This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

58690

Vol. 62, No. 210

Thursday, October 30, 1997

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50 and 140

RIN 3150–AF79

Financial Protection Requirements for

Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power

Reactors

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

amend its regulations to allow nuclear

reactor licensees to reduce onsite and

offsite liability coverage during

permanent shutdown of the reactors if

they meet specified reactor

configurations. This proposed

amendment would reduce the level of

insurance coverage commensurate with

the risk reduction after the appropriate

spent fuel cooling period following

permanent shutdown of the reactor.

DATES: The comment period expires

January 13, 1998. Comments received

after this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the Commission

is able to assure consideration only for

comments received on or before this

date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail or

addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001. Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff.

Hand-deliver comments to: 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on

Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via

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–

6215; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov.

Certain documents related to this

rulemaking, including comments

received and the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact, may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

These same documents also may be

viewed and downloaded electronically

via the interactive rulemaking website

established by NRC for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Mencinsky, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone: (301) 415–

6206, e-mail GJM@nrc.gov.; Stephen

Lewis, Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone:

(301) 415–1684, e-mail SHL@nrc.gov.;

Ira Dinitz, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone: (301) 415–1289, e-mail

IPD1@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The current regulations governing

insurance coverage for nuclear power

reactors are contained in 10 CFR

50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11. These

regulations do not take into

consideration the reduced risk

associated with permanently shutdown

plants. The exemption process allows

reduced insurance coverage for these

plants.

Consideration of whether financial

protection coverage should be reduced

for permanently shutdown plants must

take into account the preservation of the

solvency of the organization responsible

for maintaining and decommissioning

these facilities in the unlikely event of

a nuclear incident. In addition,

consideration would be given to timely

payment for valid damage claims by

members of the public and

minimization of the likelihood that

Federal Government indemnity would

be exercised for satisfaction of claims

for damages.

The regulations in 10 CFR 140.11

require that the licensees of facilities

designed to produce substantial

amounts of electricity, a rated capacity

of 100,000 kWe or more, must have and

maintain a primary insurance coverage

of $200 million from private sources to

protect against offsite liability. In

addition, licensees must maintain

secondary financial protection in the

form of private liability insurance

available under an industry

retrospective rating plan. The current

maximum obligation for secondary

financial protection for a licensee in this

plan is $75.5 million with respect to any

nuclear incident. Thus, the total

financial protection for offsite liability

for any incident would be the primary

layer of $200 million, plus the

secondary layer of $75.5 million

multiplied by the number of licensed

power reactors with a rated capacity of

100,000 kWe or higher.

Under 10 CFR 50.54(w), power reactor

licensees must obtain insurance

coverage from private sources to provide

protection against onsite damage in the

event of an accident. These monies

would allow the licensee to stabilize

and decontaminate the reactor and

reactor station site in the event of an

accident. The minimum amount of

insurance coverage is the lesser of $1.06

billion or the maximum amount of

insurance generally available from

private sources.

This proposed rule is part of the NRC

effort to eliminate unnecessary

regulatory burdens for power reactor

facilities that are permanently shutdown

and in the process of decommissioning.

This would complement other

amendments for decommissioning, such

as the final rule that was published in

the Federal Register (61 FR 39278) on

July 29, 1996, which clarified the

procedures leading to permanent

shutdown and, eventually, to the

termination of an operating license for

nuclear power reactors.

This proposed rule would also

address a petition for rulemaking (PRM–

50–57) submitted by the North Carolina

Public Staff Utilities Commission. The

petition requested reduction or,

preferably, elimination of the $1.06

billion of insurance for onsite reactor

stabilization and accident

decontamination that is required by 10

CFR 50.54(w) when all nuclear fuel has

been removed from the site. The

petitioner also requested that the offsite

primary and secondary liability

coverages required under 10 CFR

140.11(a)(4) be reduced or, preferably,

eliminated for shutdown reactors when

no nuclear fuel is on the reactor site.

The proposed rule does not address

the financial protection requirements for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 58691

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installations (ISFSIs). This subject will

be addressed after efforts dealing with

technical and licensing issues for ISFSIs

are resolved in areas of safeguards

requirements, emergency planning, and

potential fuel storage handling

activities.

