amend 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to reflect an initiative undertaken by the NRC in order to respond to a Presidential memorandum requesting that selected Federal agencies review and modify regulations that will reduce the burden of governmental regulation to ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. We have a comment on 10 CFR Part 50.54(a) (3) which states, "Changes to the quality assurance program description that do not reduce the commitments must be submitted to the NRC at least annually in accordance with the requirements of Part 50.71." DLC suggests changing this section as follows: Changes to the quality assurance program description that do not reduce the commitments must be submitted to the NRC annually or six months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months in accordance with the requirements of Part 50.71. This proposed change does assurance program description the proposed change to Part relieve an administrative burden not affect the substance of quality changes and would be consistent with 50.7l(e) (4). This change would also for licensees. Sincerely, SEP 18 ~~ Acknowledged by card.......... _ *** ".... ;.;........

• .:*.,.;,~,.:-.

Dr, t~ ,v

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 868-5086 DOCK :.1 LO L uUCSt\\Ni.l}CCD A_ USMHC \\ ~ J. D. Woodard Vice President Farley Project

• 92 AUG -3 p~~tl,ern Nuclear egpe~n~ C~')l~Y July 20, 1992 the southern electnc 1-;s'fe*m Docket Nos.

50-348 50-364 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ';FTARY 1\\1 ii..f. ATTENTlON: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees" (57 Federal Register 27187 of June 18, 1992)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company has reviewed the proposed rule, 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees," published in the Federal Register on June 18, 1992. In accordance with the request for coments, Southern Nuclear Operating Company is in total 9 agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC. Should you have any questions, please advise. JDW/JMG cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. S. T. Hoffman Mr. G. F. Maxwell Respectfully submitted, Acknowledged by card..... SEP 18 1992

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKF~":---:: * ~EPVICE SECTION Pcs; Cop,,:. C. * . *** *: CFIETARY

,:sl1J 00u\\i~i'l0 UTl.£1TIES COLWP~ GU.£F STATES RIVER BEND STATION POST OFFICE BOX 220 ST FRANCISVILLE. LOUISIANA 70775

• 92 JUL 31 p 5 : 2 3 AREA CODE 504 635-6094 346-B651 on fCE OF S£CRE,ARY narnr r 1N(,.,(

F. f1v1cr. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen: July 22, 1992 RBG-37230 File No. G9.23.l This letter provides Gulf States Utilities Company's comments in response to the Commission's proposed rule regarding reducing regulatory burden on nuclear licensees, 57 FR 27187, issued for public comment on June 18, 1992. Gulf States Utilities supports the promulgation of this rule. This proposal will help to reduce utility and NRC workload by removing regulatory reporting requirements which established arbitrary reporting dates or had no safety significance. Further reducing unnecessary burden is the proposal to allow licensees to accept back from vendors processed low level waste until final disposition. The specific list of proposed rules outlined in the June 18, 1992 Federal Register fulfill the intent of President Bush's memorandum of January 28, 1992, entitled "Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation". By reducing unnecessary regulations, the NRC will help ensure that utilities have the resources, both personnel and monetary, to continue to operate and maintain nuclear facilities and train personnel to an ever increasing level of excellence. An indirect end-result of this proposal will be an increase in protection for the health and safety of the public. GSU commends the NRC for this effort and other related efforts to move toward a more risk-based regulatory environment, where potential safety significance is evaluated and considered for regulatory bases. ~80027 BRANUi

U.S. NUC1J.:'i\\Fl L*.:~~~t.:L *: ;~r,~*.,*: :,: : ::::t-'"';\\t'};\\J DC<.*~Cl ;,.~ ~ : 1

• SCJ ~*. /~.-: \\* ~ ~ j _, :*~:::;*.J o~* -;~**:1~ C1f-.! H:* :J ::C!~:".1 ~.~, I

()FT:*:~: C( ~,,:J:ij ~;(,,'!

We appreciate your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Leif L. Dietrich of my staff at (504) 381-4866. llO uP.. LAE/LLD/WlS cc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011 NRC Resident Inspector P.O. Box 1051 St. Francisville, LA 70775 Mr. D. V. Pickett U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Sincerely, ~x~J W. H. Odell Manager - Oversight River Bend Nuclear Group

Amersham Corporation 2636 South Clearbrook Drive Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005-4692 (708) 593-6300 July 29, 1992 Secretary DOCKET NUMBER PR O PROPOSED RULE

)___

[5,? F,}'l ;;_1 J HJ ,,, L,I\\L,ll ' U'.:iNHC

• 92 JUL 30 P 3 :28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville MD 20852

Dear Secretary:

0 Amersham I am writing on behalf of Amersham/Medi+ Physics in response to NRC's proposed rule "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees", Federal Register Vol 57, No 118, 27187-27191. The topic on which we wish to comment is that of Monitoring of Packages (Item 7, 10 CFR 20.1906[b]). We fully support the clarification that is proposed and the elimination of the monitoring requirement for certain packages. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. Sincerely, aker, Ph.D. Corporate Manager, Nuclear Licensing and Industrial Liaison GEM SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card.................... "............

!,... C. ~ ! :,~.,... t * : * ./ '*t *~ ,: **i ,:-: *s*n

'JOCl<CT NL'~~~~E~ ~ ,,, n nr*~,c..-,-:-. 1'.',1 r *- 1 '. - ~-:...-~ - - ti' I -\\\\..'1 *--~*.., f' -'"'* ---- C 5"1Pf!-.J-1In) The Light USNRC ,uCl',LiU) co1Dpany 0FF1cr oF ~ H 1 N1srR r,0* 1 usNRC H t L. ht' & p South Texas Project Electric Gener. atiWbStation P. 0. Box 289 Wadsworth, T exas 77483 ous on 1g mg ower '92 JI: n, AlQ :24 '92 jlt 29 A11 :45 Regulatory publications Branch DFIPS Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Comments on Proposed Rules, 10CFR Parts 20 and 50 "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses" HL&P has reviewed Proposed Rules, 10CFR Parts 20 and 50, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses," and offers the following comments:

1.

Item 5, Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports ( 10CFR 50.360):

2.

This 10CFR change will be acceptable, but our License, Technical Specification (TS) 6.9 section, will still require semi-annual reports. In essence, this does not help unless NRC promptly allows changes to Technical Specifications. Item 1, Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report Updates (10CFR50.71) and Item 2, Annual Design Change Reports (10CFR50.59): The proposed rule should be clarified with regard to how it would apply to a two unit site with a common UFSAR. We would recommend that the rule simply require an update once each 24 months and be current as of the preceding 6 months. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (512) 972-7205. VJM/ag MISC\\92-203.001 ~ }~William J. Jump 1". General Manager, Nuclear Licensing SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card.. --,111... *sx52;;;,,_,, A Subsidiary of Houston Industries Incorporated

i...: s J / :-. * ::. : '

• • v*.

1,... *'.,*. I ' I .j r\\'.;--,:--'~*.. ~ -1:t-A-a~1~ 7111 /1 ;*: *.~ ~ _ *. t

• i: "'/ ____ _ _ ___ _

z*.. s_o (5"7 Ff{ 2-7 / B--7) Marvin I. Lewis 7801 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 Phila., PA 19152 (215)624-1574 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dear Mr. Secretary; oocKEiED usHRC

• 92 JUL 27 p 3 :OB Please accept the following letter as my comments on 10CFR30&35 Departures from Mfg's Instruction:

Elimination of &cordkeeping Requirements: Proposed Rule. -.rocFR50 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements: Proposed Rule. 10CFR20&50 Reducing the Regulatory Burden Proposed Rule. on Nuclear Licensees: 10CFR Chapter I Review of Reactor Requirements: Request for Public Comments. Licensee Relatedness of above Federal Register Notices: Reporting I request that this letter be incorporated into the dockets associated with the above four (4) Federal Notices. All four notices are related strongly in that all four notices reduce or eliminate paperwork requirements for NRC licensees. The reduction or elimination of paperwork for licensees does not provide any protection of the health and safety of the public

• otection of the Health and Safety of the Public:

The Atomic Energy Act as amended and the Charter of the NRC both require the NRC to act to "protect the health and safety of the public. " The above four Federal Notices are actions by the NRC which concern reducing or eliminating regulatory burdens without an increase in the protection of the health and safety of the public. While reduction of regulatory burden may be a worthy goal, the NRC ignores its legislative mandate to protect the health and safety of the public. Reduction of the regulatory burden is an admitted goal of the present administration. The protection of the health and safety of the public is an NRC goal which is legislated in the Atomic Energy Act as amended. The will of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act as amended must take precedence over an administrative goal. SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card.. -....... _... _.. _..

2.. ' Elimination of Regulatory Burden Invites Harm: The TMI#2 accident is over a decade in the past. Many studies resulted from the TMI#2 accident. These studies concluded that the regulatory climate was responsible for an attitude or climate which invited disaster. These "modifications" in the four proposed rules present, invite and promote the same kind of attitude or climate which resulted in the TMI#2 accident. Specifically, many of the lessons learned from the TMI#2 accident concerned departures from instructions and al i mination of reporting requirements. One departure from 9"1structions in the specifications concerned the leakage limits for the reactor coolant. After the TMI#2 accident, the NRC found that the reactor was operating outside of specification because the reactor coolant was leaking out at a rate greater than allowed in its specifications. This leakage information was not widely available due to elimination of certain recordkeeping requirements. The reactor had been allowed to operate because of elimination of recordkeeping requirements and departures from manufacturers specifications. Partially, the accident was occurred because of elimination of recordkeeping requirements and departures from manufacturers' specifications. The Proposed

Rule, 10CFR30 & 35, is entitled, "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions: Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements."

The title of this Proposed

Rule, "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions:

Elimination of Recordkeeping quirements," presents the same attitude which lead to the TMI#2 cident. Although the attitude is the same, the attitude or climate is only part of the problem. This attitude must present a danger to the health and safety of the public for the NRC to prohibit the modifications in the Proposed Rule; "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions: Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements." The NRC justifies the elimination of recordkeeping requirements on the ground, "that the major trends in departures are already clear and that collection of additional data would not reveal any significant new information." This "conclusion" by the NRC and FDA staffs directly contradicts a statement in the Federal Register Notice dated 6-22-92 for a workshop on 10CFR 30 and 35 to which the Proposed Rule is addressed: "It is a matter of record that some medical use licensees have administered byproduct material to patients of childbearing potential who were pregnant or breast feeding without knowing the patient's pregnancy or breast feeding status. The consequences were that unintended radiation exposures were delivered to an embryo, fetus, or breast-fed infant."

The contradiction is very clear. On one

hand, the NRC proposes a rule to eliminate recordkeeping requirements and allow departures from manufacturer's instructions in 10 CFR 30 and 35 in the Federal register Notice of 6-26-92.

On the other

hand,

..4111111Mt.h e NRC admits that departures from instructions and elimination W recordkeeping have led to unintended radiation exposures to

embryo, fetus and breast fed infants in a Notice of a meeting on 10CFR 30 and 35 in the Federal Register of 6-22-92.

The actions arising from these contradictions are very clear. Historically, these actions have lead to the TMI#2 accident. Presently, these actions have lead to unintended radiation exposures of fetus, embryo and breast fed infant. These actions in the Proposed

Rule, "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions:

Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements," contradict the mandate of the Atomic Energy Act as amended to protect the health and safety for the public. I, respectfully, request that the Proposed

Rule, "Departures From Manufacturers*

Instructions: Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements," be taken back and vacated. "reduce the burden" and "delete requirements." A The Proposed Rules, 10CFR50 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Wl wer Reactor Event Reporting Requirements and 10CFR20&50 Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees, attempt to delete reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance and reduce the burden of government regulation without reducing the protection of the public health and safety. These proposed rules suffer from the same attitudes which lead to the TMI#2 accident and which were described above for the Proposed Rule on 10 CFR 30 & 35. The Proposed Rules on 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 20 50 also suffer from additional inadequacies. The NRC states, "The reporting of certain types of events are no longer contributing useful information to the operating reactor events database and, therefore, are no longer necessary." I questioned why this reporting was no longer contributing useful information. I wondered whether the information was no longer useful or whether the data was being usefully evaluated. I sent a short letter to Chairman Selin with my questions on 5-24-92. Mr. Edward L. Jordan answered my letter on 6-26-92. His answer strongly suggests that preconceptions flavor the usefulness of reported information.

"We would not expect violations to be correlated with plant

age, geographic

location, or other physical characteristics of the plant ***

There may be some correlation with capacity factor,(sic) however, this is not a parameter that we monitor as a m e a s u r e o f s a f e t y * " Several questions immediately spring to mind. "We would not expect violations to be correlated.** "

1. One reason to develop a database is to discover unexpected correlations.

Not expecting to find a correlation is a very counterproductive attitude to use in the assessment of data bases. "There may be some correlation with capacity factor,(sic) however, this is not a parameter that we monitor as a measure of A.afety." If you expect a correlation, you should monitor that expected correlation for safety and other factors. This seems an obvious inadequacy. The reason that the NRC has stated that the deletion of reporting requirements would have little or no safety significance and that the regulatory burdens can be reduced without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety is that the NRC has performed inadequately. The NRC has admitted that the database has not been used to investigate unexpected correlations and has not monitored expected correlations for safety and other factors. (See above.> Ignoring unexpected correlations and not monitoring expected correlations will lead to almost any conclusion. The problem is that the conclusion is merely conclusory and inadequate.

Again, let's not have the climate and attitude which lead to the TMI#2 accident. I, respectfully, suggest and request that ese t wo Proposed Rules, CFR50 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements: Proposed Rule.

10CFR20&50 Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees: Proposed Rule, be taken back and eliminated from consideration. Reactor Licensee Reporting Requirements(10CFR Chapter I).

Everyday, more and more inadequacies surface. In June, there were six information notices about events and deficiencies which were dangerous. So far in 1992, there are 52 information notices about the dangers surfacing in nuclear power plants.

Considering the many changes, such as plant life extension, low level waste storage on plant sites, higher density spent fuel

pools, more reporting and regulation is required to maintain safety; not less.

