[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49301-49305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 76
RIN 3150-AF85
Certification Renewal and Amendment Processes
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
its regulations that apply to gaseous diffusion plants. In 1994, these
regulations established the process by which the NRC would assume
regulatory authority for the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion
plants. These plants first came under NRC oversight on March 3, 1997.
While implementing the initial certification and amendment processes
specified in the 1994 regulations, the NRC staff identified several
areas in these processes that should be revised and improved so that
they are more effective and efficient. This proposed rulemaking would
modify the process for certificate renewals, establish a process for
certificate amendments comparable to the process currently used to
amend a fuel cycle license, revise the appeal process for amendments,
eliminate the ``significant'' designation for amendments, simplify the
criteria for persons who are eligible to file a petition for review of
an amendment action, remove references to the initial application
because the initial certificates have been issued, and lengthen the
time periods associated with filing a petition for review.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before
November 16, 1998. Comments received after this date will be considered
if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure
consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attn: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD,
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
You may access the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through
the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the
availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web
browser supports that function.
For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms.
Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail [email protected]
Copies of comments received may be examined or copied for a fee at
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John L. Telford, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6229, e-mail
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) first
came under NRC oversight on March 3, 1997. Since that date, as the NRC
implemented the initial certification and numerous certificate
amendments under the processes specified in the 1994 regulations, the
staff has identified several areas to improve the renewal and amendment
processes so that they are more effective and efficient. Also, in the
1994 regulations, the certificate renewal period was 1 year. However,
by amendment of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, and
implementing rulemaking, this period was recently modified to allow up
to 5 years between certificate renewals. These events have caused the
NRC to reexamine the part 76 certificate renewal and amendment
processes. Hence, the objective of this proposed rule is to revise and
improve the current regulations so that the staff can effectively and
efficiently handle certificate renewals as well as the number of
certificate amendments that could reasonably be expected over the
recently established period of up to 5 years between certificate
renewals. This proposed rulemaking would modify the process for
certificate renewals, establish a process for certificate amendments
comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license,
revise the appeal process for amendments, eliminate the ``significant''
designation for amendments, simplify the criteria for persons who are
eligible to file a petition for review of a certificate amendment
action, remove references to the initial application because the
initial certificates have been issued, and lengthen the time periods
associated with filing a petition for review.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Currently, Sec. 76.37 specifies that the Director of the Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (the Director) shall publish a
Federal Register notice of receipt of an application for renewal. This
proposed rule would replace ``shall'' with ``may, at his or her
discretion,'' and insert ``for renewal'' after the first occurrence of
the word ``application'' in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). Replacing
``shall'' with ``may, at his or her discretion,'' allows the Director
to determine if a Federal Register notice is warranted for an
application for renewal, on a case-by-case basis. There are two reasons
for proposing this action. First, if the application does not address
any new safety issues or there have not been any major changes to the
facility or its operating procedures that would substantially increase
the risk associated with the facility, then the Director may decide
that a Federal Register notice is not necessary. This flexibility would
allow the agency to focus its resources on safety issues that have
significant potential risk. Second, there is no requirement in the AEA
to notice an application for certificate renewal. Furthermore, similar
actions for 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities are not noticed.
Also, adding ``for renewal'' clarifies that the application is
specifically for renewal.
In Sec. 76.39, the phrase ``for renewal'' would be inserted after
each occurrence of the word ``application.'' This clarifies that the
application being discussed in Sec. 76.39 is specifically for renewal.
Section 76.45 would be modified in paragraph (a) to remove the
responsibility for making the initial decision on an amendment
application
[[Page 49302]]
from the Director. This change allows the decision to grant or deny an
amendment application to be delegated to the branch chief level. This
would contribute to a more efficient use of agency resources and is
comparable to the process used for facilities regulated by the
Commission under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70.
Section 76.45(b) would be deleted. The first sentence currently
requires that the Director determine whether the proposed activities
are ``significant'', and if so, follow the procedures specified in
Secs. 76.37 and 76.39. This sentence would be deleted because the
procedures specified in Sec. 76.37 to be followed by the Director would
become discretionary, and the procedures specified in Sec. 76.39 are
currently discretionary. Accordingly, it would not be logical to compel
the Director to follow either of them. This deletion would eliminate
the current distinction between ``significant'' and ``not significant''
proposed activities. This deletion is intended to provide a more
flexible and efficient regulatory process. However, the public's
opportunity to follow each amendment action remains the same because
licensing documents are placed in the Commission's Public Document
Room, and the public would have an opportunity to file a petition for
review of an amendment as described in proposed Sec. 76.45(d). In
addition, the last sentence in Sec. 76.45(b) would be deleted because
decisions on certificate amendment applications would be delegated to
the branch chief level. This delegation would be comparable to the
process currently used for 10 CFR part 30, 40, and 70 facilities.