Discussion

Several different configurations for

permanently shutdown reactors are

being established that encompass

anticipated spent fuel characteristics

and storage modes during the period

between permanent shutdown and

termination of the license. They are as

follows:

Reactor Configuration 1: the reactor is

defueled, permanently shutdown, and

spent fuel in the spent fuel pool is

susceptible to a zircaloy cladding fire if

the spent fuel pool is drained

accidentally. This configuration

encompasses the period from

immediately after the core is offloaded

to just before the decay heat of the

hottest assemblies is low enough that no

rapid zircaloy oxidation will take place,

and the fuel cladding will remain intact

with no gap release if water in the spent

fuel pool is lost.

Reactor Configuration 2: The reactor

is defueled, permanently shutdown, and

spent fuel is in the spent fuel pool but

is not susceptible to a zircaloy cladding

fire or gap release caused by an

incipient fuel cladding failure in the

event the spent fuel pool is drained

accidentally. In this configuration, the

spent fuel can be stored long-term in the

spent fuel pool without the possibility

of initiating a zircaloy fire or significant

fuel cladding failure. In addition, the

site may contain a radioactive inventory

of liquid radwaste, activated reactor

components, and contaminated

structural materials. The radioactive

inventory during this configuration may

change depending on the licensee’s

proposed shutdown activities and

schedule.

Reactor Configuration 3: The reactor

is permanently shutdown and no spent

fuel is in the reactor or the spent fuel

pool. All spent fuel has been removed

to an offsite or onsite dry storage

independent spent fuel storage

installation (ISFSI) or to a DOE highlevel repository. The remaining

radioactive inventory depends on the

decommissioning status and may

include liquid radwaste, activated

reactor components, and contaminated

structural materials.

Reactor Configuration 4: Same as

reactor configuration 3, except the

reactor site has no significant mobile

sources of radioactivity such as

contaminated liquids (less than 1000

gallons).

There are potential onsite and offsite

radiological consequences that could be

associated with the onsite storage of the

spent fuel in the spent fuel pool for

some time after permanent shutdown. In

Reactor Configuration 1, in the event of

a complete loss of spent fuel pool

coolant inventory such as from a

beyond-design-basis earthquake

scenario, there is a potential for

overheating the fuel by decay heat. This

sequence could result in a zircaloy

cladding fire that may have significant

onsite and offsite consequences.

To prevent fuel rod cladding failure

leading to a zircaloy-cladding fire if all

spent fuel pool water is lost, the rod

cladding temperature must not exceed

565°C. The rod cladding temperature is

an important factor that must be

considered in modifying the financial

protection requirements for

permanently shutdown reactors.

In Reactor Configuration 2, the spent

fuel has decay heat sufficiently low that

the cladding will remain intact even if

all spent fuel pool water is lost.

However, if there are significant sources

of radioactive material stored onsite, it

would be appropriate to maintain an

adequate level of onsite insurance

coverage. Although the offsite

consequences are negligible in the

Reactor Configuration 2 , because the

spent fuel pool is operational and an

inventory of radioactive materials exists

onsite, an appropriate level of offsite

financial protection is required to

account for the potential for significant

judgments or settlements from litigation

that might be instituted and to protect

the Federal government from indemnity

claims.

In Reactor Configuration 3, when

spent fuel is no longer stored in the

spent fuel pool, the potential for a

radiological incident is primarily in

mobile sources of radioactivity onsite at

permanently shutdown nuclear reactors.

The offsite cleanup costs were found to

be negligible for Reactor Configuration

3, but as was noted in Reactor

Configuration 2, an appropriate level of

offsite financial protection is still

required to account for the potential for

significant judgments or settlements

from litigation that might be instituted

and also to protect the Federal

government from indemnity claims.

Because the level of risk has decreased

vis-a-vis the Reactor Configuration 2 by

having no spent fuel in the spent fuel

pool, the level of offsite financial

protection required is being reduced by

taking into account only the mobile

radioactive inventory onsite.

In the Reactor Configuration 4, with

no significant amount of mobile sources

of radioactivity such as contaminated

liquids onsite, there is no need to

maintain the same level of insurance

coverage for onsite or offsite financial

protection as in Reactor Configuration 3.