I, respectfully, request reactor licensee reporting safety rather than sink back fostered the TMI#2 accident. that the NRC decide to increase to maintain the present modicum of to the attitudes and climate which Re~7~ 7-23-92

NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD. WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 (215) U0-6000 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 subject: Philadelphia Electric Company '92 JUL 27 P 3 : 1 0 Off !t,;f Of SE CRI f t. 'f Jul~Oca<J:) I~ z... ICf 8R/.-NCH Comments Concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rule 10 CFR 20 and 50, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees" (57 FR 27187)

Dear Mr. Chi lk:

This letter is being submitted in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) request for comments regarding Proposed Rule 10 CFR 20 and so, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees, " published in the Federal Register (57 FR 27187, dated June 18, 1992). Philadelphia Electric Company {PECo) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule to amend certain regulations in order to reduce the regulatory burden on NRC licensees. PECo supports the NRC's efforts concerning this proposed rule, since it will help to provide regulatory consistency and reduce regulatory burden without reducing the protection for the public health and safety or the common defense and security. In addition, we endorse the Nuclear Management and Resources Council's {NUMARC's) position and comments concerning this proposed rule. However, we offer the following comment for consideration by the NRC. Comment With respect to Item 2, "Annual Design Change Reports (10 CFR 50.59)," we recommend that the frequency for submitting this report be on an interval not to exceed 30 months, rather than the 24 months currently specified in the proposed rule. Submitting this repor t on an interval not exceeding 30 months is more conducive to a 24-month cycle, since plants will operate for a nominal 22 months and be shutdown for two {2) months to refuel. Extending the interval would not affect the content of the report, but would allow the necessary time for preparation in order to avoid conflicts in refuel outage schedules. In addition, a 30-month interval would be more consistent with the proposed changes specified in Item 1, "Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Updates {10 CFR 50.71). 11 SEP 18 1~~, Acknowledged by card"..................... ~'"'"

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 20, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Manager Licensing Section Nuclear Services Department

mil Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 dUL 21 1992 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

LuC/'\\[iL O U::iNfiC '92 JUL 27 AlO :4 6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) - REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 50, REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN OF NUCLEAR LICENSEES The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has reviewed and is pleased to provide comments on the topic of reducing the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees which was noticed in the June 18, 1992, Federal Register (57FR27187-27191). TVA supports NRC's continuing efforts in this worthwhile endeavor and in general is in agreement with these eight proposed regulation changes. In addition, we offer for your consideration comments on the following specific i terns.

1.

Frequency of FSAR and Annual 10 CFR 50.59 Report Updates - Clarification is needed concerning multiple unit sites in determining the update submittal due date.

2.

Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports (10 CFR 50.36A) - We agree with the frequency proposed in the subject notice. We recommend a guidance document on implementation since this would constitute a Tech Spec change. TVA appreciates this opportunity to respond to this request for comments. Sincerely, ~;/~ ~k J. Burzynski Manager Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs cc: See page 2 SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card""" a COSM:Otttttt;;,;,Mtll

U.S. NUCLE:AR RE:GULATORY COtAMISSIOt--. DOC:<ET1NG ?, SERVICE SECTION OfflCE CF TdE SECRETARY Ot= THE COMMlSSiON

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 JUL 21 1992 cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 C. W. Nilsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852

II Duke Power Company P.o. Box 1006 Charlotte. N.C. 28201-1006 8

• DUKE POWER July 20, 1992 Secretary of the Commission Pr10POSED RULE. p D ' 0

(~1F/L;i_11H) oocr-.f.TE[} USNRC

• 92 JUL 27 A10 :45 U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch I

HAL B. TUCKER Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation (704) 382-4531

Subject:

Duke Power Company Response to Request for Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking to Reduce the Regulatory Burden Duke Power company is pleased to take this opportuni ty to respond to the NRC's request for comment on proposed rulemaking regarding the reduction of the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. Duke believes that the proposed rule is a good first step in a direction that will ease not only the regulatory burden on licensees, but also on the NRC. Duke believes, however, that the rule should go further with respect to two items: annual design change reporting under 10 CFR 50.59, and the semi-annual (proposed annual) radiological effluent release report. These reports can and should be eliminated entirely. These reporting requirements were instituted years ago and have persisted despite changes in the way the NRC performs its regulatory function; changes such as the establishment of regional offices and the placement of resident inspectors at each site. The requirements appear to have been instituted, at least in part, with the intent of monitoring licensees' programs. The placement of Resident Inspectors at each site, and the creation of the regional inspection functions by NRC have made program-monitoring reporting requirements unnecessary. The resident inspector is in a position to monitor the day-to-day workings of the programs; summaries and reports to NRC headquarters are perhaps not the best way to assess performance. Following are some specific comments on each of the requirements. SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card"..... -..... _... "".....

l l.~

U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~ion July 20, 1992 Page 2 Reporting of Design Changes CS 50.59) The requirement to submit a summary of design changes apparently was instituted with two purposes: to provide awareness of plant modifications, and to assess the adequacy of the licensees' 50.59 design-change program. Both of these goals can be, or are being, met through other means. The first goal, providing awareness of plant modifications, is now achieved through the FSAR update process; a requirement which, like the establishment of the regional offices and resident inspebtor~, was implemented some years after§ 50.59. The second goal, assessing the adequacy of licensees' design-change program, can probably be more effectively met by having resident inspectors review selected modification documentation packages. The advantages with this method are twofold. First, the package provides a more complete description of the design process and safety evaluation than would be available in a summary. Second, engineering and implementation personnel who were involved in the modification process would be available to discuss the process with the inspector at the site. As a result, the inspector would have a more thorough understanding of the§ 50.59 process. This woul d also result in a mor~ timely review of the design changes. Duke agrees with the proposed rule that the change to couple the submittal to the fuel cycle will result in cost savings; but further savings would be realized, and more benefit accrued, by deleting the requirement completely and assigning responsibility for oversight of the program to the resident inspector. Semi-Annual (or Annual) Effluent Release Report The purpose and users of this report should be clearly defined. As long as the results are well within limits, it is not clear there is a real public interest. This information is periodically reviewed by regional inspectors; the reporting requirement could reasonably eliminated, and be replaced by a recordkeeping requirement. In the event the staff decides to pursue the change to annual reporting, two points should be considered before issuing the final rule. First, a final rule requiring an annual report will be in conflict with (less conservative than) many stations' Technical Specifications, which require semi-annual reporting. The final rule should clearly state that a Technical Specification change is

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~ion July 20, 1992 Page 3 not required before stations may begin annual reporting.

This would also be true if the staff elects to eliminate the report; licensees should be allowed to discontinue reporting prior to a Technical Specification change. Second, the current regulation states that the semi-annual reports are due 60 days after January 1 and June 1. A final rule requiri ng annual reporting should specify a date by which the next report is due; e. g., 60 days after January 1 or 60 days after June 1, depending on when the final rule is issued. Timing of FSAR Updates A final comment relates to the timing of FSAR updates, and to the annual design change r epor t if the staff elects not t o eliminate i t. Duke uses a s ingle FSAR at each of its three multi-unit sites. The rule should provide guidance on whether the update process should be tied to a particular unit at multi-unit sites. Conclusions The NRC should examine what the original intent for each reporting requirement is, and for what purpose each piece of information is used. If the original intent is obscured, or is no longer valid, the requirement should be deleted. Duke believes that these t wo reporting requirements are not effective ways to regulate t he respective activities. The day-to-day function of ongoing programs can most effectively be monitored on an inspection/audit basis, by resident or regional inspectors. If there are any questions, or you would like to discuss these comments furthe~, please call Scott Gewehr at (704) 373-7581. Very truly y~ur/'/ ....,~4_~ regburd/sag

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~ion July 20, 1992 Page 4 cc:

Mr. T. A. Reed, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, D. c.

20555 Mr. L.A. Wiens, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, o. C.

20555 Mr. R. E. Martin, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, o. c. 20555 Mr. s. o. Ebneter, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW - Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Mr. w. T. Orders Senior Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. P. E. Harmon Senior Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station Mr. c. w. Nilsen Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop NLS139 Washington, D. c.

20555

1901 Chouteau Avenue Post Office Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 314-554-2650 DOCKET NUMBER PR., PRC0O~ED RULE ,Ir}*- 0 (_51 FR ;i_.7 /<f-1 [;OCKt..; t..C' USNHC

• 92 JUL 24 A 9 :35 E

UNION July 21, 1992 LECTRIC ... Fr! C>: i..,' F 2 ~ C I t ~ / d'~ *J ~_tt )Cr\\~ I iN{; ', r* *, Vff.f

r\\;,hC*

• Donald F. Schnell Senior Vice President Nuclear

~~ Mr. Samuel S. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

ULNRC - 2666 SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE - 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 50 "REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES" Reference : Federal Register Volume 57, Number 118 dated June 18, 1992 These comments are submitted in response to the referenced Federal Register notice soliciting comments on the NRC's proposed rule "10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 - Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees." In Item 5, Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports (10 CFR 50.36a), NRC est imated 208 man-hours per licensee to prepare this report. This number may be low for licensees who have not computerized their records. In addition, the proposed rule does not address the current requirement to submit the report within 60 days from the end of the reporting period. The submittal requirement should be extended to 120 days from the end of the reporting period. A submittal extension to 120 days would: 1) allow for effluent composite samples to be shipped offsite for analyses; 2) allow for adequate compilation and review of the report; and 3) could eliminate the submission of amended reports which resulted from delays or errors associated with 1 and 2 above. The following reporting requirement should be addressed by the proposed rule. Standard Technical Specification 6.9.1.5 requires a report of occupational dose be submitted to NRC by March 1 of each year. This report augments the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 20.2206 which requires a report of occupational dose be submitted to NRC by April 30 of each year. These reporting requirements should be made consistent. SEP 18,~~, Acknowledged by card................. "..... _.. _..

Mr. Samuel S. Chilk Page 2 In general, Union Electric supports this rulemaking and appreciates the opportunity to comment on these items. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours, p~~ ~ Donald F. Schnell WEK/dls

cc: T. A. Baxter, Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Dr. J. O. Cermak CFA, Inc. 18225-A Flower Hill Way Gaithersburg, MD 20879-5334 R. C. Knop Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Bruce Bartlett Callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR#l Steedman, Missouri 65077 L. R. Wharton (2) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint, North, Mail Stop 13E21 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102

\\ DOCKET NUMBER tF~ CENTERIOR ~ ENERGY PROPOSED RULE PR 2-C) I StJ uC~':;/'- fl... 27 / J-/Y Donald C. Shelton Vice President

• Nuclear Davis-Besse Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 2068 July 17, 1992 Hr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commiss ion Nuclear Regulatory Commission Yashington, DC 20555 US NHC

'92 JUL 24 A9 :35 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652-0001 (419) 249-2300 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Subj ect: Comments on Proposed Rule, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees", 57 Federal Register 27187, June 18, 1992

Dear Hr. Chilk:

Toledo Edison (TE), a subsidiary of Centerior Energy, is partial owner of and is responsible for operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Toledo Edison has been authorized for power operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station since April 1977. As a 10 CFR 50 licensee, Toledo Edison has a vested interest in any policies the U.S. NRC may adopt which can affect the management and operation of a commercial nuclear power plant. Toledo Edison has reviewed the proposed rule changes and fully supports the proposed revisions. However, the submittal frequency of some of the reports described in the changes are specified in Section 6.0 of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications as well as in the present rules. Toledo Edison recommends that it be noted in the final rules that the revised reporting requirements supersede the reporting requirements of the Technical Specifications until such time the Technical Specifications can be changed. Operating Companies: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Toledo Edison SEP 18 \\S96 iAcknowledged by card..... "'""......................

U.S.~.*:-:*.. *.*: ::*,:,'*~*~ 1**_1')', COi\\'t/-1':~s;r.;~, [: **:.* ,*::-! ~.:.* : *' :!.'~:" ~ r..., T:Ci~*J

Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 2068 Page 2 Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Hr. Robert V. Schrauder, Manager - Nuclear Licensing at (419) 249-2366. Sincerely yours, wD~~ lp:I i cc: A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator, NRC Region III J. B. Hopkins, NRC/NRR DB-1 Senior Project Manager V. Levis, NRC Senior Resident Inspector USNRC Document Control Desk Utility Radiological Safety Board

Georgia Power Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Ottice Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 877-7122 UUGKt: I NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 2.._0,.5 0 C_51 FrL :i_ 116-7 LOLKL i lO U~ NHC § .\\ C. K. McCoy Vice President, Nuclear Vogtle Proiect

• 92 JUL 23 P 4 :43 Georgia Power the southern electnc system Docket Nos.

50-321 50-366 Ju ly 20, 1992 50-424 50-425 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisai on Washington, DC 20555 -~, ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees" (57 Federal Regi st er 27187 of June 18, 1992)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

HL-2331 ELV-03913 Georgia Power Company has reviewed the proposed rule, 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees," published in the Federal Register on June 18, 1992. In accordance with the request for comments, Georgia Power Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC. Should you have any questions, please advise. Respectfully submitted, CKM/JMG SEP 18 199' Acknowledged by card"11,111110: scncsenewqquwa~

U.S. Nt lCL i*,-.S :~E:GULATOR\\' cm:,1.11~:3:01'1/4 DO(.:;ETi~G & 'iFn\\/1(,f: S.:C,.!C.:J OFFICE 0.: TH: f.[Cq

• if P.Y CF TH!: co~.1:-V'.!,jSl*)~j

Georgia Power 70077~ Mr. Samuel J. Chilk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc: Georgia Power Company Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President, Plant Hatch Mr. W. B. Shipman, General ~nager - Plant Vogtle Mr. H. L. Sumner, Jr., General Manager - Plant Hatch NORMS

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, oc Mr. K. N. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch Mr. D.S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle

u. s. Nuclear Regul atory Commi ssion, Reqjon II Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. L. D. Wert, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle

THOMAS W. 0RTCIGER DIRECTOR DOC~~ET NUMBER PR PROPO ED RULE..:...:..:. _ __.ialijli,- (S 7 F (l :;_11 r-1 STATE OF ILLIN0IS VOCK£, ED USNHC

• 92 JUL 23 A11 : 1 6 DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAF~rrcY_or. S[1~rit 7,',1 'I 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE l.'*JLK; \\-!~~!. ~} :*:, '- !Li SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704 (217) 785-9900 July 20, 1992 JIM EOOAR GOVERNOR Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rule, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees" Gentlemen: The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety {Department) hereby submits its comments on the referenced proposed rule. The proposed rule represents changes to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 that would reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without reducing the protection for public health and safety. The Department agrees with the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 50 described in Items 1 through 6 in the Federal Register notice dated June 18, 1992. The Department agrees with the proposed changes to 10 CFR 20.1906(b), modifying the requirements for monitoring packages contai ning radioactive material. Specifically, the Department applauds the addition of a footnote specifying which "labeled" packages must be surveyed. In addition, the Department agrees with adding an exemption to monitoring packages containing gases or special form sources. The Department also agrees with the modifications to 10 CFR 20.1903(b). The language in the proposed rule is much clearer than that in the existing rule. By referring to the appropriate section of 10 CFR 35 regarding patient release criteria, the rule is more understandable to medical licensees. SEP 18 1992

' S. NUCLEAR Ht:GLJLATORY COMMISSIO~ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMM!SSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 1-iJ /°! 2-Copies Receivej / Add'I Cop1 S R... p vdUCd ~ ....,,....-=--c-- Special Di:.t.,b;;U~11 fl-:[_ iJ, pyj/2. i ~Sy */l/, is:e~ I t'~CL- .,I

Secretary of the Commission July 20, 1992 Page 2 In general, the Department agrees with the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding these comments, do not hesitate to contact Steve Collins at (217) 785-9948. Director TWO:gas cc: B.J. Holt

