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

65141

Vol. 66, No. 243

Tuesday, December 18, 2001

1 ‘‘The capability to prevent or mitigate the

consequences of accidents which could result in

potential offsite exposures comparable to those

referred to in § 50.34(a)(1), [§ 50.67(b)(2); sic], or

§ 100.11 of this chapter, as applicable.’’

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 54

[Docket No. PRM 54–1]

Union of Concerned Scientists; Denial

of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition

for rulemaking submitted by the Union

of Concerned Scientists (UCS or the

petitioner) (PRM 54–1). The petitioner

requested that the NRC amend its

regulations to address concerns about

potential aging degradation of liquid

and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems. The bases for the

denial are that the liquid and gaseous

radioactive waste management systems

are not involved in design and licensing

basis events considered for license

renewal and that the existing regulatory

process is acceptable for maintaining

the performance of the radioactive waste

systems throughout the period of

extended operation in order to keep

exposures to radiation at the current

levels below regulatory limits consistent

with the conclusions made in the

applicable regulations.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for

rulemaking, the public comments

received, and the NRC’s letter of denial

to the petitioner are available for public

inspection or copying for a fee, at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. These

documents are also available at the

NRC’s rulemaking Web site at http://

ruleforum.llnl.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen S. Koenick, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

1239, e-mail ssk2@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

By letter dated May 3, 2000, UCS

submitted a petition for rulemaking

(PRM) seeking to revise 10 CFR parts 54

and 51. The petitioner requested that

the NRC regulations governing

requirements for renewal of operating

licenses for nuclear power plants be

amended to address concerns about

potential aging degradation of liquid

and gaseous radioactive waste systems.

The petitioner believes the degradation

from aging of piping and components of

liquid and gaseous radioactive waste

systems at nuclear power facilities may

result in increased probability of and/or

consequences from design and licensing

bases events. In addition, the petitioner

believes that the conclusions made in

Appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, subpart

A, that public and occupational

exposures to radiation will continue at

the current levels below regulatory

limits would only be valid if these

systems are covered by aging

management programs throughout the

license renewal term.

A notice of receipt of the petition was

published in the Federal Register on

July 10, 2000 (65 FR 42305). The

comment period closed on September

25, 2000. The NRC received letters from

12 commenters. Eleven of the comment

letters opposed the petition. Ten of

those letters were from nuclear utilities

and the 11th was from the Nuclear

Energy Institute (NEI). The 12th

commenter, a member of the public,

supported the petition. A discussion of

the comments is provided in this

document.

This rulemaking petition was

included as part of a petition pursuant

to 10 CFR 2.206 in which the petitioner

detailed concerns related to the review

of the license renewal application

submitted by the owner of the Hatch

Nuclear Plant. Specifically, the

petitioner was concerned that the

license renewal application for the

Hatch facility did not address

deficiencies it believed existed in the

aging management of the liquid and

gaseous radioactive waste systems. The

petitioner concluded that the

requirements pertaining to renewal of

operating licenses for Hatch and other

nuclear power plants do not adequately

address degradation from aging of liquid

and gaseous radioactive waste systems.

The NRC issued an October 18, 2000,

letter to UCS, ‘‘Director’s Decision

Under 10 CFR 2.206.’’ The Director’s

Decision disagreed with the petitioner’s

contentions and concluded that the

Hatch Nuclear Plant was being operated

consistent with its design and licensing

bases because the material condition of

piping, tanks, and other components of

the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems was being

properly inspected and maintained.

The Petition

UCS requests the NRC revise 10 CFR

part 54, and part 51 if appropriate, to

specify that the liquid and gaseous

radioactive waste management systems

must be covered by aging management

programs during the license renewal

term. With respect to 10 CFR part 54,

the petitioner states that potential aging

degradation of the liquid and gaseous

radioactive waste management systems

at the Hatch Nuclear Plant identified in

the accompanying 10 CFR 2.206

petition, may result in an increase in the

probability of and/or consequences of

design and licensing bases events. In

addition, the petitioner states that the

potential aging degradation may also

apply to liquid and gaseous radioactive

waste management systems at other

plants in the United States. The

petitioner cites 10 CFR 54.4 (a)(1)(iii) 1

as the scoping criterion that has been

interpreted in previous license renewal

applications to exclude the liquid and

gaseous radioactive waste management

systems from aging management

consideration under the rule. The

petitioner also requests 10 CFR part 51

be revised, if appropriate, to clarify that

the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems must be covered

by aging management programs during

the license renewal term. The petitioner

states that the conclusions made in

Appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, subpart

A, that radiation exposures to the public

and occupational exposures to workers

during the license renewal term will

continue at current levels below

regulatory limits, were predicated on

the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems not experiencing

greater failure rates throughout the

65142 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

2 ‘‘Statements of Consideration,’’ for 10 CFR part

54 [60 FR 22464; May 8, 1995].

license renewal term. However, aging

degradation of the radioactive waste

management systems could lead to an

increase in component failure rates,

thereby, invalidating the conclusions.