The current Sec. 76.45(c) would be redesignated as paragraph (b)
because the current paragraph (b) would be deleted.
In proposed Sec. 76.45(c), the first sentence would provide that a
certificate amendment would become effective when issued. This would
allow the NRC staff to handle issues that need to be addressed quickly
to avoid an unnecessary operational upset of a large gaseous diffusion
plant, ensure adequate protection of public health and safety from
radiological hazards, and/or provide for the common defense and
security. The second sentence of Sec. 76.45(c) would provide that the
staff may, at its discretion, publish notice of its decision on an
amendment application in the Federal Register. The staff would take
this action, on a case-by-case basis, whenever warranted. For example,
if the application does not address any new safety issues or there have
not been any major changes to the facility or its operating procedures
that would substantially increase the risk associated with the
facility, then the staff may decide that a Federal Register notice is
not necessary. This flexibility would allow the NRC to devote its
resources to safety issues that have significant potential risk. Also,
there is no requirement in the AEA to notice a certificate amendment
application. Furthermore, the Commission does not notice similar
actions for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities.
Currently, a decision on an amendment application may be appealed
by filing a request for the Commission's review. Proposed
Sec. 76.45(d), concerning the staff's determination on an amendment
application, would establish procedures for the United States
Enrichment Corporation (Corporation), or any person whose interests may
be affected, to file a petition for the Director's review. Under the
proposed rule, it is the initial determination on a certificate
amendment application that would be delegated to the branch chief;
therefore, it is logical for the Director to be the first level of
review. This process would contribute to a more efficient use of agency
resources because an appeal issue may be resolved by the Director and,
thus, not need the Commission's review.
Proposed Sec. 76.45(e), concerning the Director's decision, would
establish procedures for either the Corporation, or any person whose
interests may be affected and who filed a petition for review or filed
a response to a petition for review under Sec. 76.45(d), to file a
petition for the Commission's review. This proposed rule would have the
initial review of a staff determination on an amendment application
rendered by the Director; therefore, it is logical for the Commission
to be the final level of review.
In Sec. 76.62(c) the phrase, ``who submitted written comments in
response to the Federal Register notice on the application or
compliance plan under Sec. 76.37, or provided oral comments at any
meeting held on the application or compliance plan conducted under
Sec. 76.39'' would be removed. This would eliminate restrictions that
limit those entities who may file a petition requesting review of the
Director's decision regarding issuance of a certificate and/or approval
of a compliance plan. Elimination of these restrictions is consistent
with the Commission's practice for 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70
facilities. Further, in the event that a Federal Register notice is not
issued for a certificate renewal, the notice of the Director's decision
would provide the first published opportunity for a person whose
interest may be affected to be aware of the action. Also, the number of
days specified in Sec. 76.62(c) would be increased, e.g., 15 days
becomes 30 days. This would provide more time for the Corporation or
other member of the public whose interests may be affected to file a
petition for review on a certificate renewal action, since the time
period for a certificate renewal was recently extended from annually to
up to 5 years and, therefore, the need to act within 15 days because of
the time constraint associated with annual renewals has been removed.
Also, the sentence, ``Unless the Commission grants the petition for
review or otherwise acts within 60 days after the publication of the
Federal Register notice, the Director's initial decision on the
certificate application or compliance plan becomes effective and
final,'' would be revised to read: ``If the Commission does not issue a
decision or otherwise act within 90 days after the publication of the
Federal Register notice, the Director's decision remains in effect.''
This change would make clear that the Director's decision is effective
upon issuance and would eliminate a potential 60-day suspension of the
effectiveness of the Director's decision, if a petition for review is
filed. The Director's decision would remain in effect unless it is
changed by the Commission. This procedure would also be more consistent
with the process for license renewals pursuant to 10 CFR parts 30, 40,
and 70. In addition, to accommodate the increased time for both filing
a petition for review and responding to a petition, the time provided
for the Commission to act would be increased from 60 to 90 days
following publication of the Federal Register notice.
The changes made in Sec. 76.62(c) would also be made in
Sec. 76.64(d) for the same reasons.
In the introductory text of Sec. 76.91, reference to Sec. 76.35(d)
would be changed to Sec. 76.35(f) to correct a typographical error.
