_ ______ _____ 

POLICY ISSUE 

(Notation Vote)

October 7, 2016 SECY-16-0115 

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: RULEMAKING PLAN ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR 

DISPOSITION OF CATEGORY 1 AND 2 BYPRODUCT MATERIAL 

RADIOACTIVE SEALED SOURCES 

PURPOSE: 

The purpose of this paper is to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking to require 

financial assurance for disposition of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material Radioactive Sealed 

Sources (RSS).1 This rulemaking would revise § 30.35 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), “Financial Assurance and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning.” 

CONTACTS: Ryan Whited, NMSS/DUWP 

 301-415-1154 

 Robert D. MacDougall, NMSS/MSTR 

 301-415-5175 

 

1 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Guide No. RS-G-1.9, “Categorization of Radioactive 

Sources,” identifies five categories of RSSs. Category 1 and 2 RSSs present the greatest health hazard and are 

considered the most risk significant.
The Commissioners - 2 - 

SUMMARY: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) regulations in 10 CFR 30.35 require a fixed 

dollar amount of financial assurance or a Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP) for licensees 

possessing byproduct material with a half-life greater than 120 days and at activity levels above 

certain thresholds. However, the thresholds for sealed byproduct material are such that many 

licensees possessing Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs are not required to provide 

financial assurance for decommissioning. Where financial assurance is required, it is to support 

decommissioning of the site, not necessarily to disposition an individual RSS that has become 

disused or unwanted. 

The NRC staff conducted a scoping study to determine whether additional financial planning 

requirements for end-of-life management for some radioactive byproduct material, particularly 

RSSs, were needed. Based on the scoping study, which is documented in SECY-16-0046, 

“Radioactive Byproduct Material Financial Scoping Study,”2 the NRC staff recommends that the 

financial assurance requirements in 10 CFR 30.35 be expanded to include all Category 1 and 2 

byproduct material RSSs tracked in the National Source Tracking System (NSTS). 

There are three main reasons for proceeding with this rulemaking. Requiring financial 

assurance for disposition of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs would: 

 

• Ensure that licensees possessing these risk-significant RSSs are financially prepared for 

the costs of end-of-life dispositioning. 

• Complement the existing regulatory framework to ensure safe and secure management 

of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs by facilitating timely disposition when 

these RSSs become disused or unwanted. 

• Help ensure that dispositioning costs are borne by those who receive the associated 

economic benefits from the use of these sources. 

The proposed rulemaking would result in increased regulatory costs, and its implementation 

would require additional NRC and Agreement State resources. Engagement with Agreement 

States and other stakeholders early in the rulemaking process would be prudent to ensure that 

the benefits of the rule and resource impacts are well understood and that the new requirements 

can be implemented effectively and efficiently. 

BACKGROUND:

In the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-15-0129, “Commission Involvement in Early 

Stages of Rulemaking,”3 dated February 3, 2016, the Commission approved a streamlined 

rulemaking plan requirement in the form of a SECY paper that would request Commission 

approval to initiate each rulemaking not already explicitly delegated to the NRC staff. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff requests approval to initiate a rulemaking to require financial 

assurance for disposition of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs. 

 

2 Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16067A367. 

3 ADAMS Accession No. ML16034A441. 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

The NRC regulations in 10 CFR 30.35 are intended to ensure adequate financing for the 

decommissioning of facilities containing byproduct material above prescribed thresholds. They 

require a fixed dollar amount of financial assurance or a DFP for licensees possessing 

byproduct material with a half-life greater than 120 days and at activity levels above certain 

thresholds. Activity thresholds are provided in 10 CFR 30.35 for both unsealed and sealed 

byproduct material. The thresholds that require financial assurance for sealed byproduct 

material are seven orders of magnitude higher than for unsealed material. As a result, many 

licensees that possess byproduct material RSSs, including many Category 1 and 2 RSSs, are 

not required to provide financial assurance for decommissioning.4 

End-of-life costs for dispositioning of byproduct material RSSs can be significant. These can 

include costs for interim storage, packaging and conditioning, transportation, and costs 

associated with the selected disposition option. Dispositioning may include options such as 

return to the manufacturer or supplier for reuse or recycling, transfer to another licensee, 

disposal as low-level waste, or decay in storage for subsequent management and disposal. 