The basis for the transition from Reactor

Configuration 3 to Reactor Configuration

4 is the point at which there is less than

1000 gallons of liquid radwaste stored

onsite. A limiting value of 1000 gallons

has been considered because it

constitutes approximately a factor of

500 reduction in volume from the large

volume tank used as the basis for the

Reactor Configuration 3 limiting event.

In Reactor Configuration 4, if the

licensee has cleaned the site to

unrestricted release levels and is

awaiting a confirmatory survey for

terminating the license, the necessary

level of onsite insurance coverage at this

stage would be less than when 1000

gallons of liquid radwaste were stored

onsite. Under these circumstances, the

onsite coverage could be further

reduced or eliminated to account for

negligible onsite consequences.

However, for offsite financial protection

requirements, although the offsite

consequences are negligible, some level

of public liability financial protection

must be maintained as long as there

remains in effect a nuclear reactor

license issued pursuant to 10 CFR part

50 under the authority of Section 103 or

104 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C.

2133, 2134). See Section 170a of that

Act (42 U.S.C. 2210a). Section 170 is

commonly referred to as the ‘‘PriceAnderson Act.’’

Proposed Regulatory Action

The proposed amendments would

adjust the onsite insurance coverage

requirements and the offsite financial

protection requirements for

permanently shutdown reactors based

on limiting the spent fuel cladding

temperatures for accidents involving

loss of spent fuel pool water and the

amount of onsite radioactive inventory

such as liquid radwaste in post

shutdown modes. The insurance

amounts are based on the estimated cost

of recovery from limiting hypothetical

events for specific reactor

configurations.

The proposed amendments would

also address ‘‘rated capacity’’ in 10 CFR

140.11 as used in Section 170a of the

Atomic Energy Act to indicate that a

permanently shutdown nuclear reactor

has a ‘‘rated capacity’’ of zero.

The proposed financial protection

requirements are as follows.

Reactor Configuration 1—Fuel in

spent fuel pool not sufficiently cool.
58692 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

—The requirements for onsite insurance

coverage and offsite financial

protection remain as presently

specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10

CFR 140.11, respectively.

Reactor Configuration 2—Fuel could

tolerate a complete loss of water in the

spent fuel pool.

—The onsite insurance coverage

requirements is $50 million. The

amount of $50 million is to recover

from a postulated accident in the

spent fuel pool.

—The offsite financial protection

requirement is $100 million, based on

the potential for significant judgments

or settlements resulting from litigation

despite negligible offsite

consequences.

Reactor Configuration 3—No fuel in

spent fuel pool, risk dependent on

radioactive inventory at plant site in

decommissioning status.

—The onsite insurance coverage

requirement is $50 million. The

amount of $50 million is the

estimated amount needed to recover

from a postulated onsite event of a

rupture of a large slightly

contaminated liquid storage tank.

—The offsite financial protection

requirement is $50 million, based on

the potential for significant judgments

or settlements resulting from litigation

that might still be instituted despite

negligible offsite consequences;

however the liability risk is

considered less than in Reactor

Configuration 2.

Reactor Configuration 4—No fuel in

the spent fuel pool and no significant

source of mobile radioactive material.

—The onsite insurance coverage

requirements is either $25 million or

is eliminated. The amount of $25

million is based on the possibility of

having to clean up onsite

contamination from an accidental

rupture of a less-than-1000-gallon

contaminated liquid storage tank

during shutdown activities.

Elimination of onsite insurance

coverage would be warranted when a

licensee is awaiting a confirmatory

survey for license termination.

—The offsite financial protection

requirement is $25 million, based on

the potential for claims arising from

asserted offsite consequences. This

would minimize the possibility that

Federal Government indemnification

would be required. As noted above,

the Atomic Energy Act does not allow

a 10 CFR part 50 licensee to drop this

coverage entirely, only to reduce it.

Discussion

This proposed rule would allow

power reactor licensees to reduce their

onsite insurance coverage and offsite

financial protection requirements

during permanent shutdown without

resorting to the exemption process. The

level of financial protection would be

determined for permanently shutdown

reactors at a level that coincides with

their actual configuration stage.