02'61. g\\. l..; Thia section of"'lnlr-fl'm!BlJU REGISTER contains notx:as to the public of the proposed iauance of rulel and regulations. The ptXJ)Otl8 of these notices IS to gN'8 interested persona an OflPO"Ul'llty to partJdpate in the rule ,naklng pnor to the adoption or the final n,les. NUCL£AR REGULATORY COMIIISSION 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 RIN3150-Al!30 Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclem'L.lcents** ( ANNCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comm.imon. AC110N: Proposed rule. . IUIIIIAIIY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commiaaion (NRC) la proposing to amend ita regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. Thia proposal reflects an initiative undertaken by the Comminion in order to respond to a Presidential memorandum requesting that selected Federal agencies review and modify regulations that will reduce the burden of governmental regulation to ensure that the regulated community ls not subject to duplicative or i.nconsl.atent regulation. In that spirit. the NRC'a Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) identified regulations in eight areaa that could be amended to reduce the regulatory burden on Ucenaeea without In any way reductns the protection for the public health and safety or the common defense and aecurlty. 'l'he proposed amendments addreu the &eqwmcy of reporting information and emerJJ811CY core cooling system analysis for operating power rncton, clarify and update regulationa affecting certain / material licenaea, and remove unnecessary regulatory requirements. DAff: The comment period expires on T11lv 20. 1992. Comments received after ~ this date will be considered if it is ' practicable to do 10, but the NRC la able to ensure conaideratton only for comment& received on or before th.I.a elate. ADDM*IU: Mail writtm'l commentt to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion. Wuhington. DC 205115. Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.. Deliver comments to One White Flint North. 11555 Rockville Pike. Rockvtlle. MD, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on weekdays. Copies of the comments received. as well as other documenta referenced in this package may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC20555. FOR PURTHl!II IIFOIIIIATION CONTACT: Mr. C.W. Nilsen. telephone (301) 492-3834 or Mr. Joseph J. Mate, telephone (301) 492-3795. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiltlion. Washington. DC 20555. flUIIIIUllaN'TAIIY INFOIIMATION:

Background

On January 28. 1992, the President of the United States signed a memorandum addreaaed to selected Federal Agency Heads who are concerned with energy production and protection of the environment. The memorandum requeated the addressees work together to atreamline the regulatory process and ensure that the reR'lllatory community la not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. On January 28. 1992. the President signed a second memorandum entitled .. Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation." This memorandum, which wea sent to all Federal agencies, set aside a 90-day period to review and evaluate exilting regu.lationa and program.I and to identify and accelerate action on initiatives that will eliminate any wineceasary regulatory burden. At the end of the review period. agencies were to submit a written report indicating the regulatory changes recommended or made du.ring the review period and the potential savings u a malt of the cbansa-ln retpoOae to the Pnmdential memoranda. the Commiuion decided that it would be conaiatent with its policy to monitor the impact of complYins with NRC regulations by its lfcemeee to instruct the Committee to Review Generic Requirement. (CRGR) to review exiat.lng NRC regulations to determine whether regulatory burden.I can be reduced without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety and tbe common defenN end security. fn accompliahina 27187 FedcalR...- Vol. 57, No. 118 Thursday, June 18. 1992 their review. the CRGR drew upon previous studies and solicited comments from the public. other Federal agencies. and the Commillslon'1 staff. A Federal Reg:bster Notice was published on February 24, 1992 (57 FR 62.99) seeking public comments in connection with the review, and a second Federal Register Notice on March 23, 1992 {157 FR 9985) d!SCW1sed likely or possible candidates for*action. based on CRGR's preliminary evaluation of comments. An associated public meeting was held on March 2.7. 1992. in Bethesda, Marylend. After completing their speetal review, the CRGR recommended revising the regulations in eight areas. The suggested revisions met the criteria for reducing the burden without in any way reducmg the protection for public health and safety and common defense and security. The Chairman of the NRC sent a report to the President of the United States on April z:,, 1992. which summarized NRC's activities concerning the President's directive and advised the President that NRC would pursue the CRGR'a recommendations expeditiously within the framework of the procedures and practices for rulemaking. On June 1, 1992. in response to a memorandum from the President of the United States. dated April 29. 1992. the Commisalon directed the staff to strive to pubU..b the proposed' rule changes in the eight areas previously identified by a special review group in the Federal Regiaterforcommentassoonas ponible. but not later than June 15, 1992. with a view to issuing the final rules in the Federal Register no later than August ZJ, 1992... DiKIIIM!ioa The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing amendments to 10 CFR parts 20 and l50 to Implement the eight proposed actions identified in the report on "Special Review of Existing NRC Regulations" that wu completed by the . CRGR and that waa attached to HoUBe dated April ZJ, 1992. The actions proposed to be amended would not reduce the NRC's protection of the public health and safety or the common defeme and eecurlty. During the apecial review of existing NRC regulation,. IODl9 comments were receiYed which indicated that adequate time should be allowed for public

17J88 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 118 / Thursday, June 18, 1992 / Proposed Rules comment on any proposed nue chanse,. A thirty-day comment period ii being provided.

1. Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Updatett (10 CFR so.n)

This proposed action would provide l.iceiuen with an option from the current requirements for the annual updating of the Final Safety Analysis Report {FSAR}. In lieu of an annual submission. licenseff may choose to provide the required Information once per each refueling outage. According to the proposed revision, updates to the FSAR can be submitted 6 months after each refueling outage, provided the

• Interval between successin updatn to the FSAR doee not exceed 24 months.

Th.is proposed action does not affect the 81b9tance of FSAR updates. WI' The estimated savings for this action. assuming an average remaining plant life of 28 years, is SlU00.000 for llcenaee1 and $'910.000 for the NRC.

2. Annual r,e.1gn Chan8fl Report$ (10 CFR IS0.59)

Thia propoaed action would reviM tba requiremeoil for the annual 1nsbnuuion of repom for facility change, under I 50..59 {Cha"IU, testa. and expertmenta) to conform with the proposed cha.op for updating the PSAR [see Item 1). Thia propoted action does not affect the substance of the evaluation Ol' the doQun.e.otatton required for i 50.59 type cb.a:nse.- It only affects the internl fOl' submJuion of the E ormation to NRC. lnatead of bmitting the information annully, the rmation could be submitted on a refuelmg cycle. provided the interval between au:ceaalve reporil does not exceed 24 month1. The estimated saTingti for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 28 years, is $1,500,000 for licensees and $400,000 for the NRC.

3. Elimination of Unneceaa,y bent Reporu {10 CFR 50.72 and 60.73)

The proposed revision coacern.ing event reporting is covered In a eepa.rate rulemaking action. For additional detaila on this action. plea.ta see the Commiuion Paper. SECY-92-148. dated

• *I:'*"-' -

.~ t

thu*""" * *"'1-'...-u. J;\\'llllOC RuiemaJdna to Modify Operetmg Power Reactors Event lileport:ule Requirement&." Thia~ rule will be announced aeparately 11:ad detai>>

will be available in the Nae Public IlocumeDt Room. 2120 L Stnet.. NW. (LowerLevel).W~DC2G51515.ia late JUI18 um.

4. Use of Fuel With Zirconium-Based (Other Than Zircaloy) Cladding (10 CFR 50.44. 50.48, and Appendix K tc Part 50)

Th.is.proposed action would revise the acceptance cnterla in 10 CFR 50.44 and 50.46, Part 50, relating to evaluationa of emergency core cooling systems, and combuatible gas control applicable to zircaloy dad fuel to include ZIRLO clad fuel. Thia reviaion to include ZIRLO aa an acceptable ztrc:ontm:n based cladding material with zircaloy will reduce the, licensee burmm b9t will not reduce the protection of the pablic beaJth or nfety. The NRC will addntN. throusb an appropriate separate nuemaklng. the UN of other aimilar Zircoruum based cladding materials when all of the necesaary safet, en.l:utiom for thoee materi&la have been completed. The *limlrted iavinp for eliminating the need to proceN recmring exemptioH to the regmation1 ia hued on lix planta per year reque91:io8 the me of ZIRLO clad fuel over the next 9,-an. The estimated saviDgl k> the !icem... ia SZ000.000 per year and the savtnga to the NRC la $50.000 per year.

5. ~q of Radiological Ef!luent R8f)(H'ta (10 CFR. 5fJ.38aJ Thia proposed action would reduce.

the requireme.nta for Iha 1ubmiaaion of reporil concemlng the quantity of principal nucBdet released to wtntatrfcted areaa in liquid and gaaeoua efftuenta from semiannually to annually. Tha estimated saving, for this action, aslltlmlng an average remaining plant life of 26 yelll'I. 11 $16,800,000 for licemee1 and $360.000 for the NRC.

8. &t;i,,ipt Badaf 1'roc6ned Low Level Wast. {10 CFll. 56M)

This action fa addrened in a separate rulemalrfns Foraddittonal information on thia action. see the proposed rule entitled "Receipt olByproduct and Specht} Nadear Material" published In the-Fedenl Register on Aprtl 24. 199% {57 FR l!MIM).

7. CoDtaminatiolJ. Maniloring of Packaga (JD CFR 20.1908f.b))

Tlda propoaed aci:ioo would clarify the regulations and JeCluw tbe monitorins burden for plCU8e9 containing rad.ioac::ti'ft material in the form of a ps or in a ll:pKilll Imm* defined in 10CFR 71 4. Tie eabmated UTifl89 to hcenaeea Lit $86A miBia&

8. Posting of BaorM Occ,.v,ied by Di<l6,Clt(Jlltlc Nuclear Metliclae Pa.li&al.a (10 CFIUOJJJ03(b)l The pn,pONd rnillkm wau.ld redm:a the posti:ag................,,_ in hoepitala occ!lpillcl by pettmt*

admin.llltm:N radioactive matlll'Mlla who might otherwise be released from confinement under the provisions of 10 CFR35~. The estimated aavinp to licenaee* la $300.000 for elimination of the need for

poatins, F.nviromneotal '(mpact: ~

Exchwion The NRC determined that the propoaed regulation fa the type of action described in categorical exclusiona 10 CFR 51.22{c{ (2} and (3). Therefore. neither an environmental Impact statement nor an envtronmental assessment bas been prepared for this proposed regulation. Paperwork Reduction Acts~ This propoaed rule amendl infonnatioA collecikm requirements that a.re subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq). Th.is rule baa been 111bmitted to tbe Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requiremeD1L The rea:octioa of the public reportiDg burden for thia eollecticm of information is estimated to averaae D hours per reapome for operatins power reacton and 1 boar per rnpome for certain ma'8riall licea1 e1, including the time for reviewing ioatnldiom, search.ins exiaq data IOUN:el. pthering and maintai.niJll the data needed. and completins and reviewing the collection of Information. Send commenui regard.ins this burden eatimate or any other upect oi dua collection of Information including *uggestion.a OD this reduced burden IO the Information and Records Management Branch (MNDB-ffl4). U.S. Nuclear Rega:latory Comm.iuic>a. Waahington. DC 20555; and io the Deak Officer, Office of Information and Replatory Affairs, NEOB-3o19 (3150-0011, 3150-0014). Office of MaJtaeement and Budget. WMhinflt.oe. DC 2m03. Regulatory Ana:IJ,mr The Nllclear Regulatory Commiuion ia propoame to amend ita replaliom to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear liceDINleL 'Ihia action reflecta an initiative on tha part of the NRC and resnonda to the suirit of President Bush's memoranaa 01 1anuary L.tl. lW.:, wwcn req_ueated tbat l8lecied Federal agencies review and mod:1fy regulatlon1 that will reduce the burden or governmental regulation to emu:re that the regulated community ia not subject to duplicative 01' iDcomilllml replation. Th"' Nll:dear Regu.laa:, ec-iNioa hu kientifled eight,...,... Nlmaeking actienl that

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 118 / Thursday, June 18. 1992 / Proposed Rules 27189 uld eliminate duplicative or ~o nsistent regulatory requirements. inCOof the proposed actions are included SiXlhis package. Two of the eight actions in bein8 processed as separate a1emalongs and are not discussed here. ,rtie actions are as follows: 1 frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report Updates-to change the frequency of safety analysis report pdates from one per year to once per uefuehng cycle (10 CFR 50.71}: r z. A,nnual Design Change Reports-to change the frequency of reporting chanses at power reactors from once per year to once per refueling cycle (10 CFR 5().59(b));

3. Ebmination of unnecessary event r~parate rulemaking:

4. Use of Fuel and Zirconiwn-Based Cladding-to eliminate the need to obtain exempti0111 in order to use certain fuel cladding materials not presently addressed in the regulatiom

[10 CFR 50.44. 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50. appendix K);

s. Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports-to change the frequency of reports on power reactor radiological effluents from twice per year to once per year (10 CFR 50.38a):

6. Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste-separate rulemaking.

7. Contamination Monitoring of Packages-to eliminate certain provisions for contamination monitoring of packages containing certain types of radioactive material (10 CFR 20.1906)b)}:

8. Posting of Rooms Occupied by Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine Patients-to include exceptions for posting requirements for rooms in hospitals for patients adminsitered radiophannaceuticals for diagnostic tests {10 CFR 20.1903{b)).

Each of these propo98d actions considers the elimiantion or relaxation of regulatory requirements CUITently imposed on NRC licen&eM. Actions 1. 2. 4, and 5 would affect power reactor licensees., whereas Actions 7 and 8 would affect materials licenaees. For each regulatory action. the staff has evaluated the health and safety impllcationa and tM co.! impacts relative to a stahll quo alternative. The staff finds that each would result tn a reduction In burden without reducing protection of the pubHc health and safety~ The pub!::: ::~u!!!i.:;~d..,afcly determinal:lon appears ln a document entitled, "Report on Special Review of Existing NRC Regulatiom by the Committee to Review Generic RequirementlN iuued on April 13. 199%. Additionally, an analym of the safety implications of Actioa 3 la available in* U.S. NRC Letter to Wntin8howre Corporation dated July 1, 1991, entitled "Acceptance For Referencing Of Topical Report WCAP-12610 "Vantage+Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report" (TAC NO. 77258)." The cost savings to both the licensee population and the NRC appear below. Dollar impacts are expressed on a 1992 present worth basis in 1992 dollars. The basis for these cost estxmates is available in a report entitled "Analyses of Potential Cost Savings for Selected NRC Reforrrui dated June 10, 1992." TOTAL DISCOUNTED Ill CoST SAVINGS AS-SOCIATED Wm-t PROPOSED REGULA* TORY AEvrslONS (1992 $ IN MILLIONS) R~ l1MlllOn, ltemt--.*--- ltem 2_ ------ lttlm 3. _,_, ___,_ Item 4 _., __,. ----* Item 5.. ------ --*. - ttem e......... -. --* -*. lteffl 7 *.. ----*----* Item'*--*--------- I.Jcenleel I 11.t 1 5 19 N/A 2.0 1U NIA 6~1.4 0.3 NRC 0.910 0.400 "' N/A 0050 03e0 N/f/t:- r*-0.100 ,. -0100 NoTe: * * -- an lfll'IUIIII NIii& lilcount ra11e ol 5"1C.. c

• not 111'.)pM:abla

&ep... rulemaloog 1* neg&tMt c:01t ~ rept9Nnt a cost EllCl)Wldl-tln. The NRC concludes that each of these proposed regulatory revisions is justified due to the net coat savianga that would accrue without compromising public health and aafety. Regulalory Flembility Certification Based on the lnfonnation available at this stage of the rulemaking proceeding and in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the NRC certifies that. if promulgated. these rules will not have a *lgnificant adverse economic impact on a subatantial number of small entities. The NRC has adopted size standards that classify a small entity as a small bu.siness or organization. one whoae grosa annual receipts do not exceed $3.5 million. or as a small govem.mental jurisdiction whose supporting population is S0.000 01' leas. The first six iuues effect 112 power reactor lic:emees. The companies that own these plaat8 do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small ,..,ntf~,..,a" "..,,.. I~$., 1-. l-.,..., 'Drm.*1,...,.,..._... Flexibility Act or the NRC Size " Standarda. 11ul remaining two iasuea Involve the Nlaxatlon of requirements. which will affect approximately 10.000 material licemees. Althoup many of

• these lieemees may be small entities, there should be no adverse impact on these smell llcensee becauae the regulations are being relaxed.