In addition, part 76 would be modified to remove references to the
initial application that are no longer relevant because the initial
certificates have been issued. In Secs. 76.33 (a)(1), (b), (c), (d),
and (e), and 76.35, references to ``initial'' would be removed. Section
76.9(c) would be removed as no longer relevant because of the reference
to the initial certification application. Phrases in Secs. 76.21(a),
76.36(a), 76.60(e)(2), and 76.91(n) concerning initial certification
would be removed. References in Secs. 76.7(e)(1), 76.60(c)(2),
76.60(d)(2),
[[Page 49303]]
and 76.60(e)(1) to the NMSS Director's initial decision would be
removed.
Section 76.33 would also be amended to correct a printing error in
the regulatory text. In Sec. 76.33(a)(2) the redundant phrase ``the
names, addresses, and citizenship of its principal office,'' would be
removed.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that this regulation is the type of action
described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) and (3).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The information collection requirements contained in this part of
limited applicability apply to a wholly-owned instrumentality of the
United States. Therefore, Office of Management and Budget clearance is
not required pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
5301 et seq).
Regulatory Analysis
This proposed rulemaking would modify the process for certificate
renewals, establish a process for certificate amendments comparable to
the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license, revise the
appeal process for amendments, eliminate the ``significant''
designation for amendments, simplify the criteria for persons who are
eligible to file a petition for review of an amendment action, remove
references to the initial application because the initial certificates
have been issued, and lengthen the time periods associated with filing
a petition for review.
Although current 10 CFR part 76 contains a process for certificate
amendment and the GDP certificates have been amended several times,
these licensing actions have identified that the process described in
Sec. 76.45 has several deficiencies that should be corrected and that
the process should be revised and improved so that it is more effective
and efficient, as discussed above. The proposal being considered
parallels the process currently used for 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70
facilities. It also removes the ambiguity associated with determining
who can petition the NRC for review of an amendment application
decision.
Also, since the statute has been amended to allow up to a 5-year
certificate renewal period instead of an annual certificate renewal
requirement, the lengthened certificate period has permitted
consideration of improvements to the certificate renewal process.
Because the time constraints of an annual certification process have
been removed, appropriate changes to the time for appeals and lifting
of restrictions on who may appeal a certification decision in the
proposed rule would more closely resemble the process for renewal of
materials licenses under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70.
A no-change option would maintain the deficiencies and ambiguities
in both processes and would not result in an improved process which is
more effective and efficient.
Impacts on the Corporation
An uncomplicated certificate amendment process is expected to
provide a more timely regulatory process. If the identified
deficiencies and ambiguities in the amendment process are not
corrected, there is a potential for expense due to plant operational
delays and reduced efficiencies that may be related to amendment
requests. However, clarification of who can petition the Director for
review of a staff determination on an amendment application and/or
extension of the period for requesting a review may result in
additional petitions. Similarly, the lifting of restrictions on who can
petition for review of a certification renewal decision and the
lengthening of the time for such petitions may result in additional
petitions. This rulemaking is not expected to have any adverse economic
impacts on the Corporation.
Benefit
An uncomplicated process for certificate amendment is expected to
result in a more effective and efficient NRC review process that would
provide more timely completion of amendment reviews. Clarification of
who can petition the Director for review of a certificate amendment
determination would remove undesirable ambiguities. Specifically, the
proposed rule would remove a restriction on who could petition for
review by eliminating the current requirement that a petition for
review only be filed by a person who had previously provided comments.
The proposed rule would allow anyone whose interests may be affected to
file a petition for review. Also, extension of the time periods
associated with filing a petition for review would provide more time
for the public to participate in the amendment process. The proposed
rule also provides the same removal of restrictions on who may petition
for review of a certification renewal decision and extension of time
for petitions for review of a certification renewal decision. Further,
the proposed rule provides the staff discretion in publishing the
Federal Register notice of receipt of the application for Certificate
renewal. Exercise of this discretion permits the staff to use its
resources in the most effective and efficient manner.
Preferred Option
The preferred option is to amend the regulations to eliminate
ambiguities, reduce inefficiencies, better define the processes for
certificate renewals and amendments, allow immediately effective
amendments, and allow more time for public participation, while
continuing to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.
This constitutes the regulatory analysis for the proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Commission certifies that this rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because it only addresses the United States Enrichment Corporation or
its successor. The Corporation does not fall within the scope of the
definition of ``small entities'' set forth in 10 CFR 2.810 or the Small
Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small
Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121.
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this
proposed rule; therefore, 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 Ch. I.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 76
Certification, Criminal penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Special nuclear
material, Uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 76.