During Reactor Configuration 1,

licensees would be required to maintain

onsite insurance coverage and offsite

financial protection at the levels

currently required by 10 CFR 50.54(w)

and 10 CFR 140.11, respectively. This is

because the radiological consequences

during this stage of permanent

shutdown approximate the magnitude

of a severe core damage accident.

After allowing the spent fuel to cool

down to the point that the maximum

spent fuel cladding temperature will not

exceed 565°C in the event of a loss of

water in the spent fuel pool (Reactor

Configuration 2), power reactor

licensees would be allowed under 10

CFR 50.54(w) to reduce their onsite

insurance coverage from $1.06 billion to

$50 million. The reason for this

reduction in insurance coverage is that

the rapid clad oxidation event of

Reactor Configuration 1 is not possible.

Insurance coverage requirements for

Reactor Configuration 2 are based on the

fact that there is a possibility for a fuel

handling accident in the spent fuel pool,

and significant amounts of mobile

radioactive sources remain onsite that

have a potential for release during this

period. The $50 million coverage would

be adequate to clean up the site in the

event of a fuel handling accident, an

accidental release of cooling water from

the spent fuel pool, or a rupture of a

large slightly contaminated liquid

storage tank.

The proposed insurance coverage

requirement for Reactor Configuration 2

does not take into account the reduction

in radioactive decay of the spent fuel

assemblies with the passage of time

during that period. The insurance

coverage requirements are based on the

conservative assumption of a fuel

handling accident shortly after the

transition to Reactor Configuration 2.

Adjusting insurance requirements

during Reactor Configuration 2 based on

the decay level of the spent fuel would

be burdensome from a regulatory

standpoint, as opposed to selecting a

bounding figure to encompass any

unexpected events concerning the spent

fuel pool.

In Reactor Configuration 2, the offsite

financial protection requirements set

forth in 10 CFR 140.11 would be

reduced from $200 million to $100

million for the primary liability

coverage, and the licensee would be

allowed to withdraw from the secondary

liability coverage under Price-Anderson.

In Reactor Configuration 3, when all

the spent fuel has been removed to an

onsite or offsite dry storage ISFSI or to

a DOE high-level repository and the

onsite radioactive inventory is greater

than 1000 gallons, the onsite insurance

coverage requirements would be $50

million under the proposed 10 CFR

50.54(w). This amount is based on the

fact that there are still mobile

radioactive sources onsite that have the

potential to contaminate the site. The

maximum cleanup costs associated with

Reactor Configuration 3 are estimated at

approximately $50 million. The

conservative limiting event is the

rupture of a large contaminated liquid

storage tank that causes soil

contamination and the potential to

contaminate groundwater. The offsite

financial protection requirements under

the proposed Section 140.11 would be

reduced from $100 million to $50

million, and the licensee would not be

required to maintain secondary liability

coverage under the Price-Anderson Act

for Reactor Configuration 3. With no

spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, the

risks of offsite contamination have been

reduced considerably for this

configuration.

In Reactor Configuration 4, there are

no significant mobile sources of

radioactivity, such as liquid

contaminants, onsite. Thus, the

potential for onsite and offsite

radiological impacts is limited. In this

situation, onsite insurance coverage

requirements either would be $25

million or would be completely

eliminated under the proposed 10 CFR

50.54(w). The amount in each case

would be based on information

provided by the licensee and evaluated

by the staff for the particular

circumstances of the shutdown reactor.

The $25 million onsite insurance

coverage would be required if liquid

radwaste remained stored onsite,

usually 1,000 gallons or less of

radwaste, that may be susceptible to an

accidental spill and the consequent

need for cleanup of the contaminated

site. Elimination of required onsite

insurance coverage would be based on

the licensee’s submittal of its terminal

radiation survey to the NRC stating that

the site has been cleaned to unrestricted

release levels and is awaiting a

confirmatory survey for termination of

the license. In either case, the onsite and

offsite consequences would be

negligible.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 58693

In Reactor Configuration 4, the

required offsite financial protection

would be reduced to $25 million to

account for the continuing potential for

claims based on asserted offsite

consequences. A minimum of $25

million in coverage would minimize the

possibility that Federal Government

indemnification would be required and

would be consistent with the

requirements of Section 170 of the

Atomic Energy Act that power reactor

licensees maintain some level of public

liability financial protection. The

licensee would not be required to

maintain secondary liability coverage

under Price-Anderson for Reactor

Configuration 4.