Back.fit A.nalysla The NRG haa determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, doell not apply to this proposed r-egulation and. therefore. that a backfit analysts is not required for* this proposed rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined In 10 CFR 50.lOO(a)(l). List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 20 Byproduct matenal. Criminal penalty. Licensed material, Nuclear materials. Nuclear power plants and reactors. Occupational safety and health. Packaging and containers. Radiallon protection, Reporting and recordkeepmg requirements, Source material. Special nuclear material. Waste treatment an~ disposal 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust. Classified information. Criminal penalty, Fite protection. Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection. Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeepmg requirements. For reasons set out i'n the preamble and under the authonty of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. as amended. and 5 U.S.C. 553. the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts zo and 50. PART 20-STAMOARDS FOA PROTECTION AGAINST AADtATION

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

Autbm:ity: Seel. 53. 63. M. 81..103. 104. 16:1. 182. 186. 68 SlaL 930, 933, 935. 938. g.17, 948. 953. 955. ae amended (42 u.s.c. 2073. 2093, Zl95, 2111. 2133. 2134. 2201, 2232. 2.238 ). secs. 201, as amended. 202. 206. 88 Stal 1242. as amended. 1244.. 1%4tl (42 U.5.C. 5841. 5842. 5846). Section 20.408 also luued under secs. 135, 141. Pub. L 97--425. 96 Stal %232. 2241 (42 u.s.c. 10155. 10161}. Fcx tlw pmpoNS of AC. 233. 158 Stat. 958. as amended (4Z U.S.C. 22731: H 2D.101. 20.102. 20.103 (a). (b). and (0, 20.104 (a) aad (b). 20.tOl5(b), 20.lOO(a), 20.201, 20.202{a), 20.205, 20.207. 20.301. 20.303. 20.304. and 20.305. """-'9l.1.u.l..:.u.i:...4J.t-4U-.~ "'-' J...t..<J,.cu l.:.u,. 20.1208. 20.1301. 20.1302. 20.1501, 20.1502. 20.1901 (a) and (d), 20.1002. 20.leo:3.20.1701. 20.17M. 20.1801. 20.µm. 20.1901(a}. 20.1902. 20.1904. 20.1906. 20.2001. 20.2002. 20.2003. 20.2004, 20.2005 (b) and ( c), 20.2006. 20.2101-20.Zl.10. 20.2201-2IIU208. and 20.2301 are lsaaoed uuder 1eC. let{b}, 68 Stal 1148 H amended (C U.S.C. 2201(b)); I 20.%106(d) IS iasued under the Privacy Act of 1974. Pnb. L 93-619. 15 U.S.C. 5528.: and II 20.102. 20.103(e).

27190 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 118 / Thursday, June 18. 1992 / Proposed Rules 20.401-20 407. 20.408(bl, 20.JOO. 20.11021a) 12) dnd HJ, 20.1204!c), 201206 (g) and lhl. 20 1904(cl(4). 20.1006 (c) dnd ldl. ::o ::oo5(c). zo 2006 !bHdl. 20 2101-20.210J. ::o 2104(b!- f cl. 20 21~20 ::1013. a,d :!fl :.:::o.-:o ::207 are

• ssi.:ed under sec. 161*i. 66 S*"r ':It*) *.;;

--.,ni'nc!ed (42 U S.C ::..."f,1,:.

• Z. Section 20.1903 1s o::ie::ded ty revising paragraph(:,, :c* ~e.Jd oS follows:

§ 20.1903 Exceptions to posting requirements. (b) Rooms or other areas m hospitals that are occupied by paf1en!s are not required to be posted with caution signs pursuant to§ 20.1902 provided that the patient could be released from confinement pursuant to § 35.75 of this Aapter. -....

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

§ 20.19045 Procedura for recetvtng and oprilgpac;bges. fb J Each licensee shall-(1) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled 3

• package for radioactive contamination unless the package contains only radioactive material in the form of a gas or in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4; (2) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled 3* package for radiation levels unless the package contains quantities of radioactive material that are less than equal to the Type A quantity, as fined in I 71.4 and Appendix A to Part of this chapter, and the radioactive material is in the form of a gas or in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4; and (3) Monitor all packages known to contain radioactive material for radioactive contamination and radiation levels if the package has evidence of potential contamination. such as packages that are crushed. wet, or damaged.

PART 50-00MESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION ANO UTILIZATION FACIUTIES "i. fhe aumonty_i.,t"w... ; :-*.--** :::; continues to. read as follows: Audladty: Secs. 102. 103, 10A. 105. 1111, 18Z. 183, 186. 189. 68 StaL 938. 937, 938, 948. 953,

• Lab<<led with a~

White l. Yellow 0. or Ytllow W label u lp4IClfied In U.S. Department of Tramponation rvplaboa.1. 49 CFR 172.403 and 17%.430-440. 954, 955. 956. aa amended, t;ec, 234, 83 Slat. 12.;.; as amended (42 U.S.C. 213.Z.. 2133, 2134. 2135. ::201. 2232. 2233, 2236. 2:39. 2282); secs ZO'l. as amended. 202. 206. 88 Stat 1242 as arr.Prided. 1244. 1246. (-12 USC 5841 5542. 5846). St-ct,on 50.7 also issued i.nder P.JO L 95-6G1, sec. 10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 USC 58511 Sechon 50.10 also issued under seus. 101. 185. 68 Stat. 938, 955.. as amended (42 C.S C. 213?. 2235), aec. 102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat 853 l-12 U S.C. -1332}. Seel.Jona 50.13, 50.Mldd). and 50.103 also luued under sec 108. 68 Stat 939, aa amended l4Z U.S.C. 2:138). Secuon.s 50.23. 50.35, 50.55. and 50.56 also IS&ued.under sec. 185. 68 Slat. 955 {-12 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 1oz. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat 853142 U.S.C. 4332). Sect.Iona 50.34 and 50 54 also IHUed under &eC. 204, 88 Stat 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, !I0.91. and 50.92 also issued I.Uld.'lr Pub. L 97-415. 96 StaL 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 alllO ISIUed under sec. 122. 68 Stat. 939 (4% U.S.C. 2152). Section* 50.80-50.81 allo l sued under sec. 184, 68 Stat 954. aa amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix Fallo luued under sec. 187, 68 Slat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2.237). For the purpoaea of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); H 50.5. 50.46(a} and (b). and 50,5,&(c) are 11aued under sec. 181b. 68 StaL fH8. u amended (42 U.S.C. 2201{b)); H 50.5. 50.1{a). 50.totaHcJ, 50.34 la) and (e). S0.44(aHc). 50.46 (e) and (b). 50.4i'(b). 50.48 (a). (e). (d), and (e). 50.49fa), 50.Mta), (IJ, (l}(l). (1Hn). (p), (q), (I), (v), and (y}, 50.65(f). 50.55a(a). (cHeJ, lg). and (h, 50.59( c}. 50.80( a). li0.62{b). 50.64(b ). 50.66, and. 50.80 (a) and (b) are lasued under sec. 161i. 68 Stat. 949. aa amended {4% U.S.C. ZZOl(i)); and H 50.4l1 (d). (h) and ij). 50.54 (w), (i), (bb}, I cc). and I dd). 50.56( e). 50.59{b }, 50.61 [ b), 50.82(b). !!0.70(a), 50.1l(aHc) and (e), 50.72(a). SO. 73 I a) and (b). 50.14. 50.78. and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950 as amended (4% U.S.C. 2201(0)).

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

f &0.3la Teclwllcll apeclllatlons on etl'luanta fnNn nuciNrpow rw1orL {a}* * * (2) Each licensee shall submit a report to the Commlaaion annually that speciflea the quantity oreach of the principal radionuclidet released to unrestricted areaa in liquid and in gaseoua effluenta during the previout 12 montha of operation. including any other information as may be required by the Ounrni*lion to eatimate maximum ootentlal annual radiation do!tes to the public resulting from effluent releases. The report muat be submitted as specified in I 50.4, and the time between submission of the report must be no longer than 12 months. If quantities of radioa.ctiff materiala releaaed during the reporting period att significantly above design objectives, the report mWll cover this specifically. On the bi.Ii& of these reports and any additional information the Commission may ob'.,rn'! from the licensee or others, the Comm1ss1on may require the hcemee to

aJ..e action as the Commission deems appropriate.

6. Section 50.41 ;s amenried by revising the mtroductory text of paragraphs (a), (bJ. and !c}(l) lo read.;s follows:

§ 50.44 Standarda tor combustlbfe gas control system llght-watw-cooled power reactors. (a) Each boiling or pressunzed hght-water nuclear power reactor ft.eled with oxide pellets within cylindncal zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, shall, as provided m paragraphs (b) through (d) of tlus section, include means for control of hydrogen gas that may be generated. following a postulated loss-of-coolant aCCJdent (LOCA). by-(b) Each boiling or prenuriud hght-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zlrcaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with the capability for-(c)(l) Each boiling or pressunzed light-water nuclear power reactor fueled Wlth oxide pellets within cylindrical :mcaloy or ZIRW cladding. it mu.al be shown that during the time period following a postulated LOCA, but prior to effective operation of the combustible gas control system, either:

7. Sechon 50.46 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(l)(i) to read as follows:

§ 50.4a Acc..,._.- crttena tor........,cy core coollnD -,atema tar Ugnt Ill nuc:lar power reactcn. (a){1)(i) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pelletl within cylindrical Zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with an emersency core cooling system (ECCS) that must be designed so that ita calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of..coolant accidents conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. BCCS cooling performance must ...1~ ca1t.u1a.u::U 1.u aLt..u.1..:!G.lAi:G -..;**Hh sn acceptable evaluation model and must be calculated for a number of p01tulated JOA-Of-coolant accidenta of different sizes. locations. and other properties sufficient to provide aaauranc:e that the moat lel'Vere postulated losa-of-coolant accidenta are calculated. Except as provided in parasrapb (a)(l)(U) of this

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 118 / Thursday, June 18, 1992 / Proposed Rules 27191 I On the evaluation model must ec 1 s elude sufficient supportmg 11\\ 1 ficat10n to show that the analytical JU *hniqLe realis~.cally de9cnbes the 1eL c d. bchtiv,or u: tu" red.:tor system urmg

• 055-of-co*.*:,1:1t act.,Jent Compansons to

' pltcable e,perimental data must be cl{lade and uncertainties m the analysis

ethod and mput must be identified and a~sessed so that the uncertainty m the calculated results can be estimated. This uncertainty must be accounted for. so that. when the calculated ECCS cooling perfonnaoce is compared to the cnteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, there Is high level of probability that the crite

ria would not be exceeded.

Appendix K. part II. Required .0ocumentation. *sets forth the documentation requirements for each evaluation model.

s. Section 50.59 is amended by revising paragraph (b )(2) to read as followa:

(b} * * * (2) The licensee shall submit. as specified in § 50.4. a report containing a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each. The report may be submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by § 50.71(e), or at such shorter Intervals as may be spec1fied in the license.

9. Section 50.71 la amended by revising paragraph (e}{4J to read as follows:

§ 50.71 Malntanance of records, 1l'lllldng of r-,orta. (e) * * * {4) Subsequent reviaions must be filed annually or 6 months after each rafueling outage provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceeed 24 months. The revisiora must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months nrior tn th..,ht.,. Ol f1img. Dated at Rockville. Maryland.thi111th daJ of June 199Z. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion. lames M. Taylor, ExecutJvB Direct<< for Operatimu. trn Doc. 92-14370,Filed &-1&-92; 8:4& a.ml lillU.JNQ com.,........._ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation AdmmJstration 14 CFR Part 39 (Daeket No. 12-NM-101-AD] Airworthiness Directives; Airbus lndustrie Mi:,det A310 Series Ah'planff AGENCY: Federal A,;iation AdnurustratioQ. DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaklng (NPRM).

SUMMARY

This document proposes the adoption of a new al!'Worthiness directive (AD) that Is applicable to Airbus Industrie Model A310 series airpu.nea. Th!a proposal would require conducting an integrity teat to detect corrosion in ilia wing tip brake solenoids, and replacement. if necessary. This proposal is prompted by several incidents in which wing tip brake solenoid.a failed as a result of corrosion in the solenoid coils. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent wing tip brake valve failure, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATU: Comments mll.8t be reuived by August 4. 1902. ADDIIEnat:: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal A viatton Administration {FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate. ANM-103, Attention: Rules Docket No. 92-NM-101-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be Inspected at this location between 9 a.m.. and 2 p.m.. Monday through Friday, except Federal bolida~ The aervice information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Airbu Industrl.e, Airbus Support Dtvlsion. Avenue Didier Daurat. 31700. Blagnac. France. This information may be exa.mi.Ded at the FAA. Tran.sport Airplane Directorate. 1601 Lind Avenue SW.. Renton. Washington 98055-4056. POii PUnMIEII INfORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Greg Holt. Standardization Branch. ANM-113., FAA. Transport Airplane Directorate. 1601 Lind Avenue SW.. Renton. Washington 98055-4056: talephooa (206) 227-2104; fax (2.D6J 221-1 ~m SUPPI..EaNTAJIIY INPOAIIATION: C'.offlmenis lavited Interested persona are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting auch written data, views. or arguments as they may desire. Communicatio!H shall identify the Rwu Docket number and be tubmitted in triplicate to the addreu specified above. All communications received on or before the clos:ng date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained m this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. Comments are spec1fically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy a!ij:'ects of the proposed rule. All commPn,s submitted will be available. both before and after the closing date for comments. in the RuleB Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Doclcet. Commentera wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must 1ubmit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: "Comments to Docket Number 92-NM-101-AD." The poatcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Ava.ilabillty of NPRMa Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by aubmitting a request to the FAA. Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103. Attention.: Rules Docket No. 92-NM-101-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4058.. Ducussion The Direction General de !'Aviation Civile (DGAC}. which a the airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an Wl&afe condition may exist on Airbua Induatrie Model A31O aeries 'airplanes. The DGAC advises that there have been aeveral incident. in which wing tip brake solenoids failed as a result of comM1ion in the solenoid coils. Subaequent inspections detected conosioG in the coils leading to open circuit or high resiatance value. The corrosion wu apparently cauaed by an electrolytic phenomenon brought about by tnsren of hydraulic fiwd coming in contact with the coil which ia under continuous monitorins currenL Reduced controllability of the airplane could occur if both solenoid.a fitted on one wing tip brake are inoperative and if this failure is combined with a flap or slat asymmetry occurring due to a transmiuion disconnection. Airbua Induatrie baa isaued Service Bulletin A31.0-27-2042. Revision 1, dated December 11, 1988. which describes procedures for conducting repetitive integrity tests of the aolenoida to detect cormsion. and replacement. if

WILLMM L. STEWART Senior Vice President 'OGKE l LO USNRC Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen A/Jen, Vi,ginia 23060 804-273-3551