PART 76--CERTIFICATION OF GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 49304]]
Authority: Secs. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, secs. 1312,
1701, as amended, 106 Stat. 2932, 2951, 2952, 2953, 110 Stat. 1321-
349 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297b-11, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 204,
206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846);
sec. 234(a), 83 Stat. 444, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243(a)).
Sec. 76.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sec. 76.22 is also issued under sec. 193(f),
as amended, 104 Stat. 2835, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243(f)). Sec. 76.35(j) also issued under
sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
2. In Sec. 76.7, paragraph (e)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.7 Employee protection.
* * * * *
(e)(1) The Corporation shall prominently post the revision of NRC
Form 3, ``Notice to Employees,'' referenced in 10 CFR 19.11(c). This
form must be posted at locations sufficient to permit employees
protected by this section to observe a copy on the way to or from their
place of work. Premises must be posted during the term of the
certificate, and for 30 days following certificate termination.
* * * * *
Sec. 76.9 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 76.9, paragraph (c) is removed.
4. In Sec. 76.21, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.21 Certificate required.
(a) The Corporation or its contractors may not operate the gaseous
diffusion plants at Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, unless an
appropriate certificate of compliance, and/or an approved compliance
plan is in effect pursuant to this part. Except as authorized by the
NRC under other provisions of this chapter, no person other than the
Corporation or its contractors may acquire, deliver, receive, possess,
use, or transfer radioactive material at the gaseous diffusion plants
at Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky.
* * * * *
5. Section 76.33 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.33 Application procedures.
(a) Filing requirements. (1) An application for a certificate of
compliance must be tendered by filing 20 copies of the application with
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, with
copies sent to the NRC Region III Office and appropriate resident
inspector, in accordance with Sec. 76.5 of this part.
(2) The application must include the full name, address, age (if an
individual), and citizenship of the applicant. If the applicant is a
corporation or other entity, it shall indicate the State where it was
incorporated or organized, the location of the principal office, the
names, addresses, and citizenship of its principal officers, and shall
include information known to the applicant concerning the control or
ownership, if any, exercised over the applicant by any alien, foreign
corporation, or foreign government.
(b) Oath or affirmation. An application for a certificate of
compliance must be executed in a signed original by a duly authorized
officer of the Corporation under oath or affirmation.
(c) Pre-filing consultation. The Corporation may confer with the
Commission's staff before filing an application.
(d) Additional information. At any time during the review of an
application, the Corporation may be required to supply additional
information to the Commission's staff to enable the Commission or the
Director, as appropriate, to determine whether the certificate should
be issued or denied, or to determine whether a compliance plan should
be approved.
(e) Withholdable information. An application which contains
Restricted Data, National Security Information, Safeguards Information,
Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information, proprietary data, or other
withholdable information, must be prepared in such a manner that all
such information or data are separated from the information to be made
available to the public.
6. In Sec. 76.35, the section heading and introductory paragraph
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.35 Contents of application.
The application for a certificate of compliance must include the
information identified in this section.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 76.36, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.36 Renewals.
(a) The Corporation shall file periodic applications for renewal,
as required by Sec. 76.31.
* * * * *
8. Section 76.37 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.37 Federal Register notice.
The Director may, at his or her discretion, publish in the Federal
Register:
(a) A notice of the filing of an application for renewal
(specifying that copies of the application, except for Restricted Data,
Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information, Classified National
Security Information, Safeguards Information, Proprietary Data, or
other withholdable information will be made available for public
inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street,
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, and in the local public document
room at or near the location of the plant);
(b) A notice of opportunity for written public comment on the
application for renewal; and
(c) The date of any scheduled public meeting regarding the
application for renewal.
9. In Sec. 76.39, paragraphs (a), the introductory text of (b),
(b)(1), and (b)(4) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.39 Public meeting.
(a) A public meeting will be held on an application for renewal if
the Director, in his or her discretion, determines that a meeting is in
the public interest with respect to a decision on the application for
renewal.
(b) Conduct of public meeting.
(1) The Director shall conduct any public meeting held on the
application for renewal.
* * * * *
(4) Members of the public will be given an opportunity during a
public meeting to make their views regarding the application for
renewal known to the Director.
* * * * *
10. Section 76.45 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.45 Application for amendment of certificate.
(a) Contents of amendment application. In addition to the
application for certification submitted pursuant to Sec. 76.31, the
Corporation may at any time apply for amendment of the certificate to
cover proposed new or modified activities. The amendment application
should contain sufficient information to make findings of compliance or
acceptability for the proposed activities as required for the original
certificate.
(b) Oath or affirmation. An application for an amendment of the
certificate of compliance must be executed in a signed original by the
Corporation under oath or affirmation.