Licensees are not required to declare when RSSs in their possession are unwanted, nor are 

they required to provide for prompt dispositioning. If a licensee has not anticipated and planned 

for the cost of dispositioning, it may represent a significant financial burden. As a result, 

licensees may choose indefinite long-term storage as the most practical management option. 

In SECY-16-0046, dated April 7, 2016, the NRC staff cited a number of studies noting the 

potential for increased safety and security risks when disused sources are not promptly 

dispositioned. For example, a 2006 report from the Radiation Source Protection and Security 

Task Force (Task Force) noted that some NRC licensees, “...may not have sufficient funds set 

aside to cover the costs of disposal or other appropriate disposition, potentially resulting in 

prolonged storage and possible misuse or abandonment.” 5 The report also noted that high 

disposal costs may prompt licensees to delay disposal either by choice or economic necessity. 

The 2010 Task Force report reiterated that, “...while secure storage is a temporary measure, 

the longer sources remain disused or unwanted the chances increase that they will become 

unsecured or abandoned.” 6 The 2014 Task Force report further stated that financial assurance 

requirements “... are likely to decrease the time that commercial sealed sources remain in 

storage because the funds necessary for source disposal will be immediately or quickly 

available.” 7 Requiring financial assurance for byproduct material Category 1 and 2 RSSs may 

help reduce the use of long-term storage as a management option, supporting Commission 

policy that disposal is preferred to storage.8 

Since 2003, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

has implemented a program to remove excess RSSs that posed a potential threat to public 

health, safety, and national security. While acknowledging the safety and security concerns 

associated with disused sources, the NNSA noted in comments provided to the NRC staff that 

 

4 For example, two of the most common radionuclides tracked in the NSTS are cobalt-60 and cesium-137. For 

cobalt-60 in sealed form, the threshold quantity for Category 2 radioactive material is 8.1 curie (Ci), while the 10 CFR 

30.35 threshold for financial assurance is 10,000 Ci. For cesium-137 in sealed form, the threshold quantity for 

Category 2 radioactive material is 27 Ci, while the 10 CFR 30.35 threshold for financial assurance is 100,000 Ci. 

5 ADAMS Accession No. ML062190349. 

6 ADAMS Accession No. ML102230141. 

7 ADAMS Accession No. ML14219A642. 

8 “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Volume Reduction,” 77 FR 25760 at 25781 (May 1, 2012). 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

increased government involvement in efforts to address RSS management and disposal is not 

sustainable.9 The NNSA stated that additional financial planning requirements could encourage 

the use of available commercial disposal options, or defray the cost of packaging and 

transportation, thereby reducing the funding required for NNSA-sponsored RSS recovery and 

management programs.10 

DISCUSSION: 

Title 

Financial Assurance for Disposition of Category 1 and 2 Byproduct Material Radioactive Sealed 

Sources. 

Estimated Schedule

Initiate regulatory basis phase – October 2017. 

Complete regulatory basis – October 2018. 

Publish proposed rule – October 2019. 

Publish final rule – October 2020. 

Preliminary Priority 

High. Using the Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) prioritization methodology, the 

proposed rulemaking exceeds the minimum criterion for a preliminary priority of “High” because 

the rule would be a moderate contributor toward both the Safety and the Security Goals in the 

NRC’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. The proposed rulemaking would address one Safety Goal 

Implementation Strategy and two Security Goal Implementation Strategies. 

The Safety Goal Implementation Strategy is to “Enhance the NRC’s regulatory programs, as 

appropriate, using lessons learned from domestic and international operating experience and 

other sources.” For this strategy, the requested rulemaking would enhance the NRC’s 

regulatory programs by addressing lessons learned and recommendations from the NRC, other 

U.S. and international studies indicating that, as a 2005 U.S. Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report stated, “greater quantities and longer periods of storage, particularly of unwanted 

sealed radiological sources, will likely increase safety and security risks.” 11 The rulemaking 

would also implement guidance in the IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of 

Radioactive Sources, Paragraph 22(b), that every Member State’s regulatory body “ensures that 

arrangements are made for the safe management and secure protection of radioactive sources, 

including financial provisions where appropriate, once they have become disused.” 

 

 

9 ADAMS Accession No. ML15310A044. 

10 Such programs include the Off-Site Source Recovery Project managed by NNSA and the Source Collection and 

Threat Reduction Program, which is funded by NNSA and administered by the Conference of Radiation Control 

Program Directors (CRCPD). 