• 92 JUL 23 A11 :09
• July 20, 1992 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA POWER Serial No. 92-455 NL&P/HMF-RBP COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION TO 10 CFR 20 AND 50 REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES In its Federal Register Notice RIN 3150-AE30 dated June 18, 1992, the NRC issued a proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. This proposal reflects an initiative undertaken by the Commission in order to respond to a Presidential memorandum requesting that selected Federal agencies review and modify regulations that will reduce the burden of governmental regulation to ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. We support the subject proposal to amend eight of the NRC regulations with the goal of reducing the regulatory burden on NRC licensees. As we indicated in our letter of May 8, 1992 (Serial Number 92-149), we believe that it is important that the NRC recognize the burden imposed on licensees by the cumulative impact of its requirements and regulations, and urge the NRC to continue this reevaluation and simplification of requirements that add little or nothing to safety. We endorse the NUMARC comments provided separately to the NRC and attach our specific comments for consideration in the proposed revision. Very truly yours, Jl f}i:t W. L. Stewart Attachment SEP 18,~~, Acknowledged by card.......... ".......... ;.:.:.:"'"

u.s* tiu~

• -Ji.JLATORY COMMISSI0'1\\

DOGKf:. ;:..;-_i & SERVICE SECTION o,::-.:-:,(;[ OF THE SECRETARY CF THt: COMMISSION

cc: Mr. Ron Simard Director, Industry Relations and Administration Division Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, N. W. Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-2496

ATTACHMENT The following are specific comments on the proposed amendments to the regulations. Frequency of Flnal Safety Analysis Report Updates We support the proposed change to 1 0CFR50. 71 as long as the flexibility remains to permit licensees to continue the current practice of updating the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) more frequently than annually or the 18 month refueling interval basis. Annual Design Change Reports Virginia Power supports the proposed change in the interval for submission of 1 0CFRS0.59 reports, although we doubt that this will result in the $1.5 million in savings as estimated by the NRC. Because of this, we recommend that the NRC reconsider the need for licensees to submit 1 0CFRS0.59 reports at all. The requirement to submit these reports was issued before the Final Safety Analysis Reports were required to be updated on a periodic basis and before resident inspectors were assigned to all sites. The 1 0CFRS0.59 evaluations are now available on site for review by inspectors at any time, and most changes at the facilities are reflected in the UFSARs. Also, to the best of our knowledge, 1 0CFRS0.59 reports are not routinely reviewed by the NRC staff. Therefore, we recommend that the requirement for the periodic submittal of the 1 0CFRS0.59 reports be eliminated altogether. This change would have no impact on safety and the 1 0CFRS0.59 evaluations would continue to be performed and to be available for review as in the past, as well as contribute to significant savings by licensees.

D0C'~ET NUMBER PRCPQnED RULE PR 2.CJ S-0 C S 7 F fl 2-1 I r-1) Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission } JU! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-6420 l dLl\\i... ii... ) USNHC JUL 1 7 1992 L-92-216

• 92 JUL 23 Al 1 :31 Re:

Solicitation of Public Comments on Proposed Rule; Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees, 57 Fed. Reg. 27187 (June 18, 1992)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

At 57 Fed. Reg. 27187, the NRC published a solicitation of public comments on its proposed amendments to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. These comments are submitted on behalf of Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), a licensed operator of two nuclear power plant units in Dade County, Florida and two nuclear power plant units in St. Lucie County, Florida. The NRC has identified eight proposed changes to the regulations that would reduce the burden on licensees without affecting safety. These proposed changes include reducing the frequency of updating the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) information from annual to once per refueling outage, reducing the frequency of design change reports from annual to once per refueling outage, and reducing the frequency of radiological effluent reports from semi-annual to annual. FPL generally supports the proposed amendments and submits the following comments: 1. Frequency of FSAR Updates (10 CFR 50.71 ) FPL requests that the proposed wording to 10 CFR 50.71 (e) (4) be revised to read as follows:

• subsequent revisions must be filed periodically such that the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months.

The revisions must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filing." The NRC has determined that the interval between updates cannot exceed 24 months. FPL believes that the NRC wording which includes, "annually" and 11 6 months after each refueling outage" do not need to be included in this regulation. The FPL proposed wording allows a utility additional flexibility to submit the update as long as they do not exceed the 24 month interval. an FPL Group company SEP 18 1~~2 Acknowiedged by amt *"zou I :UIIIMZ.ZC:05:;

f.., l

Page Two L-92-216 2. Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports (10 CFR 50.36a) FPL requests that the proposed wording to 10 CFR 50.36a (a) (2) be revised to read as follows: "... The report must be submitted as specified in Section 50.4 prior to March 1 of each year." FPL notes that licensees may have this reporting requirement located in their technical specifications as well. The final rule should reflect that the regulation takes precedence over the technical specifications until an administrative amendment can be processed. 3. Other Comments The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and the Nuclear Utility Backfit and Reform Group (NUBARG) have submitted comments on the proposed rule. FPL endorses the NUMARC and NUBARG comments. FPL believes strongly that the NRC should continue its efforts toward ensuring that regulations are retained only so long as they continue to provide a substantial contribution to the protection of the public health and safety in a cost-effective manner. Such actions are clearly within the spirit of the President's January 28, 1992, memorandum entitled "Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation," and Commissioner Selin's remarks to the press on June 22, 1992, when he stated "... it's time for us to step up our search for places where we may inadvertently cause more costs than justified by health and safety. " We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this effort. W. H. ohlke Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Licensing WHB/MSD/dmb

l L. l.t\\i... I U' Log

1. TXX-92347 U~NRC File# 10185 856 Ref.# 10CFR1903 & 19@2 JUL 21 P2:27 50.36a, 50.44, fflELECTRIC

50. 46, 50

• 59, ~i~ F (l't. vf St Ci~t: fJ,t< v tiOCl'~E 11NG,, St r<V!Cf 8fCt.Nt:H William J. Cahlll, Jr.

Gro"J' Vice President Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 July 17, 1992

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) PROPOSED RULE TO REDUCE THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES Gentlemen: TU Electric has reviewed and hereby endorses the subject proposed rule as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 118, pages 27187-27191, on June 18, 1992. Sincerely, William J. Cahill, Jr. By:9/r1~ J. S. Marshall Generic Licensing Manager JLR/grp SEP 18 1~, Ackrlcn,.iedged by card ***NN*****"******************t 400 N. Olive Street L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201

U.S. NUCU>,i ;-;cGULATORY COMMISSIOf'. DOCKE: T!NG 8. SERVICE SECTION OFf-iCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSiON Documant Statistics Postmark Date _,. _ _._ _______ _ Copies Received __ ..;_/--=------ Add'I Copies Reproduced _4 _ __ -- Special istribution P lJ (l, fLT lJ.[, A/, ls 12, b-: J M&t:e-

123 Main Street White Plains, NewYork 10601

OCKET NUMBER PR -1* *(:)-.

PROPOSED RULE ~ - - 0 914 681.6846 L~ 7 FYL )-1 l t1)

_ t1CKr. i rn USNHC

,. NewYorkPower ., Authori1y

• 92 JUL 21 P 3 :44 Ralph E. Beedle Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation The Secretary

,J ! IC:. CF ~[Cf\\tl R" i.:.w'.J\\[ 1NG :,_'.-i i VIC i July 15, 1~L ~ p /\\Nt 1! JPN-92-032 IPN-92-032 U. S. Nuclear Reglatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 Proposed Rule on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Ucensees

1.

Federal Register Notice 57 FR 27187 dated June 18, 1992.

2.

NYPA letter, R. E. Beedle to Chief, Regulatory Publications Branch, USNRC, dated May 4, 1992 (IPN-92-021 / JPN-92-019), Responding to Requests for Comments on the Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety as published In the February 4, 1992 (57 FR 4166) Federal Register.

3.

NYPA letter, J.C. Brons to S. J. Chilk, dated July 9, 1990 (IPN-90-037 / JPN-90-052), Comments on Petition for Rulemaking, Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50. In Federal Register Notice 57 FR 27187, dated June 18, 1992, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed to amend its regulations In 1 0 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. The proposed change to 10 CFR 50.71, *Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Updates*, would provide licensees with an option for submitting FSAR updates. In lieu of an annual submission, licensees would be able to provide updates to the FSAR after each refueling outage, provided the Interval between successive updates to the FSAR did not exceed 24 months. This proposal would provide a more efficient process for updating the FSAR. SEP 18 b ~l .Acknowledged by card.. --"'"'-"'"""'"

U.S r.:*;:.. :. :. :*.:.:.. iJLA fORY COMMISSION ['C:*> ~ 1 ;Nu & SERVICE SECTION cF:*,cf. UF THE SECRETARY OF ThE CJMM!SSION MA J k.t _

The New York Power Authority strongly endorses the proposed rule and urges the Commission to adopt this rule as a final rule. The Authority previously endorsed this change to the proposed rule in a letter to the NRC dated July 9, 1990 (Reference 3). This was in support of Yankee Atomic Electric Company's request to the NRC for Petition for Rulemaking, 10 CFR 50.71 (e)(4), dated February 9, 1990. The Authority again endorsed this change to the proposed rule in a letter to the NRC dated May 4, 1992, responding to Requests for Comments on the Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety (Reference 2). Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Mr. J. A. Gray, Jr. or Mr. P. Kokolakis. cc: Regional Administrtor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA. 19406 Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point Unit 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box337 Buchanan, N. Y. 10511 Office of the Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 136 Lycoming, N. Y. 13093 Mr. Brian C. McCabe Project Directorate 1-1 Division Of Reactor Projects 1/11 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14 B2 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Nicola F. Conicella, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division Of Reactor Projects 1/11 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14 B2 Washington, D. C. 20555 Very truly yours, kC/~ Ralph E. Beedle Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY Telephone (508) 779-6711 TWX 710-380-7619 < --::7""'\\ 580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398 "~ANKE1/ DOCKET NUMBER nn 2.. a o PROPOSED RULEJ'!I (SJ F rz.,;_-; I ~1) Secretary of the Commission July 20, 1992 FYC 92-013 SPS 92-086 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20655 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch / ,,,_ h\\ 5 __ \\ ___.., 4, / DOCKETED I I I JUL 20 1992 DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH SECY-NRO t\\~

Subject:

Comments Concerning the Proposed Rule Changes to Reduce the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees (57 Fed. Reg. 27187)

Dear Sir:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee) appreciates the opportunity to offer comments concerning the proposed rule changes to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. Yankee owns the nuclear power plant in Rowe. Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast including Vermont Yankee. Maine Yankee. and Seabrook. Yankee is also a member of the Nuclear Utilities Backfit and Reform Group (NUBARG). NUBARG has filed comments concerning the proposal which we fully endorse. Yankee was the originator of the proposal to allow more meaningful scheduling for FSAR updates in a rulemaking petition filed February 9. 1990 and certainly welcome its addition to the list of changes intended in the near term. However. we would make one comment concerning the presentation of this proposal in the subject Federal Register Notice. The Notice indicates an intention to limit the interval between successive FSAR updates to a period not to exceed 24 months. We believe this restriction is unnecessary. In our original rulemaking petition we recognized the possibility of circumstances which would warrant the updating of the FSAR to a schedule other than the basic proposal. The Yankee proposal addressed this possibility by suggesting language which would allow the NRC's Executive Director for Operations the option of specifying the FSAR revision requirements for licensees in any such instances. We believe this approach is more flexible and satisfies any possible regulatory needs. With respect to the other seven proposed rule changes. it is clear to us that they can all be enacted with no negative impact on safety. We only regret that the review by the Committee for Review of Generic Requirements C76\\235

U.S. NUCi *. r' ;UU-\\:GRY COMMISSIOt-. DC:..~ i. -3C:P.VICE :cCTION Ch*,. 1 :, i"'~,= ;:;ECRE-:-ARY CF * *.: :,..:,;,1\\iiSSiON

Secretary of the Commission Page 2 July 20. 1992 CCRGR) was unable to identify more candidate changes. We believe the shortness of list has to be primarily due to the limited resources and time allotted for the review. not to the lack of valid candidates. It is our understanding that the present CRGR Charter calls for a periodic review for unnecessarily burdensome requirements: however, we question whether sufficient staff resources are being provided to the CRGR to effectively perform this function. We have been favorably impressed with both the small size and the quality of the CRGR staff we have encountered during various industry activities. It is our belief that the current staff is simply too small to deal effectively with all of the responsibilities cited in the CRGR Charter. The recent NRC initiative to provide public comment opportunities concerning proposed NRC Generic Correspondence is. in our judgement. a positive step. Unfortunately, it is likely that this will be a further drain on the existing CRGR staff resources. We strongly suggest that NRC management consider shifting some resources to augment the CRGR staff. The critical role which they play in the regulatory process should not be as severely hampered as it appears to be. DWE/dhm C76\\235 Sincerely yours, IJIAZ,tt4 Donald W. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs

FREDERICK H. WINSTON (1853-1886) SILAS H. STRAWN (1891-1946) 1 H i* * :.<

• '. NUMoc;n PR cf<O 5D r vi v.::>ED RULE 1

L 57 PR. ;;;. 7 I g?) WINSTON & STRAWN DOCKETED USNRC 1400 L STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3502 CHICAGO OFFICE 35 WEST WACKER DRIVE (202) 371-5700 P 6, 0 3 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601

• 92

,JUL 20 . I (312) 558-5600 FACSIMILE (202) 371-5950 July 20, 1992 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch NEW YORK OFFICE 175 WATER STREET NEW YORK, NY 10038-4981 (212) 269-2500 Re: Solicitation of Public Comments on Proposed Rule Regarding Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees, 57 Fed. Reg. 27,187 (1992)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group ("NUBARG"), 11 and respond to the referenced Federal Register notice soliciting comments on the NRC's proposed amendments to its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this NRC initiative and fully support the proposed amendments. The NRC has identified a set of proposed changes to the regulations that would reduce the burden on licensees without affecting safety. These proposed changes include reducing the frequency of updating FSAR information from annual to once per refueling outage, reducing the frequency of design change reports from annual to once per refueling outage, and reducing the frequency of radiological effluent reports from semi-annual to annual. All of the proposed amendments are appropriate since t hey reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without affecting safety. In particular, the changes to the FSAR update report and the design change reports are apt in that they provide reporting periods that coincide with refueling outages. 11 NUBARG consists of 22 nuclear utilities (listed in Attachment A hereto), each of which owns or operates a power reactor licensed by t he NRC. SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card"*-*-*-*.. **-

U.S. NU('.I. r AR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~ ooc.i, !:_TING & SERVICE SECTION Of:.; ICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date )/p.fld

