Page images
PDF
EPUB

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 1987 / Proposed Rules

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 492-7496. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Accuracy and forthrightness in communications to the NRC by licensees and applicants for licenses are essential if the NRC is to fulfill its responsibilities to ensure that utilization of radioactive material is consistent with the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security and the protection of the environment. Several provisions of the Atomic Energy Act highlight the importance of accurate information. Section 186 provides that "Any license may be revoked for any material false statement in the application or any statement of fact required under section 182...."

Section 182 provides that:

The Commission may at any time after the filing of the original application, and before the expiration of the license, require further written statements in order to enable the Commission to determine whether the application should be granted or denied or whether a license should be modified or revoked. All applications and statements .shall be signed by the applicant or licensee. Applications for and statements made in connection with, licenses under sections 103 and 104 shall be made under oath or affirmation. The Commission may require any other applications or statements to be made under oath or affirmation.

This need for accuracy in communications has been emphasized through the adoption in licensing provisions, although not on a uniform basis, of requirements regarding the submission of applications. See, e.g., 10 CFR 50.30(b), 55.10(d), 61.20(a), 70.22(e) and 72.11(b).

The Commission's expectation of accuracy in communications has not been limited to written information submitted in applications. The Commission's decision is an enforcement action taken against Virginia Electric and Power Co. established a comprehensive requirement for applicants and licensees to provide complete and accurate information to the Commission. In the VEPCO case, of false statement were alleged to have been made in VEPCO's submissions to the Commission on the geology of the North Anna site. Omissions of information by VEPCO were also evaluated: Two were failures to present evidence at the Licensing Board construction permit hearings about suspected faulting and the third omission was VEPCO's failure to provide the Board or staff with reports prepared by its geology consultant. In its decision, the Commission concluded *that the material false statement

phrase in the Atomic Energy Act may appropriately be read to require full disclosure of material data". Virginia Electric & Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76– 22, 4 NRC 480 (1976), aff'd, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir. 1979). The Commission decided materiality is to be judged by whether information has a natural tendency or capability to influence an agency decisionmaker, that knowledge of the falsity of a material statement is not necessary for a material false statement under section 188 and that material omissions are actionable to the same extent as affirmative material false statements.

Under this standard, both the written statements and omissions made by VEPCO were subject to civil penalties. In subsequent years, the Commission took a number of enforcement actions for material false statements. These enforcement actions included the

following factual situations: Omission of information about receipt of draft reports during oral statements made in an informal meeting between the staff and a licensee; statements in a telephone call, letter and oral briefing that mobile sirens forming part of a licensee's prompt public notification system were installed and operational, when in fact they were not; oral statements to an NRC inspector that licensed material had not been out of storage, when in fact it had been used: and erroneous statements in response to an IE Bulletin concerning the use of certain lubricants and fasterners. The Commission's General Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, 10 CFR Part 2, App. C. originally published on March 9, 1982, (47 FR 9987) specifically dealt with enforcement for material false statements. In March 1984, after several years of handling enforcement cases under the VEPCO holding and this enforcement policy, the Commission specifically solicited comments on the issue of material false statements. Responses to the following questions were requested:

(1) Has the Commission's emphasis on material false statements had a positive effect on the quality of communications with the NRC or has it had a chilling effect on such communications?

(2) Should the definition of material false statement be changed to apply only to written statements, submitted under oath?

(3) Should materiality be contingent upon the safety significance of the underlying information?

(4) Should materiality be dependent upon actually influencing an agency reviewer as opposed to having the

7433

capability of influencing a reasonable agency reviewer?

(5) What would the expected effect of such changes be? (49 FR 8584, March 8. 1984).

The Commission received comments from twenty-nine organizations and individuals, including utilities, law firms. utility associations, an architect engineer, an intervenor, an employee at a nuclear facility, and members of the public. The comments are summarized below categorized into five principal

concerns.

Threshold for Material False Statements

Most of the commenters suggested that the definition of material false statement which the Commission had been using since the VEPCO decision in 1976 is too broad. VEPCO case does not contain an actual definition of the term "material false statement" but it does describe the elements of the phrase. Under that decision, a material false statement may be an affirmative statement or an omission. By implication, therefore, a material false statement need not be in writing or under oath. It need not be made with knowledge of its falsity; it can be unintentionally made.