11 GAO-05-967, DOE [Department of Energy] Needs Better Information to Guide Its Expanded Recovery of Sealed 

Radiological Sources (September 2005). 
The Commissioners - 5 - 

The rulemaking would also be a moderate contributor to the Security Goal and would implement 

the first and third Security Goal Implementation Strategies: 

1. “Ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory framework using information 

gained from operating experience and external and internal assessments; ...” and 

3. “Support U.S. national security interests and nuclear nonproliferation policy objectives 

within NRC’s statutory mandate through cooperation with domestic and international 

partners.” 

Regarding Security Goal Implementation Strategy 1, the proposed rulemaking would improve 

the effectiveness of the regulatory framework by addressing issues from operating experience 

identified by several internal and external groups, including but not limited to, the Radiation 

Source Protection and Security Task Force and the GAO. 

Concerning Security Goal Implementation Strategy 3, one of the “Contributing Activities” to this 

Strategy in the Strategic Plan is to “[p]articipate with Agreement States, the Conference of 

Radiation Control Program Directors, and the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration in 

identification, location, and recovery of unwanted and uncontrolled radioactive materials, often 

referred to as ‘orphan sources.’” In light of the positions of these partner institutions on the 

desirability of NRC action, as noted in SECY-16-0046, a rulemaking to require adequate 

financial assurance for the dispositioning of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs would 

constitute substantial and constructive “participation” with these partners and an important 

contributing activity to the success of Security Strategy 3. 

The requested rulemaking would also be a moderate contributor to Regulatory Effectiveness 

Strategy 1 in the NRC’s Strategic Plan. This strategy calls for the NRC to “[p]roactively identify, 

assess, understand, and resolve safety and security issues.” Initiating a rulemaking to require 

financial assurance for Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs would be a proactive 

measure to help ensure the timely, safe, and secure dispositioning of these sources and 

minimize the likelihood of new problems.

Description and Scope 

Under the proposed rulemaking, the NRC staff would establish financial assurance 

requirements in 10 CFR 30.35 for the dispositioning of all byproduct material Category 1 and 2 

RSSs that are required to be tracked in the NSTS.12 Sufficient financial assurance would be 

required to cover costs associated with storage, conditioning, packaging, transportation, reuse, 

recycling, or disposal, as applicable. The text below describes the NRC staff’s initial proposed 

scope of the rulemaking. Alternative approaches to ensuring financial assurance will be 

explored through development of the regulatory basis and proposed rule, both which will involve 

interaction with stakeholders. The current regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 30.35 address 

financial assurance for decommissioning. This proposal would consider adding requirements to 

provide financial assurance for the dispositioning of Category 1 and 2 RSSs that are required to 

be tracked in the NSTS. 

 

12 Nationally Tracked Source Thresholds are listed in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 20. Tracking of these sources is 

required by 10 CFR 20.2207. The NSTS tracks more than 76,000 Category 1 and 2 RSSs held by both NRC and 

Agreement State licensees. More than 99 percent of RSSs tracked in the NSTS are byproduct material. 
The Commissioners - 6 - 

The proposed rule would apply the new requirements to licensees possessing affected RSSs 

regardless of site decommissioning status, and would apply to RSSs entering the NSTS as well 

as those currently tracked. 

The proposed rulemaking focuses on Category 1 and 2 RSSs, as these sources have the 

highest risk significance and are generally the most likely to pose dispositioning challenges. 

Dispositioning costs are likely to be higher for Category 1 and 2 sources as a group compared to 

other source categories. Requiring financial assurance for byproduct material Category 1 and 2 

RSSs may help reduce the use of long-term storage as a management option, supporting the 

Commission policy that disposal is preferred to storage.13 In addition, requiring financial 

assurance would: 

• Ensure that licensees possessing these risk-significant RSSs have planned and are 

financially prepared for the costs associated with end-of-life dispositioning. 

• Complement the existing regulatory framework to ensure safe and secure management 

of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs by facilitating timely dispositioning when 

these RSSs become disused or unwanted. 

• Help ensure that dispositioning costs are borne by those who receive the associated 

economic benefits from the use of these sources. 