Public Comments on the Petition

The NRC received letters from 12

commenters. Eleven of the comment

letters opposed the petition. Ten of

those letters were from nuclear utilities

and the 11th was from NEI. The

comments opposed to the petition were

similar in nature and will be discussed

together. The 12th comment was from a

member of the public who supported

the petition. Summaries of the

comments and NRC’s responses follow.

Comments opposed to the petition:

The NEI comments were endorsed by

each of the utilities providing

comments. NEI recommended that the

NRC deny the petition on the following

basis: ‘‘The design and licensing basis of

the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems

are sufficiently conservative such that

the required analyses demonstrate that

the assumed catastrophic failure of

components in the systems will result in

doses substantially below 10 CFR Part

100 guidelines and consistent with 10

CFR part 20 guidelines [emphasis

added]. In other words, the radiological

inventory in these systems is controlled

and limited, and a postulated event or

malfunction will not adversely impact

public health or safety. Thus, there is no

safety benefit to including these systems

within the scope of license renewal for

either aging management reviews (part

54) or environmental impacts (part 51).’’

Response: The NRC agrees in

principle with the comments opposing

the petition because the liquid and

gaseous radioactive waste management

systems are conservatively designed to

ensure that the consequences of

catastrophic failures of components will

be well below the scoping threshold for

license renewal. However, the

commenters provide a limited basis for

denying the petition and do not address

the petitioner’s assertion about the

conclusions made in appendix B to 10

CFR part 51, subpart A. However, as set

forth below in the ‘‘Reasons for Denial,’’

the NRC staff has concluded that the

current regulatory process is adequate to

manage the performance of these

systems without additional aging

management consideration, so that

radiation exposures to members of the

public and occupational exposures will

remain at current levels below

regulatory limits throughout the license

renewal term.

Comment supporting the petition: The

commenter generally supported the

petition and was also concerned about

coatings in general, their application,

and their degradation. In addition, the

commenter discussed the application of

coatings to dry casks for storing spent

nuclear fuel and the hydrogen gas

ignition event at Point Beach Nuclear

Plant on May 28, 1996.

Response: The commenter did not

provide any additional information on

coatings as they apply to radioactive

waste management systems. The

commenter’s discussion on coatings, in

general, and the application to dry casks

for storing spent nuclear fuel are not

relevant to the issue of radioactive waste

management system functionality.

Therefore, they do not support the

petition. However, for information on

use of coatings under nuclear plant

operating licenses, the NRC issued

Generic Letter 98–04, ‘‘Potential for

Degradation of the Emergency Core

Cooling System and the Containment

Spray System After a Loss-of-CoolantAccident Because of Construction and

Protective Coating Deficiencies and

Foreign Material in Containment,’’

dated July 14, 1998, and Regulatory

Guide 1.54, Revision 1, ‘‘Service Level

I, II, and III Protective Coatings Applied

to Nuclear Plants,’’ dated July 2000.

Both of these regulatory documents are

relevant to coatings under nuclear plant

operating licenses.

With respect to coatings for dry cask

storage, specifically, the hydrogen gas

ignition event at Point Beach Nuclear

Plant related to dry cask storage, the

NRC issued NRC Bulletin 96–04,

‘‘Chemical, Galvanic, or Other Reactions

in Spent Fuel Storage and

Transportation Casks,’’ dated July 5,

1996. The information requested in the

bulletin and the subsequent safety

evaluations of the requested information

are relevant to the commenter’s

concerns.

Reasons for Denial

1. Potential Aging Degradation of the

Radioactive Waste Management

Systems May Increase the Probability of

and/or Consequences of Design and

Licensing Bases Events

The petitioner argues that radioactive

waste management systems should be

covered by aging management because

potential aging degradation may

increase the probability of and/or

consequences from design and licensing

bases events.