Some commenters sought to limit the definition by changing the materiality standard. Some suggested that it should take into greater account the safety significance of the information. Others suggested that instead of merely having the capability of influencing a reasonable agency reviewer, the statement should be required to actually influence a reasonable agency reviewer. Omissions

Comments criticized the application of material false statement on an omission. arguing that if the NRC wanted to require full disclosure of material information it should clarify its reporting requirements to indicate just what information is required to be disclosed. Legal Issues

A number of commenters expressed the view that, as matter of law, a material false statement must be submitted in writing and under oath for a power reactor. This conclusion was based on their reading of sections 186 and 182 of the Atomic Energy Act that a material false statement can exist only when when the statement in question is contained in an application or sought by the NRC under section 182 of the Act. Section 182 provides that "applications for, and statements made in connection with, licenses under sections 103 and 104 [of the Act) shall be made under

7434

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11. 1987 / Proposed Rules

oath or affirmation." Not all commenters favored restricting application of the term to only those statements under oath. Some argued that such a limitation will only create a greater administrative burden on the licensee, because the Commission will demand that all correspondence be notarized. Negative Connotations

Many of the commenters focused on the adverse impact on the integrity of individuals and licensees which they believe results from a citation for a material false statement. In their view, a material false statement is understood by the public as a lie with all of the connotations of dishonesty which that entails. Largely because of these connotations, many commenters urged that the definition of material false statement be narrowed and its use limited to those situations where integrity or honesty is actually at issue. Accordingly, some suggested that it be reserved for intentional false statements.

Oral Statements

Many commenters also focused their criticism on the application of sanctions for material false statements involving oral communications since many of the day-to-day contacts with the NRC are by telephone or through oral

conversations with inspectors on site.< The commenters indicated that the inclusion of these statements in the definition of material false statements had a chilling effect on day-to-day communications to the detriment of the regulatory process.

At the time the Commission solicited these comments, it also stated its intention to have an in-depth study of the enforcement program performed by a small committee of individuals selected from outside the agency. The Advisory Committee for Review of the Enforcement Policy was formally established by the NRC on August 31, 1984. (49 FR 35273, September 6, 1984). In addition to considering the comments already submitted to the Commission. the Committee solicited further comments from interested persons on the extent to which th NRC's enforcement policy has been serving the purposes announced by the

Commission, including the policy on material false statements. (50 FR 1142. January 9, 1985). Public meetings were held by the Committee during which 46 witnesses drawn from NRC staff, licensees, industry groups and law/ consulting groups gave testimony to the Committee, many commenting on the material false statement policy.

In its Report submitted to the Commission on November 23, 1985 the Committee made the following recommendation:

The material false statement policy should be changed to limit citations for material false statements to written statements or sworn testimony made knowing the statement was incorrect or made with careless disregard for correctness. If incorrect oral statements or omissions are to be cited, it should be under another label.

The Committee concluded that the application of the label material false statement to unintended and inadvertent statements and omissions, as well as to intentional ones, will ultimately, if it has not already, impede the flow of information to the Commission. The evidence of growing pressure toward limiting oral communications was found to be especially apparent. In addition, the labeling of honest errors as material false statements was found to have a "depressing effect on utility staff morale" and to some extent limited an organization's ability to "recruit and retain capable staff." Committee Report at 24. The indistinctness in defining what is required to avoid a material false statement citation for an omission creates an "uncontrollable and openended liability" for licensees, which, considering the high cost to the utility of such a citation, is an "unreasonable and unfair burden." Committee Report at 26.

In its meeting with the Commission on December 10, 1985, several of the Committee members elaborated on their recommendation. Briefly, they indicated that oral communications can be made by anyone within the licensee's organization and, unlike written communications, the licensee generally has no way of controlling the exchange or of assuring that the statement in fact represents the licensee's position. It is very difficult as a matter of proof to reconstruct what exactly was said for an oral statement. There will likely be disputes about what is said and whether the misstatement, if there was one, was intentional, accidental, negligent or reckless. It is reasonable to reserve the category of "material false statements" to written or sworn statements where there is another mechansim for penalizing oral statements, e.g., as inaccurate information, and where the penalty can be as severe as for those statements labeled material false statements. If the Commission persists in labeling oral statements as material false statements, Committee members recommended that the Commission limit and define the people in licensee organizations who are capable of

making oral material false statements and provide some description of the circumstances in which they have to be aware that they carry that liability.