In addition, ‘‘rated capacity’’ would

be addressed in 10 CFR part 140 to

indicate that permanently shutdown

nuclear power plants have ‘‘zero’’ rated

capacity. The effect of this amendment

would be to allow the NRC to permit

reduction of the primary liability

coverage and elimination of the

requirement for participation in the

secondary liability coverage for nuclear

power plants that had made the

certifications under 10 CFR

50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii). However, for

reasons stated above, the NRC does not

propose to permit this reduction and

withdrawal until a reactor has entered

the Reactor Configuration 2. At that

point the NRC proposes that the reactor

no longer be subject to the requirements

to maintain primary financial protection

in the ‘‘maximum amount available at

reasonable cost and on reasonable terms

from private sources’’ or to participate

in the secondary financial protection

public liability system under Section

170 of the Atomic Energy Act. The

Commission has already approved, in

response to site-specific requests, these

adjustments in the primary and

secondary public liability insurance

regime, and this clarification in part

140, as requested by the Commission,

places into the Commission’s

regulations a statement that a

permanently shutdown nuclear power

plant is no longer considered to have

any ‘‘rated capacity.’’

The petition for rulemaking submitted

by the North Carolina Public Staff

Utilities Commission would be

substantially granted in that the

insurance requirements would be

significantly reduced, as requested.

However, the petition could not be fully

granted because of the Price-Anderson

statutory provisions that do not allow

licensees who continue to hold 10 CFR

part 50 licenses to drop the offsite

public liability coverage entirely.

Finding of No Significant

Environmental Impact: Availability

The Commission has determined

under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the

Commission’s regulations in subpart A

of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if

adopted, would not be a major Federal

action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment, and

therefore, an environmental impact

statement is not required. The proposed

rule change would allow licensees to

seek reductions in onsite and offsite

insurance coverage following permanent

shutdown if they meet specified reactor

configurations because of the reduced

risk associated with permanently

shutdown reactors. The proposed rule

change would require no changes in

hardware, procedures, organization, or

operation of nuclear power reactors. It

would not affect the safety requirements

for nuclear power reactors because of

the significantly reduced risks to the

public health and safety in Reactor

Configurations 2, 3, and 4 and it would

not affect the likelihood, magnitude, or

consequences of accidents at the

permanently shutdown nuclear power

reactors. Although the proposed rule

change would reduce the level of

financial protection available to pay for

environmental or other consequences

that may result from accidents at

permanently shutdown nuclear power

reactors, the Commission considers the

reduced required insurance and

financial protection coverage to be fully

adequate and commensurate with the

reduced consequences of potential

accidents at permanently shutdown

nuclear reactors and that the

environment will not be negatively

affected. Accordingly, the Commission

has determined that the proposed

rulemaking would have no significant

impacts on the quality of the

environment.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact on

which this determination is based are

available for inspection at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the environmental

assessment and the finding of no

significant impact are available from

George Mencinsky, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6206.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule does not contain

a new or amended information

collection requirement subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval numbers 3150–0011 and 3150–

0039.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, an information collection unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a draft

regulatory analysis on this proposed

regulation. The analysis examines the

costs and benefits of the alternatives

considered by the Commission. The

draft analysis is available for inspection

in the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Single copies of the

draft analysis may be obtained from

George Mencinsky, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6206. The Commission requests public

comment on the draft regulatory

analysis. Comments on the draft

analysis may be submitted to the NRC

as indicated under the ADDRESSES

heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the Commission certifies that this rule,

if adopted, will not have a significant

economic impact upon a substantial

number of small entities. The proposed

rule only affects NRC power reactor

licensees, which are not ‘‘small

entities.’’

