ML20214K224

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:52, 19 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That CRGR Review of Proposed Amends to 10CFR30,40, 50,61,70 & 72 Re Bankruptcy Notification Not Required.Crgr Will Proceed W/Preparation of Necessary Documentation for EDO Issuance of Proposed Rule
ML20214K224
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/21/1986
From: Arlotto G
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To: Sniezek J
Committee To Review Generic Requirements
Shared Package
ML20210C089 List:
References
FRN-51FR22531, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-72 AC16-1-16, NUDOCS 8608200067
Download: ML20214K224 (2)


Text

'

. . Acm-l

y. n' ~ p DISTRIBUTION: RES/ ALPHA CEBR RDG/SUBJ RBMinogue DFRoss GAArlotto WSchwink KGSteyer

~

  1. d "
  • FEB 211986 l MEMORANDUM FOR: James H. Sniezek Acting Chairman l

Constittee to Review Generic Requirements Office of the Executive Director for Operations FROM: Guy A. Arlotto. Director .

Division of Engineering Technology .

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i

SUBJECT:

AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 61, 70. AND 72 REQUIRING NOTIFICATION OF NRC BY LICENSEES IN THE

- EVENT OF BANKRUPTCY f

l On February 6, 1986, proposed revisions to 10 CFR 30, 40, 50, 61, 70, and 72 were distributed for Division review. At this time, a copy of the revisions was sent to J. H. Sniezek for (RGR infonnation. These revisions would require all NRC licensees to notify the appropriate NRC regional office within a certain time period in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the licensee.

We believe these revisions do not r m ire review by the CRGR because they (1) would not impact adversely on the safety of any licensed power reactor (2) would not result in any design or equipment changes for operating reactors, and (3) would 'iave a negligible impact on licensee resources.

The objective of these revisions it it NRC have means in place so that it is alerted and can take necessary acto. . o deal with potential hazards to the public health and safety that may be gsed by a licensee that does not have the resources to properly secure his licensed material or to clean up possible contamination. Cases have occurred in which licensees fi%d for bankruptcy and the NRC has not generally been aware that this has happ*..ied. There are presently no regulatory requirements that licensees notify the NRC when filing for bankruptcy. Hence, currently, NRC has no means by Alich it can be made aware of such situations.

As noted above these revisions would require licensees to notify HRC in the event of bankruptcy. There is no action required of a licensee by these revisions unless and until a bankruptcy petition is fi',ed. Hence, there is no impact from this rule unless bankruptcy filing occurs. Even in the event of bankruptcy, the impact of this rule on licensees is small since licensees are already required by the United States Code to notify creditors of bankruptcy, 8608000067 860018 PDR PR

. 30 51FR22S31 PDR , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

suasume > . . . . . . . . . . . .

ca.> .. .. .. . . . . . . . .

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

. . p. , . _ . ... .. - - . - - - .. ,-- - -. ....... - -

?-- - -- - - . - . . -

James H. Sniezek FEB 211986 hence this rule only consists of one additional notification. In addition, the required action consists only of a notification by mail to the NRC representing

! less than one person-hour of effort. The net overall cost to the industry is -

! negligible.

In a memorandum from V. Stello, Jr., EDO, to R. B. Minogue, January 13, 1986,

! it was indicated that this rulemaking be completed in 3-6 months. Based on j this time schedule for issuance of proposed and effective rules, we must move l expeditiously in obtaining review and concurrence of these revisions.

We will proceed with preparing the necessary documentation for EDO issuance of the proposed rule based on the assumption that CRGR review is not required.

'l M dsnedby G, A, Arkdb8 Guy A. Arlotto. Director Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l

1 1

l t

anca p R ,,g R,ES:CEBR g [/RES:CE

==+ f?,C.a.r.d.1,1 e :p. , , ,, , ..o.tto,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

DATE) 2/2Q/86 _22,O , _$_6, , , ;2/, /,g6,,,,,,,,

, ,,,,,, ,, ,,,,, , ,,, ,,,,,, , , ,,, ,,,,,