In evaluating alternatives to rulemaking, the NRC staff chose enforceability and consistency of 

implementation as the paramount considerations; cost-effectiveness was also an important 

consideration. Based on these considerations, the NRC staff concluded that rulemaking is the 

most effective way to ensure that adequate financial resources are available to disposition 

Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs. Although the issuance of guidance or a generic 

communication would cost less, neither could effectively provide the key attributes of 

enforceability and consistency. Licensing actions would provide these attributes, but would cost 

considerably more than a generic rulemaking. Interagency cooperation would cost the least, but 

also provide the least assurance of the desired outcome, since it would depend heavily on 

factors beyond NRC’s control. Thus, as indicated below, the NRC staff determined that 

rulemaking is the preferred option. Alternatives considered include: 

• Issue Guidance. This alternative would not result in any change in the NRC’s 

regulations, and as such, licensees would not need to provide financial assurance for 

byproduct material Category 1 and 2 RSSs beyond the current requirements in 10 CFR 

30.35. 

• Issue a Generic Communication. Similar to issuing guidance, this option would not 

establish new financial assurance requirements, and would therefore not be binding or 

enforceable. It would address the regulatory need only to the extent that licensees 

voluntarily implement improved financial planning practices. 

• Take Individual Licensing Actions. Issuing orders or license amendments would provide 

clear and enforceable direction to licensees, but could only be implemented case by 

case, and therefore would be highly resource-intensive. The NRC alone has 353 

Category 1 and Category 2 sealed source licensees in the NSTS database, and the 

Agreement States have 1,779. In general, the significant expenditure of NRC and 

Agreement State resources that would be needed to process hundreds of individual 

licensing actions is not warranted when there are other less resource intensive options 

 

13 “Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Volume Reduction” (77 FR 25760 at 25781; May 1, 2012). 
The Commissioners - 7 - 

that would produce the same outcome. 

• Interagency Cooperation. The NRC could work with other agencies, such as NNSA, to 

help ensure continued support for existing RSS recovery and management programs. It 

is unclear, however, to what extent the NRC could influence the future viability of these 

programs in such matters as program funding and administration. 

• Issue a Rule. This is the preferred alternative because it provides a clearly enforceable 

basis for licensee or applicant action and ensures the greatest degree of consistency. 

SECY-16-0046, Enclosure 1,14 provides a discussion of numerous technical issues important to 

financial planning for RSS disposition. If the Commission approves the initiation of rulemaking, 

the NRC staff through the rulemaking process, would further assess these issues in developing 

the regulatory basis for the draft proposed rule including exploring various options for 

development of the rule. In addition, a rulemaking working group could conduct outreach to 

organizations such as the CRCPD, the Organization of Agreement States (OAS), international 

partners, industry, and other groups who have studied this issue. The experiences of 

Agreement State and international partners in implementing similar efforts would be particularly 

useful. 

Relationship of the Work to the NRC’s Strategic Plan 

The rule would be a moderate contributor toward both the Safety and the Security Goals in the 

NRC’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan, and would address one Safety Goal Implementation Strategy 

and two Security Goal Implementation Strategies. The Safety Goal Implementation Strategy is 

to “Enhance the NRC’s regulatory programs, as appropriate, using lessons learned from 

domestic and international operating experience and other sources.” The Security Goal 

Implementation Strategies are to “Ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 

framework using information gained from operating experience and external and internal 

assessments” and to “Support U.S. national security interests and nuclear nonproliferation 

policy objectives within NRC’s statutory mandate through cooperation with domestic and 

international partners.” The relationship of the proposed rulemaking to these Implementation 

Strategies is discussed in detail in the “Preliminary Priority” section of this paper. 

Cost and Benefits 

As described below, the proposed action is estimated to involve a medium magnitude of costs. 

The benefits of the proposed action are described in the “Description and Scope” section. Aside 

from the resource estimates to complete the proposed rulemaking, costs are discussed 

qualitatively pending the more detailed analyses that would be performed to support a 

regulatory basis document and eventual regulatory analysis for a proposed rule. 

The estimated costs of the subject rulemaking are discussed in Enclosure 1. The estimated 

cost to revise the associated guidance in NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1, “Consolidated 

Decommissioning Guidance: Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness” (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12048A683) is also provided in Enclosure 1. 