The NRC does not agree that aging

degradation of these systems would

increase the probability of and/or

consequences of design basis events that

would necessitate consideration within

the scope of the license renewal. The

scope of license renewal was based on

the NRC’s determination that with the

possible exception of certain plant

systems, structures, and components,

the regulatory process is adequate to

ensure that the licensing bases of all

currently operating plants provide and

maintain an acceptable level of safety.

Also, the plant-specific licensing basis

must be maintained during the renewal

term in the same manner and to the

same extent as during the original

licensing term. Based on this

determination, the scope of the rule

focuses on systems, structures, and

components that are of principal

importance to the safety of the plant.2

As the petitioner concedes, the liquid

and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems have no intended

functions which are considered by the

Commission to be of principal

importance to the safety of the plant

(that is why these systems do not fall

within the scope of systems, structures,

and components for which aging

management must be considered for

license renewal). Furthermore, the

consequences of any failure of a

radioactive waste component were

analyzed during the initial license

review and are bounded by the 0.5 rem

acceptance criterion, which is a small

fraction of the 10 CFR part 100 limits

used in the scoping criteria of license

renewal cited by the petitioner.

In the related 10 CFR 2.206 petition

on the Hatch Nuclear Plant, the

petitioner did not identify any new

failure mechanisms or consequences

associated with operations of the liquid

or gaseous radioactive waste

management systems or any intended

functions that prevent or mitigate

consequences of design basis accidents

that would cause the NRC to reconsider

its determination not to specifically

include radioactive waste management

systems within the scope of license

renewal pursuant 10 CFR part 54. In the

absence of such new information, the

NRC continues to believe that the

current regulatory process is acceptable

to manage the performance of these

systems throughout the license renewal

term without the need for additional

aging management considerations.

Therefore, part 54 adequately maintains

public health and safety as issued and

does not need to be revised to include

radioactive waste management systems.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65143

3 10 CFR 50.34a, ‘‘Design Objectives for

Equipment to Control Releases of Radioactive

Material in Effluents—Nuclear Power Reactors,’’

and § 50.36a, ‘‘Technical Specifications on Effluents

From Nuclear Power Reactors’’ [35 FR 18385;

December 3, 1970].

4Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘Numerical

Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting

Conditions for Operation To Meet the Criterion ‘‘As

Low As Is Reasonably Achievable’’ for Radioactive

Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power

Reactor Effluents’ [40 FR 19442; May 5, 1975].

2. Aging Degradation of the Radioactive

Waste Management Systems Could Lead

to an Increase in Component Failure

Rates; thereby, Invalidating the

Conclusions Made in Appendix B to 10

CFR Part 51, Subpart A

The petitioner claims that the

conclusions made in Appendix B to 10

CFR part 51, subpart A are predicated

on the assumption that components of

the liquid and gaseous waste

management systems do not experience

greater failure rates throughout the

license renewal term.

In addressing environmental effects in

Appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, the

Commission determined that the impact

of radiological exposures to the pubic

and occupational exposures would be

‘‘small.’’ In the context of assessing

radiological impacts, this ‘‘small’’

significance determination was defined

in Footnote 3 of Table B–1 of Appendix

B to 10 CFR part 51, Subpart A as

impacts that do not exceed permissible

levels in the Commission’s regulations.

The data supporting Appendix B were

contained in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’

(hereinafter the GEIS).

Contrary to the petitioner’s assertion,

the conclusions in the GEIS relied on

the current regulatory process which

manages the performance of the

radioactive waste management systems

to control radioactivity in effluents to

below permissible levels, irrespective of

any system degradation. For radiation

exposures to the public, the GEIS states,

‘‘Radiation doses to members of the

public from current operation of nuclear

power plants have been examined from

a variety of perspectives and the

impacts were found to be well within

design objectives and regulations in

each instance. No effect of aging that

would significantly affect the

radioactive effluents has been

identified.’’ The GEIS concludes, ‘‘No

mitigation measures beyond those

implemented during the current term

license would be warranted because

current mitigation practices have

resulted in declining public radiation

doses and are expected to continue to

do so.’’ For occupational exposures, the

GEIS concludes, ‘‘the average dose

increase of 5 to 8 percent to the typical

plant worker would still maintain doses

well below regulatory limits. Therefore,

occupational radiation exposure during

the term of the renewed license meets

the standard of small significance. No

mitigation measures beyond those

implemented during the current term

license would be warranted because the

ALARA process continues to be

effective in reducing radiation doses

[emphasis added].’’ These GEIS findings

were therefore based upon the existence

of and successful implementation of

radiation control and mitigation

practices by licensees to comply with

the NRC regulatory requirements with

respect to radiation exposures,

irrespective of the cause.