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the

backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not

apply to this proposed rule because the

backfit rule is limited in scope to

construction and operation of nuclear

reactors. This rule would only apply to

reactors that have permanently ceased

operations. Therefore, a backfit analysis

is not required because these

amendments do not involve any

provisions that would impose backfits

as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 50

Antitrust, Classified information,

Criminal penalties, Fire protection,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

power plants and reactors, Radiation

protection, Reactor siting criteria,
58694 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

10 CFR Part 140

Criminal penalties, Extraordinary

nuclear occurrence, Insurance,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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 parts 50 and

140.

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 50

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec.

234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233,

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended,

202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended 1244,

1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95–

601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Sections 50.10 also issued under secs. 101,

185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat.

853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13,

50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec.

108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56

also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42

U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and

Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub.

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under

sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued

under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42

U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under

sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80–50.81 also issued under sec.

184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2234). Appendix F also issued under sec.

187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2. In § 50.54(w), paragraph (5) is

added to read as follows:

§ 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

* * * * *

(w) * * *

(5) For the specified reactor

configurations during permanent

shutdown, licensees shall maintain the

following insurance requirements

notwithstanding paragraph (w)(1):

(i) For Reactor Configuration 1: when

the reactor is defueled, permanently

shutdown, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool is

565°C or greater for a postulated loss of

spent fuel pool cooling event, the

insurance coverage must be as specified

in paragraph (w)(1).

(ii) For Reactor Configuration 2: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool does

not exceed 565°C for a postulated lossof-spent-fuel-pool-cooling event, the

minimum insurance coverage limit for

each reactor must be $50 million.

(iii) For Reactor Configuration 3:

when the reactor is defueled and

permanently shutdown, no operating

reactors are on the site, no fuel is in the

spent fuel pool, and the radioactive

liquid inventory onsite is 1,000 gallons

or greater, the minimum insurance

coverage for each reactor must be $50

million.

(iv) For Reactor Configuration 4: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, no fuel is in the spent fuel pool,

and the radioactive liquid inventory

onsite is less than 1,000 gallons, the

minimum insurance coverage for each

reactor must be $25 million. For sites

awaiting license termination, no

insurance coverage is required if the

licensee has completed its terminal

radiation survey and the site is ready for

the confirmatory survey for license

termination.

* * * * *

PART 140—FINANCIAL PROTECTION

REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY

AGREEMENTS

1. The authority citation for Part 140

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 170, 68 Stat. 948, 71

Stat. 576, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as

amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

2. In § 140.11(a), remove ‘‘and’’ at the

end of paragraph (3), change ‘‘.’’ at end

of paragraph (4) to ‘‘; and’’ and add

paragraph (5) to read as follows:

§ 140.11 Amounts of financial protection

for certain reactors.

(a) * * *

(5) For the specified reactor

configurations during permanent

shutdown of nuclear power reactors

(such reactors being classified as having

zero electric power level rated capacity)

that were covered during their operation

by paragraph (a)(4):

(i) For Reactor Configuration 1: when

the reactor is defueled, permanently

shutdown, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool is

565°C or greater for a postulated loss of

spent fuel pool cooling event, in the

amount as specified in paragraph (a)(4).

(ii) For Reactor Configuration 2: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool does

not exceed 565°C for a postulated lossof-spent-fuel-pool-cooling event, in the

amount of $100 million for each reactor.

(iii) For Reactor Configuration 3:

when the reactor is defueled and

permanently shutdown, no operating

reactors are on the site, no fuel is in the

spent fuel pool, and the radioactive

liquid inventory onsite is 1,000 gallons

or greater, in the amount of $50 million

for each reactor.

(iv) For Reactor Configuration 4: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, no fuel is in the spent fuel pool,

and the radioactive liquid inventory

onsite is less than 1,000 gallons, in the

amount of $25 million for each reactor.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of October, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–28679 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–AWA–1]

RIN 2120–AA66

Proposed Modification of the Houston

Class B Airspace Area; Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

modify the Houston, TX, (IAH) Class B

airspace area. Specifically, this action

proposes to reconfigure two existing

subarea boundaries and create an

additional subarea within the Houston

Class B airspace area. The FAA is

proposing this action to enhance safety,

reduce the potential for midair collision,

and to better manage air traffic

operations into, out of, and through the

Houston Class B airspace area while

accommodating the concerns of airspace

users.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the