Expanding the financial assurance requirements in 10 CFR 30.35 would result in increased 

regulatory costs that could potentially affect beneficial uses of radioactive material. These costs 

 

14 ADAMS Accession No. ML16068A205. 
The Commissioners - 8 - 

and benefits would be evaluated in detail as part of the rulemaking process. For some 

licensees, new financial assurance requirements could shift the financial burden of planning for 

RSS disposition to a point earlier in a source’s lifecycle than anticipated. Also, the cost of 

additional regulatory oversight would be passed on to licensees and applicants. For new 

sources, licensees or applicants would be able to evaluate these costs when deciding whether 

or not to acquire a source. For both new and existing sources, the NRC would need to consider 

carefully various options for the rule requirements and/or phasing of implementation to mitigate 

potential adverse impacts on licensees and those who benefit from the use of these radioactive 

materials. Adverse impacts could be particularly acute for licensees with limited revenue 

streams and limited ability to pass the added costs on to customers. New requirements could 

potentially increase the number of disused sources if some existing licensees determine that the 

costs associated with implementing these requirements outweigh the associated benefits. 

The NRC and Agreement State administration of expanded financial assurance requirements 

will require additional resources. Regulators will need to develop or amend regulatory guidance 

associated with the new or modified requirements. In addition, regulatory agencies may need to 

acquire or supplement existing professional expertise in financial assurance. Information 

technology and other infrastructure will be needed to track compliance. Resource impacts for 

regulatory agencies will depend on numerous factors, including the scope of any new 

requirements, how many licensees are affected, and the level of expertise required to evaluate 

licensee compliance with the new requirements. 

Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

The NRC staff determined that the recommended rulemaking could add to the cumulative 

effects of regulation (CER) for licensees possessing byproduct material Category 1 and 2 RSSs, 

but the extent of the impact will depend on another rulemaking whose nature and scope 

remains to be determined. A follow-on rulemaking to clarify 10 CFR Part 37 exemption and 

implementation issues is planned. Because both the 10 CFR Part 37 rulemaking and the 

recommended financial assurance rulemaking would affect licensees with Category 1 and 2 

sources, these licensees would have additional demands on their management, staff, and 

financial resources if both rules were implemented simultaneously. If the Commission approves 

this rulemaking and the Part 37 rulemaking, the NRC staff will coordinate with the staff leading 

the 10 CFR Part 37 rulemaking. The NRC staff will request comments in each rulemaking, 

specifically, regarding potential CER impacts, and will solicit comments during the additional 

stakeholder interactions anticipated as part of the regulatory basis and proposed rule 

development. 

Additional CER impacts of this proposed rulemaking could affect Agreement State agencies. 

These agencies are required to adopt regulations compatible with NRC regulations within 3 

years after promulgation of an NRC rule that requires compatibility. Depending on the state 

agencies’ potential 10 CFR Part 37 rulemaking caseloads, their resources available for this 

activity may be affected. This in turn may affect their ability to promulgate compatible rules 

within the allowed 3 year timeframe. 
The Commissioners - 9 - 

Agreement State Considerations 

The proposed rulemaking would result in increased regulatory costs and would require 

additional NRC and Agreement State resources. Engagement with the NRC’s Agreement State 

partners from the early stages of rulemaking would be important to ensure that potential 

resource expenditures and other impacts, including the effects of compatibility requirements, are 

well understood for effective and timely implementation. 

As part of its scoping study, the NRC staff asked stakeholders to comment on how the NRC 

should engage with Agreement States to consider the impact of any subsequent rulemaking. 

Respondents from Agreement State regulatory agencies and the OAS generally supported 

additional financial assurance requirements for RSSs, but stressed the need for the NRC to 

maintain flexibility in implementing new requirements. The OAS noted in its comments15 that, 

as with other rulemakings, the NRC should consider forming a working group to coordinate with 

Agreement States in the development of proposed rule requirements. In addition, the OAS 

suggested that in determining compatibility, the NRC should consider the impact on States in 

terms of review of financial assurance documents on an ongoing basis for a greatly increased 

number of licensees. 

Backfitting and Issue Finality 

This rulemaking would affect licensees who possess Category 1 and 2 byproduct material 

RSSs. Most of these users are licensed under 10 CFR Part 30. Backfitting and issue finality 

provisions do not apply to entities that hold 10 CFR Part 30 licenses alone. The NRC staff 

recognizes, however, that some entities holding licenses protected from backfitting under 10 

CFR Parts 50, 70, 72, or 76 could also hold a license for the possession of Category 1 and 2 

byproduct material RSSs. Similarly, some 10 CFR Part 52 licensees protected under issue 

finality provisions may hold a license for the possession of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material 

RSSs. This rulemaking is not intended to apply to licensees under 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, 70, 72 

or 76 that are already required to demonstrate financial assurance for construction, operation, 

and decommissioning, including the disposition of any Category 1 and 2 byproduct material 

