Search Options
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us

September 14, 2000

The Commission has approved publication of the Federal Register notice denying the petition for rulemaking to amend the regulatory criteria for an extraordinary nuclear occurrence (ENO) and withdrawing the associated rule proposed in 1985. The changes in the attachment should be incorporated prior to publication.

As noted in the paper, the staff should contact the petitioners and provide them with the details behind the final decision and the reasons for the delay. In addition, the staff should convey the Commission's regret that the final decision was delayed for such a long period. The staff should be prepared to address questions from the media regarding the basis for the denial and the reasons for the delay in reaching a decision.

The staff should advise the Commission of any actions that are necessary to ensure the rulemaking prioritization process has been or will be changed to prevent such inordinate delays in the future.

The staff should provide additional information about any pending petitions that were received by the NRC on or before June 1, 1996. The staff should detail the status of any rulemakings or other actions, the reason for the delay, whether the petitioners are aware of the bases for the delay, and the staff's best estimate for completing action on the petition, options that would allow the schedule to be expedited, and the implications if the staff's schedule were expedited.

ATTACHMENT

Changes to the Federal Register Notice in SECY-00-0160

1. On page 1, paragraph 1, revise the last line to read ' ... none of the options in the proposed rule are is acceptable.'
   
   
2. On page 3, revise line 2 to read ' ... action constitute d s the Commission's ....'
   
   
3. On page 3, last paragraph, revise line 6 through the end on page 4 to read ' ... two-part test is specifically contemplated statutorily required¹ by Section 11.j of the AEA . Section 11.j that defines an ENO as an event (1) causing an offsite discharge of certain radioactive material or in which offsite radiation levels that are deemed to be substantial and (2) that has resulted in, or probably will result in, substantial damages to persons or property offsite have resulted, or probably will result, in substantial damages offsite. Thus, applying the criteria specified in 10 CFR 140.84, the NRC first must first find that a substantial offsite discharge of radioactive material has occurred or a substantial offsite radiation level offsite has resulted. occurred, applying the criteria specified in 10 CFR 140.84. Second, if this finding is made, the NRC must then make a finding that whether substantial damages to persons or property offsite have been or probably will be incurred , applying the criteria specified in 10 CFR 140.85. If both this finding s are is also made, the Commission must then must find that the event ....' Also, delete footnote 1.
   
   
4. On page 5, 1^st full paragraph, revise the last line to read ' ... petitioners' first request is was denied.'
   
   
5. On page 6, 1^st full paragraph, revise line 5 to read ' ... suggested that a more slow ly developing accident ....'
   
   
6. On page 7, 1^st full paragraph, revise lines 1 through 4 to read 'Option 1 would modif y ied §140.84(a) to provide that a finding of define a substantial discharge of radioactive material or substantial radiation level offsite should be as based on a determination finding "that one or more ... doses" in excess of certain the specified limits.
   
   
7. On page 7, last paragraph, revise line 7 to read ' ... 2 threshold is was that a ....'
   
   
8. On page 7, last paragraph, revise lines 8 and 9 to read ' ... during the course of an accident as evidence that substantial damages to persons or property offsite have been sustained.'
   
   
9. On page 8, last paragraph, revise line 3 to read ' ... Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety of the State of Illinois said that it ....'
   
   
10. On page 9, paragraph 1, revise lines 6 and 7 to read ' ... arose not from the criteria , but from the fact that but because the accident ....'
    
    
11. On page 9 paragraph 1, revise line 9 to read ' ... regulatory criteria can would relieve the Commission ....'
    
    
12. On page 9, last paragraph, revise lines 1 and 2 to read ' ... changing the criteria for determining that an ENO had occurred stated that the reduction of the dose level to sustain a finding of for a substantial offsite ....'
    
    
13. On page 11, 2^nd full paragraph, revise line 1 to read 'In addition, section 11.j of the AEA (42 USC Sec. 2014) indicates states that the dual ....'
    
    
14. On page 12, the sentence at the top of the page should be included with the previous paragraph and not stand alone as a separate paragraph. It should be revised to read '... that the a determination that an ENO has occurred requires findings of substantial releases and of substantial damages of substantial ddamages should only be made if a finding of substantial releases has been made. Also, delete footnote 7.
    
    
15. On page 13, in paragraph (2), delete the second, third and fourth sentences (The legislative history ... justify changing them.) and move them with their footnotes to the end of the paragraph. Begin the replaced sentence with ' Furthermore, t The legislative history ....' Revise the beginning of the old 5^th sentence to read 'Furthermore, t The Commission ....'
    
    
16. On page 13, revise the last line to read ' ... in the Federal Register notice , for the 1985 proposed rule, was is not seen so much as a difficulty with ....'
    
    
17. On page 14, revise line 1 to read ' ... criteria to TMI-2, but , rather, was seen as is a perceived inadequacy of in the ENO ....'
    
    
18. On page 14, revise line 2 to read ' But t The PAGs were established ....'
    
    
19. On page 14, revise line 12 to read ' ... regulations have been conservatively determined arrived at and for a ....'
    
    
20. On page 15, paragraph (1), insert the following after the 1^st sentence: ' The Commission believes that, contrary to the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, the derivation of timely and accurate estimates of monetary damages is possible. The Commission is confident that, should an event meriting an ENO determination occur again, individuals and consulting firms with experience in estimating evacuation costs, changes in property values, loss of time from work, and other parameters can be assembled to make estimates of monetary damages. Moreover, as As previously noted ....'
    
    
21. On pages 15 and 16, in paragraph (1), delete the last two sentences (Furthermore, the Commission believes ... of monetary damages.)
    
    
22. On page 16, the second full paragraph (the paragraph after (2)) should be marked as (3).
    
    
23. On page 17, revise line 3 from the top to read ' ... ENO determinations defined in Section 11.j. of the ....'
    
    
24. On page 17, delete footnote 12.