For general protection against

ionizing radiation, licensees must

comply with 10 CFR part 20, ‘‘Standards

for Protection Against Radiation.’’ The

regulations contain requirements for

radiation protection programs and

specify both occupational and public

exposure limits. The underlying

requirement governing radiation

protection is to maintain occupational

doses and doses to members of the

public as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA). In addition to

complying with NRC standards,

licensees must comply with the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

environmental radiation standards

contained in 40 CFR part 190,

‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection

Standards for Nuclear Power

Operations.’’

Early industry experience

demonstrated that licensees generally

maintained exposures to radiation and

releases of radioactivity in effluents at

levels well below 10 CFR part 20 limits.

To enhance the regulatory framework

for 10 CFR part 20 for assuring that

releases of radioactivity in effluents are

ALARA, the NRC issued 10 CFR 50.34a,

10 CFR 50.36a,3 and Appendix I to 10

CFR part 50.4 To comply with these

regulations, licensees must identify

design objectives, and the means to be

employed, for keeping levels of

radioactive material in effluents to

unrestricted areas ALARA during

normal operations, including expected

operational occurrences. The licensees’

Technical Specifications require that

operating procedures for the control of

effluents be established and followed;

that equipment installed in the

radioactive waste system is maintained

and used; and that effluent releases are

reported. To implement the Technical

Specifications, the licensees are

required to establish a surveillance and

monitoring program to detect and

measure radioactivity levels in effluents.

If there is an increase of radioactivity in

effluents beyond Technical

Specifications, irrespective of the cause,

then a licensee must identify the cause,

take corrective actions, and return the

radioactivity levels in effluents to

within Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50

design objectives. Subsequent to the

Technical Specifications being

exceeded, the licensee must submit a

report to the NRC.

For occupational radiation exposures,

10 CFR part 20 contain both

occupational exposure limits and the

ALARA requirement. To meet these

requirements, licensees have radiation

protection programs which routinely

monitor plant workers for radiation

exposure when working in radiation

areas, including areas that contain the

radioactive gaseous and liquid waste

management systems. Operational

experience has demonstrated that the

licensees have been effective in

maintaining occupational doses

ALARA. There is nothing to suggest—

and the petitioner cites no new

information in support of a

supposition—that licensees are unable

or unwilling to address ALARA taking

into account any possible failures of

radioactive waste management systems

resulting from aging degradation.

Aside from the licensees practices and

programs for ALARA and Technical

Specifications compliance, the NRC has

an inspection program that includes the

liquid and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems. Although these

systems have historically been

considered to have a low risk

significance because of the nuclear

industry’s compliance with the ALARA

design objectives in appendix I to 10

CFR part 50, routine, periodic

inspections are required in order to

maintain confidence that the systems

are actually maintaining doses from

radioactive effluents ALARA. Thus, the

liquid and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems are explicitly

identified in NRC Inspection Procedure

71122, ‘‘Public Radiation Safety.’’ The

objective of the inspection is to verify

that the licensee is providing adequate

protection of public health and safety

from exposure to radioactive material

released into the public domain as a

result of the routine operation of nuclear

power plants. The inspections focus on

both the gaseous and liquid effluent

treatment systems and the radiological

environmental monitoring programs.

There is also a corresponding inspection

procedure for occupational radiation

safety. The primary objective of NRC

Inspection Procedure 71121,

‘‘Occupational Radiation Safety,’’ is to

65144 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

gather information to verify that a

licensee is meeting the objective of

ensuring adequate protection of worker

health and safety from exposure to

radiation from radioactive material

during routine operation.

In addition to performing these

inspection procedures, NRC resident

inspectors regularly tour the plant,

including areas containing radioactive

waste management systems. If a

degraded condition is identified by the

licensee or reported to the licensee by

the NRC, the condition is evaluated and

corrective action taken as appropriate in

accordance with the plant’s corrective

action program. In addition, condition

reports are trended by licensees. Further

evaluation is done and appropriate

corrective actions are taken if an adverse

trend is identified. Periodic inspections

of the corrective action program are

conducted in accordance with NRC

Inspection Procedure 71152,

‘‘Identification and Resolution of

Problems,’’ to verify that licensees are

identifying and correcting plant

problems. The regulatory oversight

process increases public confidence and

complements the performance-based

regulations that establish exposure

limits and design objectives to not only

meet those limits but to keep

radiological dose levels ALARA.