RSSs possessed under their license. This rulemaking would apply to non-power reactor 

licensees that possess Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs under a Part 30 license or 

equivalent Agreement State license and are not already subject to financial assurance 

requirements for the disposition of these sources. The NRC staff has not identified any current 

license holders under Part 72 or Part 76 that also have a license for the possession of Category 

1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs. Further, the NRC staff finds that current requirements under 

Parts 50 and 52 provide sufficient financial assurance for the disposition of the Category 1 and 2 

byproduct material RSSs possessed under these licenses. However, some license holders 

under 10 CFR Part 70 with Category 1 or 2 byproduct material RSSs may not be subject to 

existing requirements that would provide adequate financial assurance for the dispositioning of 

these sources. In such circumstances, the proposed rule would apply and a backfit analysis 

would be required. The NRC staff does not anticipate any of the exceptions to preparing a 

backfit analysis will apply in this case, and therefore does not expect to rely on them. In 

developing the technical basis for the proposed rule, the NRC staff will ensure that licensees are 

not subjected to redundant financial assurance requirements. The NRC staff plans to further 

 

15 Comment (4) of Sherrie Flaherty, on NRC Byproduct Material Financial Scoping Study (STC-15-065) (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15300A255). 
The Commissioners - 10 - 

evaluate and address the potential for backfitting impacts in the course of developing and 

obtaining stakeholder input on the regulatory basis for this rulemaking. 

Guidance 

Concurrent with issuance of a proposed rule, the NRC staff would need to provide draft 

guidance for public comment through an update to NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1, or develop new 

guidance. The NRC staff would also need to provide final guidance concurrently with the final 

rule. 

Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes Review 

At a public teleconference on June 24, 2016, the NRC staff provided the Advisory Committee on 

Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) with an overview of its scoping study and the planned path 

forward including development of this rulemaking plan. Should the Commission approve the 

initiation of rulemaking, the NRC staff will continue to periodically engage ACMUI as part of the 

rulemaking process. 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Review 

The NRC staff engaged the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Technical 

Support Branch and confirmed that the proposed rulemaking does not fall within the purview of 

ACRS responsibilities. Therefore, the staff does not recommend ACRS review for this action. 

Committee to Review Generic Requirements Review 

The NRC staff has made the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) aware of the 

potential for backfitting issues for some 10 CFR Part 70 licensees, and will work with the CRGR 

to address any such issues that the NRC staff, the Committee, or interested stakeholders may 

identify. 

Analysis of Legal Matters 

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has reviewed this rulemaking plan and has not 

identified any issues necessitating a separate legal analysis at this time. 

COMMITMENT: 

If the Commission approves initiation of this rulemaking, the NRC staff will add the rule to the 

CPR during the next budget formulation cycle. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The NRC staff recommends that the Commission approve initiation of a rulemaking to require 

financial assurance for disposition of Category 1 and 2 byproduct material RSSs. 
The Commissioners - 11 - 

RESOURCES: 

The enclosure includes an estimate of the resources needed to complete this rulemaking. 

COORDINATION: 

OGC has no legal objection to this action. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has 

reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection. 

 /RA Glenn Tracy Acting for/ 

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Resource Estimate
The Commissioners - 11 - 

RESOURCES: 

The enclosure includes an estimate of the resources needed to complete this rulemaking. 

COORDINATION: 

OGC has no legal objection to this action. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has 

reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection. 

/RA Glenn Tracy Acting for/ 

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Resource Estimate 

ADAMS Accession No: Pkg: ML16200A185 

OFFICE DUWP:PM DUWP:LA MSTR:PM DUWP:BC MSTR:BC ADM:BC 

NAME R. Whited 

(J. Shaffner for) 

T. Moon R. MacDougall G. Suber 

(S. Dembek for)

S. Whaley C. Bladey 

DATE 7/18/16 7/20/16 7/20/16 8/01/16 7/26/16 8/19/16 

OFFICE OGC (NLO) NSIR:D MSTR:D NRR:D NRO:D CFO 

NAME O. Mikula B. Holian D. Collins B. Dean J. Uhle M. Wylie 

DATE 9/13/16 8/17/16 8/31/16 8/23/16 8/25/16 8/18/16 

OFFICE DUWP:D NMSS NMSS:D EDO 

NAME J. Tappert W. Moore M. Dapas V. McCree 

(GTracy for) 

 

DATE 9/15/16 9/15/16 9/20/16 10/ 07 /16 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY