Certification Renewal and Amendment Processes

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.

ecause 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

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

ne 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

lication 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

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

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

n

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

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

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

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),

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

izenship 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

eficiencies 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

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

rtification 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

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:

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.

* * * * *

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.

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.

nformation, 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.

r 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.

(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.

esting 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

ve 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

or 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:

* * * * *

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