In summary, the NRC has regulatory

requirements and licensees implement

programs and practices that provide

reasonable assurance that exposures to

radiation will remain within

permissible levels consistent with

Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 design

objectives for public exposures and

within 10 CFR part 20 limits and

ALARA for occupational exposures,

irrespective of the cause. The

Commission has determined that

maintaining doses within these design

objectives and dose limits represent

‘‘small’’ environmental consequences.

The petitioner did not raise any

information that would challenge the

conclusions of the GEIS that the impacts

of radiation doses to the public and

occupational exposures will be ‘‘small’’

for the license renewal term.

Conclusion

The NRC staff finds that the

information presented in the petition

does not support rulemaking to revise

10 CFR parts 51 and 54 to include aging

management of the liquid and gaseous

radioactive waste management systems

during the license renewal term. If new

information in the future provides a

basis that aging degradation of the

liquid and gaseous radioactive waste

management systems needs aging

management consideration under 10

CFR parts 51 and 54, then the NRC may

revisit the need for rulemaking.

For the reasons cited in this

document, the NRC denies the petition.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William D. Travers,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 01–30927 Filed 12–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 360

RIN 3064–AB92

Payment of Post-insolvency Interest in

Receiverships With Surplus Funds

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation is publishing for

notice and comment a proposed rule

regarding the payment of postinsolvency interest in insured

depository institution receiverships

with surplus funds. The purpose of the

rule is to establish a single uniform

interest rate, calculation method, and

payment priority for post-insolvency

interest. The proposed rule provides

that where funds remain after the

satisfaction of the principal amount of

all creditor claims, post-insolvency

interest will be paid in the order of

priority set forth in section 11(d)(11)(A)

of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act;

paid at the coupon equivalent yield of

the average discount rate set on the

three-month Treasury bill at the last

auction held by the United States

Treasury Department during the

preceding calendar quarter; adjusted

each quarter after the receivership is

established; and based on a simple

interest method of calculation.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 19, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary,

Attention: comments/OES, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.

Comments may be hand-delivered to the

guard station located at the rear of the

17th Street building on F Street on

business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Comments may also be faxed or emailed

(FAX number (202) 898–3838; Internet

address: comments@FDIC.gov).

Comments may be posted on the FDIC

internet site at http://www.fdic.gov/

regulations/laws/ Federal/propose.html

and may be inspected and photocopied

at the FDIC Public Information Center,

Room 100, 801 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and

4:30 p.m. on business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Bolt, (202) 736–0168; or

Rodney Ray, (202) 898–3556.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

For receiverships established after

August 10, 1993, payment of

receivership claims is governed by

section 11(d)(11)(A) of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Act, which section is

also known as the national depositor

preference statute. Because the national

depositor preference statute does not

specifically mention post-insolvency

interest, and in the absence of a

regulation regarding its payment, the

FDIC’s practice in receiverships subject

to the national depositor preference

statute that have surplus funds has been

to follow the common law rule. The

common law rule is that postinsolvency interest should be paid pro

rata to all creditors regardless of

priority. The exception to this approach

is the case of an institution subject to a

state law that specifically provides for a

different distribution priority. (Several

states’ statutes provide that after the

principal amounts of all claims within

the same class have been satisfied,

interest is to be paid at the same priority

as the claim on which it accrues.) With

respect to the interest rate for postinsolvency interest, the FDIC, in

receiverships subject to the national

depositor preference statute, has used

the federal judgment rate for federal or

‘‘federalized’’ institutions (statechartered institutions where the FDIC

has exercised its self-appointment

authority under section 11(c) of the FDI

Act). For state institutions, the FDIC

used the applicable rate provided for by

state law. Consequently, different

distribution priorities and interest rates

have been used depending on the type

of institution involved and the

applicable law.

In December 2000, Congress granted

the FDIC express rulemaking authority

regarding the payment of postinsolvency interest in receiverships

with surplus funds. The American

Homeownership and Economic

Opportunity Act of 2000 added new

subparagraph (C) to section 11(d)(10) of

the FDI Act, which reads as follows:

(C) Rulemaking Authority of Corporation.

The Corporation may prescribe such rules,

including definitions of terms, as it deems

appropriate to establish a single uniform