• d.J,1t1 Coplis Received ___ / _ _ ___ _

Add'I Copies Repr _ _ 1.__ _ s

WINSTON & STRAWN Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 20, 1992 Page 2 Even though the Staff has indicated that such actions would not ordinarily receive high priority due to the absence of any impact on safety (see SECY-92-141, dated April 17, 1992, at 4), NUBARG nevertheless urges that, as a policy matter, the NRC expeditiously complete the actions necessary to eliminate these requirements. Moreover, the reforms suggested by commenters on the broader review of requirements "marginal to safety" should move forward expeditiously. Such actions are clearly within the spirit of the President's January 28, 1992 memorandum entitled "Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation," which calls for the elimination of any unnecessary regulatory burden. As stated in NUBARG' s May 4, 1992 comments on the elimination of requirements "marginal to safety," we believe the NRC should establis h a system for a periodic "sunset" review of regulatory requirements since regulations, once implemented, may not retain their cost-effectiveness and safety benefits over time. The NRC should aim to ensure that any regulations are retained only so long as they continue to provide a substantial contribution to the protection of the public health and safety in a cost-effective manner. Thus, the "marginal to safety" review should become an integral part of NRC regulatory practice. Attachment VS::J/ifked, Nicholas S. Reynol::'~ Daniel F. Stenger V Jan A. MacGregor Counsel to the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group

NUBARG Members Carolina Power & Light Company Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Commonwealth Edison Company Entergy Operations, Inc. (representing Arkansas Power & Light, System Energy Resources, Inc., and Louisiana Power & Light) Florida Power & Light Company Florida Power Corporation Nebraska Public Power District New York Power Authority Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Northeast Utilities Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Philadelphia Electric Company Portland General Electric Company Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation Texas Utilities Toledo Edison Company Washington Public Power Supply System Yankee Atomic Electric Company (representing also Public Service Company of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Vermont Nuclear Power Corporation) 1/1/92

July 16, 1992 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Secretary:

LKi..1 £fj U'.lNHC '92 JUL 20 P 4 :43 On behalf of the American College of Radiology (ACR), a medical organization representing the interests of over 28,000 physician and physicist members, I respectfully submit the following comments on the proposed rule concerning the reduction of regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. The ACR appreciates the concern expressed in this rule to lessen the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. The raised consciousness within the Bush Administration to alleviate unnecessary regulatory requirements which may be construed as duplicative or inconsistent should be applauded.. As the U.S. struggles to remain competitive at home and abroad, we, as a nation, can not continue to be encumbered by unnecessary regulatory burden. As an organization which represents medical licensees, the ACR has been quite concerned with the impact that regulations have on the ability of physicians to focus their attention on patient care rather than unnecessary or duplicative administrative paperwork. Physicians need to be accountable for their patients' care, but they must be able to work in an environment that is conducive to achieving the best possible outcomes for their patients. The ACR is also quite concerned about the high cost of regulation on the health care industry. As the country continues to look for solutions to its health care crisis, regulatory agencies must be mindful of the impact of their regulations on health care costs. Agencies which avoid such analyses run the risk of adding to the inflationary health care spiral. This can have an exacerbating effect on providers of health care and can further erode the ability of patients to find affordable access to care. The ACR applauds the efforts of the NRC with respect to the proposed rule. The change in policy concerning the posting of rooms occupied by nuclear medicine patients and the clarification and reduction in the monitoring burden of packages containing radioactive material in the form of gas or in a special form found in CFR Part 20 are commendable. While such efforts assist in allowing licensees to concentrate their efforts on providing effective patient care, the ACR feels that further review of the regulatory burden and costs associated with other existing regulations are needed. More specifically, the ACR would like to see the NRC pursue a similar review of the regulatory burden imposed to medical licensees with respect to the quality management rule and the final rule on CFR Part 20. In addition, AMERICAN COLLEGE 0 F RADIOLOGY 1891 Preston White Drive, Reston, Virginia 22091 (703) 648-8900

US ~ti 1('1 r ~ C'I r:,i::~, II AT()RY COMMISSfON u ~*,,,J SECTION vf~ ~r *Jr !tit SECRETARY OF r HE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 7 /; 7/r 2 - -r::e£. ~. Copiis Received_/ --=-/ ____ Add'I Copies Reproduc~ _ Lf--'--- -- s~ fAL

the ACR would like the NRC to keep in mind our country's health care crisis before imposing higher and higher user fees on medical licensees. The ACR is pleased with recent NRC efforts to re-evaluate regulations in light of their relative burden on medical licensees. We are hopeful that such analyses will continue and expand as the NRC considers both past and future rules. As always, the ACR appreciates this opportunity to respond to the proposed rule and stands ready to assist the NRC with further efforts aimed at minimizing the burden and costs to medical licensees. vJ~ Gary W. Price Senior Director Department of Government Relations GWP/bws

DOCKET NUMBER ~ 0 St>_ PROPOSED RULE_

,1

{_ 51-rl<-,Z 'l If 1) l ULt\\LILL! US NHC WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM P.O. Box 968

• 3000 George Washington Way
• Richland, Washington 99352 July 15, 1992 GO2-92-167 Docket No. 50-397 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

"92 Jut 20 Pl 2 :40

Subject:

WNP-2 OPERA TING LICENSE NPF-21, PROPOSED RULE, REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES, (57 FR 27187) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees, as described in the Federal Reeister of June 18, 1992. The Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System), an NRC licensee, has reviewed the subject proposed rule and offers the following comments for your consideration. The first proposed action would provide licensees with an option from the current requirements for the annual updating of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). In lieu of an annual submission, licensees may choose to provide the required information once per each refueling outage. The proposed revision would permit updates to the FSAR to be submitted six months after each refueling outage, provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months. Because the Supply System operates its nuclear power plant in conjunction with an electrical grid that is strongly dependent on hydro-electric power, we take an annual maintenance and refueling outage during the spring of each year when river flows are at their peaks. Thus, this change would not provide any substantial benefit to the Supply System as we would still be required to submit an update annually. However, in the event that we should, at some future date, elect to perform a maintenance outage every year and a refueling outage every two years, this proposed rule would allow us to eliminate one FSAR update every two years. A SEP 18 1992 cknowledged by cardM-Nllllllhho-ffl'"""

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 7/J;r/961.J Copias Received / Add'I Gopie Reproduced J./- ~~01*@£ ~_,.__,~'----. ~_____,..._5-~~

SJ Chilk Page 2 July 15, 1992 PROPOSED RULE, REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES, (57 FR 27187) Under the current refueling schedule, the proposal would provide us with greater flexibility in submitting the update up to six months after the refueling outage. Under the current annual requirement, our updates are submitted approximately three months after the end of the outage. While we do not stand to benefit to any great extent from the proposal, we agree that this is an appropriate change to the regulations. The second proposed action would revise the requirements for the annual submission of reports for facility changes under 10 CFR 50.59 (changes, tests, and experiments) to conform with the proposed change for updating the FSAR (above). Again, because of our annual refueling schedule, the Supply System would not benefit to any great extent from this proposed change. However, we agree that it is an appropriate change. The third proposed revision concerns event reporting and is covered in a separate rulemaking action. The Supply System will be commenting on this proposed rule change in separate correspondence. The fourth proposed action would revise the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.44 and 50.46, related to evaluations of emergency core cooling systems and combustible gas control applicable to zircaloy clad fuel to include ZIRLO clad fuel. At the present time, the Supply System does not utilize ZIRLO clad fuel. However, we support the proposed rule and the conclusion that it will reduce the licensee's burden but will not reduce the protection of the public health or safety. The fifth proposed action would reduce the requirements for the submission of reports concerning the quality of principal nuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents from semiannually to annually. The Supply System supports this proposed rule change. The change would eliminate one required report each year and would not reduce the protection of the public health or safety. The sixth proposed action is related to receipt back of processed low level waste and is being addressed by the NRC in a separate rulemaking. The Supply System has reviewed this proposal as published in the Federal Register on April 24, 1992. As a power reactor licensee, the Supply System is not affected by the last two proposed actions, thus has no comment on their application.

SJ Chilk Page 3 July 15, 1992 PROPOSED RULE, REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES, (57 FR 27187) In addition to our comments on the specific items addressed in the proposed rule, an area which we feel may warrant further review by the NRC in looking at the overall area of reduction of regulatory burden, is the transition to electronic records. In the recent NRC sponsored workshop on Current Licensing Basis, it was apparent that both the NRC and the regulated industry are relying more and more on electronic data storage and retrieval. The use of electronic data storage should be reviewed against current requirements for records storage and retention periods. The use of electronic records storage could elimfoate a considerable burden on licensees due to retention of "hard copy" records. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on NRC proposed rules and trust that our comments will be of assistance in formulating final rules. Should you have any questions on our comments, please contact me at (509) 372-5238. Very truly yours, G.C. S rensen, Manager Regulatory Programs (Mail Drop 280) GCS:sn cc: WM Dean, NRC JB Martin, NRC RV NS Reynolds, W&S Document Control Desk, NRC NUMARC DL Williams, BPA (399) NRC Site Inspector (901A)

July 13, 1992 LIC-92-214 Omaha Public Power District 444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha. Nebraska 68102-2247 402/636-2000 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

• 92 Jll 20 P 4 :44

Reference:

Docket No. 50-285

SUBJECT:

Comment on Proposed Rule Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) has reviewed the proposed rule to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees as published in the Federal Register on June 18, 1992 (57 FR 27187). OPPD favors adoption of the proposed rule as it will reduce the burden of reporting certain types of information that does not affect public health and safety. If you should have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, 45-5124 Al/..,!/.~ W. G. Gates Division Manager Nuclear Operations WGG/sel c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae J. L. Milhoan, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV R. P. Mullikin, NRC Senior Resident Inspector S. D. Bloom, NRC Acting Project Manager Employment with Equal Opportunity Male/Female SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged br c:atd--aaSlUSCM.,__,.,.~

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt\\ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARV OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 7 /;5 /9 A Co

• Received

/ ~, Md'1Copies~ 4 S I * /2. //)_5_ /J.___,~-- ~'Qft+/-iL

July 14, 1992 f.1.- L Lill' U!:>N C '92 Jll 17 P 4 :o 6 uf* !C :-- OF SE l. n iAt v GvCK[i ING < ', [11 v,r.r R NC~ COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. ( "OCRE" ) ON PROPOSED RULE, "REDUCING THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON NUCLEAR LICENSEES," 57 FED. REG. 27187 (JUNE 18, 1992) This notice represents the culmination, with respect to the

NRC, of the deregulation effort launched by President Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 28, 1992.

Fortunately, the eight proposed actions appear to be innocuous with regard to the impact on the level of protection of the public health and safe-ty. However, OCRE would question whether the revisions to the reporting frequency of facility changes under 10 CFR 50.59, FSAR

updates, and radiological effluent reports would impair the ability of the NRC to review, in a timely manner, such informa-tion.

Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt Director, OCRE 8275 Munson Road Mentor. OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 SEP 18 1992 Ackrlo\\\\1qecl by Clfd.............. N..............

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10~ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION Off ICE OF THE SECRETARV OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date _______ _ Co~esReceived _ _ Add'I Coples Reprod~ ed Special Cisl!ibulion 0 iJb ~ cw '-1l,'4..,4i.), il..-~_,_)

p~oro~i'bU~uE; PR 2 CF-S_ o ( 57Fn211~1) July 14, 1992 LGCKCi i 0 US Ni C '92 JUL 16 P 4 :18 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

The following comments concern the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50, published Thursday, June 16, 1992, at 57 FR 27187, for public comment. The notice is titled "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees."

1.

The proposed rule, in § 20.1906(b)(2), states: (b) Each licensee shall-(2) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled* package for radiation levels unless the package contains quantities of radioactive material that are less than or equal to t~e Tfpe A quantity, as defined in §71.4 and Appendix A to Part 71 of this chapter, and the radioactive material is in the form of a gas or in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4; and

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

Neither the Supplementary Information nor the document entitled "Report on Special Review of Existing NRC Regulations by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements", issued April 13, 1992, provides an explanation for basing, in part, an exception from monitoring of external surfaces for radiation levels on the radio-active material being in the form of a gas or in special form. It is stated in the Report that on Issue 7 the CRGR recommends "... that rulemaking be initiated to make clear that the contamination monitoring requirements in 20.1906(b) do not apply to packages con-taining special form sources that do not exceed Type A quantities, or to packages containing noble gases... " This recommendation would be implemented by the proposed §20.1906(b}(l). To base an exception from contamination monitoring on the fact that the radioactive material is in the form of a gas or special form seems reasonable because (1) if gas leaks it is likely to disperse and not be available for detection by a contamination test, and (2) if the material is in special form, it possesses properties which provide a high degree of protection against release of the material and resulting contam-ination. 1 - SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card... _____ "

To base an exception from monitoring of external surfaces of a labeled package for radiation levels on the radioactive material being in the form of a gas or in special form, seems questionable. The external radiation levels are dependent upon the radionuclide, quantity, shielding, and distance between the radioactive material and the point of interest. Although I am unaware of the NRC's rationale for excepting monitoring of external surfaces for radiation levels because of the material being in the form of a gas or in special form, I believe that there may be ways in which the present monitoring burden could be reduced and still provide adequate protection of the public health and safety. For example, if the contained radioactive material would not cause in excess of 10 mRem/hr at 1 m if no shielding were present, then monitoring external radiation levels would not be required. The level of 10 mRem/hr at 1 mis consistent with a level which initiates certain actions under §20.1906(d)(2) and §71.47. Or, if experience has showed that the requirements of §20.205(c) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 7.3 have provided adequate protection of the public health and safety, then those requirements could continue in lieu of implementing the more burden-some §20.1906(b) requirements for monitoring radiation levels.

2.

The proposed §20.1906(b)(3) would continue a requirement for monitoring for contamination and radiation levels if the package has evidence of potential contamination. I believe monitoring of radiation levels also should be required if there is evidence of potential excessive radiation levels, such as a gauge with the on-off indicator in the 11 on 11 position.

3.