(c) Amendment application determinations. If the NRC staff approves
an application for a certificate amendment, it will be effective when
issued by the NRC staff to the Corporation. If an application for a
certificate amendment is not approved by the NRC staff, the Corporation
will be informed in writing. The NRC staff may, at its discretion,
publish notice of its determination on an amendment application in the
Federal Register.
[[Page 49305]]
(d) Request for review of staffs determination on an amendment
application. The Corporation, or any person whose interest may be
affected, may file a petition requesting the Director's review of a NRC
staff determination on an amendment application. A petition requesting
the Director's review may not exceed 30 pages and must be filed within
30 days after the date of the staff's determination. Any person
described in this paragraph may file a written response to a petition
requesting the Director's review. This response may not exceed 30 pages
and must be filed within 15 days after the filing date of the petition
requesting the Director's review. The Director may adopt, modify, or
set aside the findings, conclusions, conditions, or terms in the
staff's amendment determination by providing a written basis for the
action. If the Director does not issue a decision or otherwise act
within 60 days after receiving the petition for review, the staff's
determination on the amendment application remains in effect.
(e) Request for review of a Director's decision. The Corporation,
or any person whose interest may be affected and who filed a petition
for review or filed a response to a petition for review under
Sec. 76.45(d), may file a petition requesting the Commission's review
of a Director's decision on an amendment application. A petition
requesting the Commission's review may not exceed 30 pages and must be
filed within 30 days after the date of the Director's decision. A
petition requesting the Commission's review may be either: delivered to
the Rulemakings and Adjudications Branch of the Office of the Secretary
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or
sent by mail or telegram to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff. Any person described in this paragraph may file a
written response to a petition requesting the Commission's review. This
response may not exceed 30 pages and must be filed within 15 days after
the filing date of the petition requesting the Commission's review. The
Commission may adopt, by order, further procedures that, in its
judgment, would serve the purpose of review of the Director's decision.
The Commission may adopt, modify, or set aside the findings,
conclusions, conditions, or terms in the Director's amendment review
decision and will state the basis of its action in writing. If the
Commission does not issue a decision or otherwise act within 90 days
after receiving the petition for review, the Director's decision, under
Sec. 76.45(d), on the amendment application remains in effect.
11. In Sec. 76.60, paragraphs (c)(2), (d)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(2)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.60 Regulatory requirements which apply.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) The Corporation shall post NRC Form 3 during the term of the
certificate and for 30 days following certificate termination.
(d) * * *
(2) The Corporation shall comply with the requirements in this part
or as specified in an approved plan for achieving compliance.
(e) * * *
(1) The Corporation shall comply with the requirements in
Secs. 21.6 and 21.21.
(2) Under Sec. 21.31, procurement documents issued by the
Corporation must specify that the provisions of 10 CFR part 21 apply.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 76.62, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.62 Issuance of certificate and/or approval of compliance plan.
* * * * *
(c) The Corporation, or any person whose interest may be affected,
may file a petition, not to exceed 30 pages, requesting review of the
Director's decision. This petition must be filed with the Commission
not later than 30 days after publication of the Federal Register
notice. Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to
any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, within 15 days after
the filing of the petition. If the Commission does not issue a decision
or otherwise act within 90 days after the publication of the Federal
Register notice, the Director's decision remains in effect. The
Commission may adopt, by order, further procedures that, in its
judgment, would serve the purpose of review of the Director's decision.
13. In Sec. 76.64, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.64 Denial of certificate or compliance plan.
* * * * *
(d) The Corporation, or any person whose interest may be affected,
may file a petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, requesting
review of the Director's decision. This petition for review must be
filed with the Commission not later than 30 days after publication of
the Federal Register notice. Any person described in this paragraph may
file a response to any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages,
within 15 days after the filing of the petition for review. If the
Commission does not issue a decision or otherwise act within 90 days
after the publication of the Federal Register notice, the Director's
decision remains in effect. The Commission may adopt, by order, further
procedures that, in its judgment, would serve the purpose of review of
the Director's decision.
14. In Sec. 76.91, the introductory text and paragraph (n) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 76.91 Emergency planning.
The Corporation shall establish, maintain, and be prepared to
follow a written emergency plan. The emergency plan submitted under
Sec. 76.35(f) must include the following information:
* * * * *
(n) Comment from offsite response organizations. The Corporation
shall allow the offsite response organizations expected to respond in
case of an accident 60 days to comment on the emergency plan before
submitting it to NRC. The Corporation shall provide any comments
received within the 60 days to the NRC with the emergency plan.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of September, 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-24713 Filed 9-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