The Supplementary Information at 57 FR 27188 estimates a savings to licensees of $66.4 million in 1992 dollars for the proposed amendment on contamination monitoring of packages (10 CFR 20.1906(b)). As showed in the document on an analysis of potential cost savings dated June 10, 1992 and on file in the Public Document room, the savings is largely based on eliminating the cost of obtaining, maintaining, and using many measuring instruments if the proposed changes become effective. An estimated savings of $66. 4 million to licensees obviously is an important item when considering the proposed amendments. The relationship between this figure of $66.4 million in 1992 dollars and the estimated costs published in 1986 for the proposed rule making for the complete revision of Part 20 is not readily apparent. In 1986, the initial (first year) cost for implementing the entire proposed revision was estimated to be about $33 million in 1982 dollars of which $29 million was estimated to be required for the occupational exposure provisions. The annual cost was estimated to be $8 million, approximately $7 million of which would be for the occupational exposure provisions. If certain assumptions were made to estimate the cost to licensees of implementing the entirety of the 11 new 11 Part 20, 2 -

.. ). it would appear reasonable to make similar assumptions in estimating the savings to licensees if there is a reduction in the burden associated with a particular requirement. What estimated savings may be realized by licensees if the assumptions used to calculate the costs set out in the 1986 proposal are used to calculate the savings for the 6-18-92 proposal? Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. 3 - Sincerely, ,Qd*--.-.. tl. ~...-/ Donovan A. S~CHP 4821 Bel Pre Road Rockville, MD 20853

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE

LD 1 5 tJ lS-7 Ffl-2, J<;--1)

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL ! ul *r.; LC, USNRC 1776 Eye Street, NW

• Suite 300
• Washington.DC 20006-2496 c202) 872-1280
• 92 Jll 16 A 9 :29 WIiiiam H. Rosin Vice President & Director Technical Division Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch July 16, 1992

SUBJECT:

Nuclear Industry Comments on the Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50, "Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees," 57 Fed. Reg. 27187, June 18, 1992

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments on the subject proposed amendments ( nos. 1 through 6 in the Federal Register notice applying to power reactor licensees) are submitted on behalf of the nuclear industry by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC)1. We appreciate the opportunity to provide industry comments and trust this input is constructive and beneficial to NRC's consideration of the proposed amendments. We encourage NRC to expeditiously move forward with implementation of the proposed amendments. We firmly believe these proposals will reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety or the common defense and security. Implementation of these amendments will also allow licensees to allocate resources more effectively, which we believe will result in greater overall levels of plant reliability and safety. 1NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors. (j) Acknowledged SEP 18 1992 by card.. MIN h0:000.ftH.. WRiih

.'.~:,t.,L,'\\TOf:;Y corv.M:SSIOI\\ OOt :,:.-i~<: 3 '-:F.,:W:Cr: St:CTION ,.:,:*!*:;:-. CF T;1f: %CRETARY c,r THE c:c~ .. d'J1!Sf,:,:;N Cn~iC3 l;CC?h:r(t_ l.c~'I ~'.): i:*;°; i1Cpi0(1.;:;eJ _ L-- _ _ t _ ____ -,--_ 3poc::I cr*:;il'Ui!(J11 JtI. L)~ Pon. /\\I I ls.c ,. LL:;;1 M4 t JL J

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 16, 1992 Page 2 NUMARC fully supports NRC efforts to improve the effectiveness of regulations. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this important proposal. Sincerely, //V~-~-ae-William H. Rasin ARP/ cma

n *~f'c T r *..i m::R PROPosE:o RULE PR :LO*rs.o H __ 1_1_01_c_o_n_ne_c_tic_u_t A_v_e_nu_ec_' N_: _.: _s_~_it~_7_o_:-_. w_:_,_:....,~0 -rr ~,.;:~;.,.:,-q- ..-'lP_*c_. 2_0_03_6 __ ~i @) (202) 429-5120 l 02) 223-4579 American College of Nuclear Physicians July 15, 1992 Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk,

'92 JUL 16 A8 :43 The Society of Nuclear Medicine We are writing on behalf of the American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) regarding the proposed rule to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees (57 Federal Register 27187). The ACNP and SNM represent 12,000 nuclear medicine physicians, scientists, radiopharmacists and technologists involved in nuclear medicine clinical practice and research. In our comments submitted previously in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) review of existing regulations, the ACNP and SNM identified several initiatives for consideration. We support the NRC's proposal to: (1) reduce the posting requirements for rooms in hospitals occupied by patients who have undergone a diagnostic nuclear medicine procedure {10 CFR 20.1903 (b)} and, (2) clarify the regulations and reduce the monitoring burden for packages containing radioactive material in the form of a gas or in a special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4. However, we believe that the NRC should have more fully evaluated existing and proposed regulations under 10 CFR Part 20 and 35 pertaining to medical licensees. The ACNP and SNM are convinced that regulatory changes in addition to those proposed by the NRC would not diminish the NRC's protection of the public health and safety. SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card...................,-~.....

v.~ 1*,l,'~**-*i;l flf:GULATOP.Y COMMISSlOf-. DO:XETlNG & SERVICE SECTION OFflCE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Docum~nt Stati~t:cs Pc5tm2.r:, Date ? / 1 f / 4'J-Ccp:cs R~:ceivc::1 ___ / _____ _ Add'I Gopie:: Rep,od~ed _.,___~ ---.......-- S

• ,... ***ri IL

Letter to Mr. Chilk July 15, 1992 Page 2 We understand that the NRC estimates the cost savings to byproduct material licensees as a result of the proposed amendments is $6,700,000. This is a significant benefit for licensees. The ACNP and SNM urge the NRC to consider additional amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 which do not contribute to the safe or cost efficient delivery of health care, such as the medical quality management program. In a June 26, 1992 letter to the NRC, the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) denied approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) related to the quality management program. In addition, we believe that the NRC should expedite their review of the issues included in the petition for rulemaking requesting amendments to 10 CFR Part 20 (56 Federal Register 26945) as proposed by Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M. D. Although we are pleased that the NRC has given consideration to reducing certain regulatory requirements in response to the President's directive, we are hopeful that this process of regulatory review and evaluation is ongoing. On behalf of the ACNP and SNM, we look forward to working with the Commission to minimize unnecessary and costly regulatory burdens imposed on medical licensees. Robert J. Lull, M. D. President American College of Nuclear Physicians Sincerely, ~) Paul H. Murphy, Pfi. D. President Society of Nuclear Medicine

DOCKET l lLl;~3. R *D O ro

• -,,) ~ " - r'I r ti I r::

J A

z_

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE. Ls1-F...:;,;rl;.....;...2-_1..;..i-l':t~1--D HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MEDICAL OPERATIONS.AGJ,;NCY.

• 1 BROOKS A IR FORCE BASE TEXAS J l, l'\\L I LL U'.:>NHC
• 92 JUL 14 P4 :12 FROM :

HQ AFMOA/SGPR .~.F*.!L,:-.: di- ~Es~ ~,Attic JUL 199t uOCK[i 1NG r._ ).r t Vl(J Rf ANC~i Brooks AFB TX 78235-5000 SUBJ : Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees, Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 118, Thursday, June 18, 1992 - Proposed Rules TO : Secretary, USNRC ATTN : Docketing and Service Branch Washington DC 20555 1. The USAF Radio i sotope Committee supports the pr o posed change to 10 CFR 20. 1903 and 1906. We have no comment with regard to 10 CF R, 50 changes as we are not a I I censee under th Is part. 2. We y be r, ~~::~.--:r 12) 536-3331. A. SMITH, cc : HQ AFMOA / SGP Health Physicist USAF Radioisotope Committee Secretariat Office of the Surgeon General SEP 18 1992

t1.S.,~U',:1_.ii**.. --:* .... *.,*!::*i'.. >...,*.... :t.r~s:Gt*1 [.,,*.,( :~~.... ~-. *: ::.**; (' ~ "' I *;- 7

• t I

,,... 11"\\f\\{

DOCKET NUMRBUELER p* ,L__ . ~,J-l) PROPOSED D Secretary LE 1 P rz 2, 19-- HENRY FORD HOSPITAL Office of Safety 2799 W. Grand Blvd. Detroit, Michigan 48202 July 2, 1992 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir,

,,Lt'\\ t. ii_

USNi C '92 JUL 13 P 3 :52 I wish to express my support for the proposed rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees published in the Federal Register of June 18, 1992 (Vol. 57, No. 118, pp. 27187). As a medical physicist, I am very much in favor of your proposals to amend 10 CFR Part 20 regarding monitoring of packages for contamination (10 CFR 20.1906(b)) and posting of nuclear medicine patient rooms (10 CFR 20.1903(b)). These proposed changes will clarify and reduce some of the unnecessary regulatory burden for medical licensees. The clarification of "labeled package" is very appreciated. While these changes are consistent with the intent and objectives of the memorandum from the President of the United States, the supplementary information for the proposed rule did not indicate whether the NRC intends to review other parts of Tit 1 e 10 for additional opportunities to reduce any unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees without compromising public health and safety. The NRC is strongly encouraged to continue this effort with their regulations. I feel this can be achieved by input from the regulated communities and publishing consensus proposals in the Federal Register. Thank you for your consideration. ~p~ Ralph P. Lieto Radiation Safety Officer SEP 18 199' Acknowledged by card.. --........... --

I**

• u*::* o*
• ,o z

i..'.l (..')

i

' I I I r

~'HuPOSEO RULE D ;L_O - I) ( s 1 F ft *2.11 a-,7 COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP 1637 BUTLER AVENUE; SUITE 203 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 (310) 478-0829

• 92 J\\l _;9 p 4 :05 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Changes to "Reduce Regulatory Burden" Secretary: The NRC is proposing eliminating a requirement in Part 20 of the Cornnission t' s regulations for licensees to check the. external surfaces of packages for radioactive contamination. We write to oppose the elimination of this requirement. The press release announcing the proposed rule says that what is being considered is "whether regulatory burdens can be reduced without in any way reducing protection of the public health and safety and the cOfIITOn defense and security. " ( emphasis added). The proposed regulation change vlOuld reduce protection of the public health and safety and should be abandoned. Sealed sources routinely leak. That is why they are to be leak checked. Eliminating the requirerrent to check the outside of packages for contamination would result in increased potential for_public exposures. I call the Cornnission t's attention to an incident in the 1980s inyolving UCLA i's research reactor. A shipnent *of radioactive waste from UCLA resulted in contamination of the truck and c;iriver because of failure to conduct an adequate radiation sweep before permitting the shipnent to leave OCLA. 'lhe contamination was C0-60, apparently due to a leaking sealed source which had been stored in the same. storage holes as the radioactive waste _that was shipped. We urge this provision not be relaxed. @ 100% Post-Consumer Waste Recycled Paper Daniel Hirsch President AclcnowJ . jEP 1"8 1992 edged by card...__............. ~.......

U.S. NUCt...... ;, GlJLATORY COMMISSIOt-.

• DOCKETlfJG X SERVICE SECTION Off-ICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSlON **

Document Statistics Postmark Date*_..-..~......... ------- Cop!cs Rcceived __ __,.......----- Ad *

• es Repr

DOCKET NUM?ER Oft _2-y)--S 0

• oL~Ef ft 01£ I 71fiJ _,

Bethlehem Steel Corporation u~i\\(hc BETHLEHEM, PA 18016 '92 JUL -8 AlO :38 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing & Service Branch July 2, 1992 Gentlemen: Re: FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 57, NO. 118, JUNE 18, 1992, PAGES 27187 THRU 27191 Proposed Rules Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees Bethlehem Steel Corporation wishes to comment on the referenced proposed rule, specifically Item 7, 10 CFR 20.1906(b). Bethlehem Steel Corporation commends the commission in proposing this regulatory change. The elimination of contamination monitoring of the surface of received pack.ages containing radioactive material in the form of a gas or a sealed source is indeed a change that will eliminate an unnecessary cost for licensees without increasing risk to the public or employees of the licensees. Since damage to the containment of gaseous sources will most likely result in the loss of the gas to the environment, monitoring for contamination of the surface of a paclc.age will not normally provide usable information. In the case of sealed sources, such sources will normally be contained in shields. Even if the source is leaking, it is highly unlikely that contamination will find its way to the paclc.age surface; if the package is damaged, monitoring for contamination is required. Additionally, the current manufacturing methods indicate sealed sources will, in many cases, greatly reduce the likelihood of loose contamination being generated by the radioactive material. This is true in the case of plated sources, ceramitized sources and nickel-flashed metallic sources. Thus, as long as there is no damage to the package, it is most improbable that surface monitoring will show contamination. As we read the proposed rule, there would still be the requirement to monitor the package for radiation levels. This would ensure that the paclc.age will be visually checked. While the radiation level check can be easily performed at minimal cost, contamination checks could cost a small licensee, that does not have in-house contamination analysis capability, up to $100 per package plus the additional time and documentation costs. SEP 1 s lli~'- Acknowleaged by card............ """"""""'

o:s-. ;'!~_;,.,~

• ?: **. **....,., If [J']fJ:,1,!t~$iO!\\

s.*)~:::*~<* ;~ *.. :--;:.:H\\,*i.:r= sc""~TjCr-J (,:,*.c*,*.t* ~)'.- 'fH,: StCfi[TAfrf Of : j.,.~;,:. ~O:"::v~ISS!O;~

2 - It is suggested that the Commission not only amend 20.1906(b), but also issue a statement that those licensees still operating under the old Part 20 are not required to monitor pack.ages for contamination that meet the conditions of 20.1906(b)(l). We are aware of licensees that have been forced by regional NRC personnel to include such monitoring in license applications. As such, the inclusion in the application makes it a license requirement for the life of the license, regardless of what is done in 10 CFR Part 20. We thank the Commission for this opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory changes and request that the above comments be given serious consideration in developing a final rule. ALaMastra:kjk Sincerely, ~H ~~ Edwin H. Toothman Director - Occupational Health Health and Safety Services

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 A TIN: Docketing and Service Branch June 30, 1992

Dear Sir:

Westridge Gardens, Apt. A-215 Phoenixville, PA 194rn1------ OOCKETEO JUL - 2 1992 DOCKETING& SERVICE BP.ANCI+ SiQY-NRO

SUBJECT:

JUNE 18, 1992, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA) NOTICE No. 92-92 INVITING COMMENTS ON PROPOSED NRC RULE CHANGES TO ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS WITH NO SAFETY BENEFIT I am following up on my previous submittals on March 5 and May 4, 1992, regarding my support for the NRC' s programmatic efforts to review and eliminate regulations which have marginal or no safety benefit. The results of the staffs initial efforts in this area, A Special Review of NRC Re<J,uirements, identified those requirements which can be reduced without in any way reducing protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security. Those requirements are discussed in OPA No. 92-92 and were detailed in a letter from Chairman Selin to President Bush on April 27, 1992. The results of the staffs Special Review of NRC regulations represents a fine start at establishing a framework to systematically review the continuing value of certain NRC regulations. Four of the eight regulatory changes which are proposed (i.e. reducing the frequency of FSAR updates, reducing the frequency of annual design change reports, the elimination of unnecessary event reports and reducing the freci.uency of radiological effluent reports) were strongly supported by me in either my March 5 or May 4, 1992, submittals on this effort. I urge the Commission to follow through with the implementation of these regulatory changes. These rule changes represent a positive first step toward an important initiative for the future. Eliminating burdensome NRC regulations which afford no safety benefit will free up NRC and licensee resources for more worthwhile safety activities. Richard S. Barkley Project Engineer - NRC Region I cc: T. Martin, Region I Regional Administrator JUL J 5 199r: Acknowledged by card............ ""'""... "'"'"" <D

\\ 'l) ,l ~I'*

• 3 -,. wn, Office of the...,_

Secr,tary \\ 1

---

---~

DOCKET r JUMBER PROPOSED RULE 2-CJ r ; 0 (,7 F(l 2-1 I 9-1) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 RIN 3150-AE30 Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

• 92 JUN 25 Pl2 :44

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC} is proposing to amend its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear licensees. This proposal reflects an initiative undertaken by the Commission in order to respond to a Presidential memorandum requesting that selected Federal agencies review and modify regulations that will reduce the burden of governmental regulation to ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. In that spirit, the NRC's Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR} identified regulations in eight areas that could be amended to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety or the common defense and security. The proposed amendments address the frequency of reporting information and emergency core cooling system analysis for operating power reactors, clarify and update regulations affecting certain material licensees, and remove unnecessary regulatory requirements.

7 /:u,, J ",_ DATE: The comment period expires on (30 days after date of publication}. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for coments received on or before this date. ADDRESSEE: Mail written convnents to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington., DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver comments to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between the hours of 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on weekdays. Copies of the coments received, as well as other documents referenced in this package may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. C. W. Nilsen, telephone (301) 492-3834 or Mr. Joseph J. Mate, telephone (301) 492-3795, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 28, 1992, the President of the United States signed a memorandum addressed to selected Federal Agency Heads who are concerned with energy production and protection of the environment. The memorandum requested the addressees work together to streamline the regulatory process,and ensure 2 /

I that the regulatory community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. On January 28, 1992, the President signed a second memorandum entitled "Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation. 11 This memorandum, which was sent to all Federal agencies, set aside a 90-day period to review and evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify and accelerate action on initiatives that will eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden. At the end of the review period, agencies were to submit a written report indicating the regulatory changes recommended or made during the review period and the potential savings as a result of the changes. In response to the Presidential memoranda, the Commission decided that it would be consistent with its policy to monitor the impact of complying with NRC regulations by its licensees to instruct the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) to review existing NRC regulations to determine whether regulatory burdens can be reduced without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety and the common defense and security. In accomplishing their review, the CRGR drew upon previous studies and solicited comments from the public, other Federal agencies, and the Commission's staff. A Federal Register Notice was published on February 24, 1992 (57 FR 6299) seeking public comments in connection with the review, and a second Federal Register Notice on March 23, 1992 (57 FR 9985) discussed likely or possible candidates for action, based on CRGR's preliminary evaluation of comments. An associated public meeting was held on March 27, 1992, in Bethesda, Maryland. After completing their special review, the CRGR recommended revising the regulations in eight areas. The suggested revisions met the criteria for 3

reducing the burden without in any way reducing the protection for public health and safety and common defense and security. The Chairman of the NRC sent a report to the President of the United States on April 27, 1992, which summarized NRC's activities concerning the President's directive and advised the President that NRC would pursue the CRGR's recommendations expeditiously within the framework of the procedures and practices for rulemaking. On June 1, 1992, in response to a memorandum from the President of the United States, dated April 29, 1992, the Commission directed the staff to strive to publish the proposed rule changes in the eight areas previously identified by a special review group in the Federal Register for comment as soon as possible, but not later than June 15, 1992, with a view to issuing the final rules in the Federal Register no later than August 27, 1992. Discussion The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 to implement the eight proposed actions identified in the report on "Special Review of Existing NRC Regulations" that was completed by the CRGR and that was attached to Chainnan Selin's letter to the White House dated April 27, 1992. The actions proposed to be amended would not reduce the NRC's protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security. During the special review of existing NRC regulations, some comments were received which indicated that adequate time should be allowed for public comment on any proposed rule changes. A thirty-day comment period is being provided. 4

I. Freguencv of Final Safetv Analvsis Report CESAR) Updates (10 CFR 50.71) This proposed action would provide licensees with an option from the current requirements for the annual updating of the Final Safety Analysis Report {FSAR). In lieu of an annual submission, licensees may choose to provide the required information once per each refueling outage. According to the proposed revision, updates to the FSAR can be submitted 6 months after each refueling outage, provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months. This proposed action does not affect the substance of FSAR updates. The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $11,100,000 for licensees and $910,000 for the NRC.

2.

Annual Oesign Change Reports (10 CFR 50.59) This proposed action would revise the requirements for the annual submission of reports for facility changes under§ 50.59 (Changes, tests, and experiments) to conform with the proposed change for updating the FSAR {see Item 1). This proposed action does not affect the substance of the I evaluation or the documentation required for§ 50.59 type changes. It only affects the interval for submission of the information to NRC. Instead of submitting the information annually, the information could be submitted on a refueling cycle, provided the interval between successive reports does not exceed 24 months. The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $1,500,000 for licensees and $400,000 for the NRC. 5

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

The proposed revision concerning event reporting is covered in a separate rulemaking action. For additional details on this action, please see the Conrnission Paper, SECY-92-146, dated April 22, 1992, entitled "Proposed Minor Rulemaking to Modify Operating Power Reactors Event Reporting Requirements. 11 This proposed rule will be announced separately and details will be available in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555, in late June 1992.

4.

Use Qf Fuel with Zirconium-Based (Other than Zircaloy} Cladding {10 CFR 50.44, 50.46, and Appendix K to Part 50) This proposed action would revise the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.44 and 50.46, Part 50, relating to evaluations of emergency core cooling systems and combustible gas control applicable to zircaloy clad fuel to include ZIRLO clad fuel. This revision to include ZIRLO as an acceptable zirconium based cladding material with zircaloy will reduce the licensee burden but will not reduce the protection of the public health or safety. The NRC will address, through an appropriate separate rulemaking, the use of other similar Zirconium based cladding materials when all of the necessary safety evaluations for those materials have been completed. The estimated savings for eliminating the need to process recurring exemptions to the regulations is based on six plants per year requesting the use of ZIRLO clad fuel over the next 8 years. The estimated savings to the licensees is $2,000,000 per year and the savings to the NRC is $50,000 per year. 6

5.

Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports {10 CFR 50.36a} This proposed action would reduce the requirements for the submission of reports concerning the quantity of principal nuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents from semiannually to an annually. The estimated savings for this action, assuming an average remaining plant life of 26 years, is $16,800,000 for licensees and $360,000 for the NRC.

6.

Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste {10 CFR 50.54) This action is addressed in a separate rulemaking. For additional information on this action, see the proposed rule entitled "Receipt of Byproduct and Special Nuclear Material" published in the Federal Register on April 24, 1992 (57 FR 15034).

7.

Contamination Monitoring of Packages {10 CFR 20.1906(b)) This proposed action would clarify the regulations and reduce the monitoring burden for packages containing radioactive material in the form of a gas or in a special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4. The estimated savings to licensees is $66.4 million.

a.

Posting of Rooms Occupied *by Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine Patients (10 CFR 20.l903(b)) The proposed revision would reduce the posting requirements for rooms in hospitals occupied by patients administered radioactive materials who might otherwise be released from confinement under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 35.75. 7

The estimated savings to licensees is $300,000 for elimination of the need for posting. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC determined that the proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(2) and (3). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements. The reduction of the public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 208 hours per response for operating power reactors and 1 hour per response for certain materials licensees, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information including suggestions on this reduced burden to the Information and Records Management Branch {MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the 8

Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019 (3150-0011, 3150-0014), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Regulatory Analysis The Nuclear Regulatory Connnission is proposing to amend its regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear.licensees. This action reflects an initiative on the part of the NRC and responds to the spirit of President Bush's memoranda of January 28, 1992, which requested that selected Federal agencies review and modify regulations that will reduce the burden of governmental regulation to ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified eight proposed rulemaking actions that would eliminate duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements. Six of the proposed actions are included in this package. Two of the eight actions are being processed as separate rulemakings and are not discussed here. The actions are as follows:

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

2.

Annual Design Change Reports--to change the frequency of reporting changes at power reactors from once per year to once per refueling cycle (10 CFR 50.59(b));

3.

Elimination of unnecessary event reports--separate rulemaking;

4.

Use of Fuel with Zirconium-Based Cladding--to eliminate the need to obtain exemptions in order to use certain fuel cladding materials not 9

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

5.

Frequency of Radiological Effluent Reports--to change the frequency of reports on power reactor radiological effluents from twice per year to once per year (10 CFR 50.36a);

6.

Receipt Back of Processed Low Level Waste--separate rulemaking.

7.

Contamination Monitoring of Packages--to eliminate certain provisions for contamination monitoring of packages containing certain types of radioactive material (10 CFR 20.1906{b)};

8.

Posting of Rooms Occupied by Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine Patients-- to include exceptions for posting requirements for rooms in hospitals for patients administered radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic tests (10 CFR 20.1903(b)). Each of these proposed actions considers the elimination or relaxation of regulatory requirements currently imposed on NRC licensees. Actions 1, 2, 4, and 5 would affect power reactor licensees, ~hereas Actions 7 and 8 would affect materials licensees. For each regulatory action, the staff has evaluated the health and safety implications and the cost impacts relative to a status quo alternative. The staff finds that each would result in a reduction in burden without reducing protection of the public health and safety. The public health and safety determination appears in a document entitiled, "Report on Special Review of Existing NRC Regulations by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements* issued on April 13, 1992. Additionally, an analysis of the safety implications of Action 3 is available in a U.S. NRC Letter to Westinghouse Corporation dated July 1, 1991, entitled 10

"Acceptance For Referencing Of Topical Report WCAP-12610 "Vantage+Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report" (TAC NO. 77258)." The cost savings to both the licensee population and the NRG appear below. Dollar impacts are expressed on a 1992 present worth basis in 1992 dollars. The basis for these cost estimates is available in a report entitled "Analyses of Potential Cost Savings for Selected NRC Reforms dated June 10, 1992. 11 Total Discountedcu Cost Savings Associated With Proposed Regulatory Revisions (1992 $ in millions) REGULATORY REVISION LICENSEES NRC ITEM 1 11.1 0.910 ITEM 2 1.5 0.400 ITEM 3 N/A<2> N/ A <2> ITEM 4 2.0 0.050 ITEM 5 16.8 0.360 ITEM 6 N/.A N/A ITEM 7 66.4 -0. 100<3> ITEM 8 0.3 -0. 100<3) NOTE: (1) assumes an annual real discount rate of 5% (2) not applica~le--separate rulemaking {3) negative cost savings represent a cost*expenditure 11

The NRC concludes that each of these proposed regulatory revisions is justified due to the net cost savings that would accrue without compromising public health and safety. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Based on the information available at this stage of the rulemaking proceeding and in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the NRC certifies that, if promulgated, these rules will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NRC has adopted size standards that classify a small entity as a small business or organization, one whose gross annual receipts do not exceed $3.5 million, or as a small governmental jurisdiction whose supporting population is 50,000 or less. The first six issues effect 112 power reactor licensees. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the NRC Size Standards. The remaining two issues involve the relaxation of requirements which will affect approximately 10,000 material licensees. Although many of these licensees may be small entities, there should be no* adverse impact on these small licensees because the regulations are being relaxed. 12

Backfit Analysis The NRC has detennined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed regulation and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a}(l}. List of Subjects Part 20 - Byproduct material, Criminal penalty, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and*' recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal. Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified infonnation, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50. 13

PART 20 - STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION

1.

The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68 Stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 20.408 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, (42 u.s.c. 10155, 10161). For the purposes of sec. 233, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); §§ 20.101, 20.102, 20.103(a}, (b), and (f), 20.104 (a) and (b), 20.105 (b), 20.106 (a), 20.201, 20.202 (a), 20.205, 20.207, 20.301, 20.303, 20.304, and 20.305, 20.1102, 20.1201-20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1207, 20.1208, 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1501, 20.1502, 20.160l(a) and (d), 20.1602, 20.1603, 20.1701, 20.1704, 20.1801, 20.1802, 20.1901(a), 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1906, 20.2001, 20.2002, 20.2003, 20.2004, 20.2005 (b) and (c), 20.2006, 20.2101-20.2110, 20.2201-20.2206, and 20.2301 are issued under sec. 16l(b), 68 Stat. 948 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b)); § 20.2106(d) is issued under the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and §§ 20.102, 20.103(e), 20.401-20.407, 20~408(b), 20.409, 20.1102(a)(2) and (4), 20.1204(c), 20.1206 (g) and (h), 20.1904{c)(4), 20.1905 {c) and (d), 20.2005(c), 20.2006{b)-(d), 20.2101-20.2103, 20.2104(b)- (d), 20.2105-20.2108, and 20.2201-20.2207 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)). 14

2.

Section 20.1903 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: S 20.1903 Exceptions to posting requirements (b) Rooms or other areas in hospitals that are occupied by patients are not required to be posted with caution signs pursuant to§ 20.1902 provided that the patient could be released from confinement pursuant to§ 35.75 of this chapter.

3.

Section 20.1906 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: S 20.1906 Procedures for receiving and opening packages. (b) Each licensee shall--- (1) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled3a package for radioactive contamination unless the package contains only I radioactive material in the form of a gas or in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4; (2) Monitor the external surfaces of a labeled3a package for radiation levels unless the package contains quantities of radioactive material that are less than or equal to the Type A 38Labeled with a Radioactive White I, Yellow II, or Yellow III label as specified in U. s. Department of Transportation regulations, 49 CFR 172.403 and 172.436-440. 15

quantity, as defined in§ 71.4 and Appendix A to Part 71 of this chapter, and the radioactive material is in the form of a gas or in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4; and (3) Monitor all packages known to contain radioactive material for radioactive contamination and radiation levels if the package has evidence of potential contamination, such as packages that are crushed, wet, or damaged. PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

4.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 stat. 1244, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 u.s.c. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2131~ 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 u.s.c. 4332). sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued -under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-16

190, 83 Stat. 853 {42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 {42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); §§ 50.5, 50.46(a) and {b), and 50.54 (c) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220l(b)); §§ 50.5, 50.7(a), 50.lO(a)-{c), 50.34(a} and (e), 50.44{a)-(c), 50.46(a) and {b), 50.. 47(b), 50.48(a), (c), (d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), {i), {1)(1), (l)-{n), {p), {q), (t), {v), and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a), 50.62(b), 50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.SO(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and§§ 50.49(d), (h) and {j), 50.54(w), '(Z), (bb), {cc), and (dd), 50.SS{e), 50.59{b), 50.6l(b), 50.62(b), 50.70(a), 50.7l(a)-(c) and {e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

5.

Section 50.36a is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. {a) 17

(2) Each licensee shall submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of operation, including any other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. The report must be submitted as specified in § 50.4, and the time between submission of the reports must be no longer than 12 months. If quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting period are significantly above design objectives, the report must cover this specifically. On the basis of these reports and any additional information the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may require the licensee to take action as the Commission deems appropriate.

6.

Section 50.44 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a), (b}, and (c)(l) to read as follows: § 50.44 Standards for combustible gas control system in light-water-cooled power reactors. {a} Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, shall, as provided in paragraphs (b} through (d) of this section, include 18

means for control of hydrogen gas that may be generated, following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), by -- (b) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with the capability for -- (c)(l) For each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, it must be shown that during the time period following a postulated LOCA, but prior to effective operation of the combustible gas control system, either:

7. Section 50.46 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(l)(1') to read as follows:

§ 50.46 Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors. {a){l){i) Each boiling and pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical Zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) that must be designed so that its calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. ECCS cooling performance must be calculated in accordance with an acceptable evaluation model and must be calculated for a 19

e number of postulated loss-of-coolant accidents of different sizes, locations, and other properties sufficient to provide assurance that the most severe postulated loss-of-coolant accidents are calculated. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(l)(ii) of this section, the evaluation model must include sufficient supporting justification to show that the analytical technique realistically describes the behavior of the reactor system during a loss-of-coolant accident. Comparisons to applicable experimental data must be made and uncertainties in the analysis method and inputs must be identified and assessed so that the uncertainty in the calculated results can be estimated. This uncertainty must be accounted for, so that, when the calculated ECCS cooling performance is compared to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, there is a high level of probability that the criteria would not be exceeded. Appendix K, Part II, Required Documentation, sets forth the documentation requirements for each evaluation model.

8. Section 50.59 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 50.59 Changes, tests, and experiments. (b) 20

e {2) The licensee shall submit, as specified in § 50.4, a report containing a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a sun111ary of the safety evaluation of each. The report may be submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by§ 50.7l{e), or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license.

9.

Section 50.71 is amended by revising paragraph {e)(4) to read as follows: § 50.71 Maintenance of records, making of reports. {e) (4) Subsequent revisions must be filed annually or 6 months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR 21

does not exceed 24 months. The revisions must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filing. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 22}}