With respect to the citation of omissions as material false statements, several Committee members indicated that it is such a wide open potential number of such citations is small, the source of liability, that even though the perception of vulnerability in the regulated community is pervasive. Although an egregious omission case can be posed where the strongest sanction including the label material false statement is warranted, the day-today cases will be more ambiguous and difficult situations. From the standpoint of an effective enforcement program, deterrence does not suffer if an occasional egregious omission or oral statement is cited as inaccurate information with a civil penalty for a severity level one or two violation, rather than as a material false statement with a civil penalty of similar severity level.

In view of the concerns which have been developing within the Commission and which are evident from the public comments and the efforts of the Advisory Committee, principally with the application of the "material false statement" label to unintentionally inaccurate information, the Commission has determined that changes are necessary to: (1) The manner in which its standards for accuracy in information provided to or maintained for Commission inspection are articulated for licensees and applicants; and (2) its current material false statement policy articulated in the Commission's VEPCO decision and in the Enforcement Policy in Appendix C to Part 2 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission has concluded that a new requirement should be placed in each of the licensing sections of the Commission's regulations which sets forth an applicant's and a licensee's obligations concerning accuracy and completeness in their communications with the NRC and in the records required to be maintained by the Commission. The Commission believes this approach will continue to provide incentives for applicants and licensees to scrutinize their internal operations to determine that information provided to the NRC is complete and accurate and that records maintained in accordance with Commission requirements are complete and accurate and give the Commission greater flexibility to enforce these obligations without invoking the negative connotations about a licensee's character by a

Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11. 1987 / Proposed Rules

citation for a material false statement in cases involving an unintentionally inaccurate or incomplete submittal.

The new regulations include identical provisions in Parts 30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, and 110 which contain two elements: (1) A general provision which requires that all information provided to the Commission by an applicant or licensee or required by the Commission to be maintained by the applicant or licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects; and (2) a reporting requirement to replace the full disclosure aspects of the current material false statement policy and would require applicants and licensees to report to the NRC information identified by the applicant or licensee as having a significant implication for the public health and safety or common defense and security. Section 150.20 is being amended to provide that when an Agreement State licensee is operating within NRC's jurisdiction under the general license granted by § 150.20. the licensee is subject to the above requirements.

These regulations are being issued under the Commission's authority in sections 62, 63, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 161(o), 182, and 274 as well as 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. While section 186 can be read as addressing only material false statements made in certain contexts, the scope of the Commission's responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as well as the Commission's decision in the VEPCO case and subsequent enforcement actions under that statement of the law, make it clear that the Commission has the inherent authority to require communications with the agency on regulatory matters to be complete and accurate regardless of their context. Under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act failure to observe any of the terms or provisions of any regulation of the Commission is an explicit basis for revocation of a license. Thus, with the adoption of these new regulations regarding accuracy in communications and records, a violation of paragraph (a) or (b) of the proposed rule may be grounds for revocation of a license as well as imposition of civil penalties under section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would codify in a uniform manner an applicant's and a licensee's obligation, as articulated in the VEPCO decision, to ensure the accuracy of its

communications with the Commission. The provision does not create any new obligations for licensees and applicants;

rather, it describes in a regulation rather than in an adjudicatory decision, the standard for accuracy to be adhered to when supplying information to the agency or when generating and maintaining records required to be kept by the Commission. The standard described in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule, "complete and accurate in all material respects," continues the degree of accuracy prescribed in the VEPCO decision; that is, any information provided to the Commission or maintained in records required by the Commission which has the ability to influence the agency in the conduct of its regulatory responsibilities must be complete and accurate.

Under this proposed rule, not only material incorrect information, written or oral, but omitted information which causes an affirmative statement to be materially incomplete or inaccurate, will be subject to sanctions. The proposed rule uses the phrase "provided to the NRC" rather than "submitted to the NRC" to indicate that all communications, oral or written, throughout the term of the license, not just at the application stage, are expected to be complete and accurate. The Commission intends to apply a rule of reason in assessing completeness of a communication. For example, in the context of reviewing an initial application or a renewal application for a license, it is not uncommon for an NRC reviewer to seek additional information to clarify his or her understanding of the information already provided. Such an inquiry by the NRC does not necessarily mean that incomplete information which would violate this rule has been submitted.

This new provision also makes explicit the requirement that records required to be maintained by the Commission must be complete and accurate in all material respects. It is clear that when the Commission establishes a requirement that a licensee generate records to document a particular licensed activity, inherent in that requirement is the expectation that those records will accurately reflect the activities accomplished. In the past, when the Commission has discovered that inaccurate or incomplete records have been developed or maintained, citations have been issued for violation of the underlying recordkeeping requirement. Now that the Commission is adopting a regulation which states a generic requirement for accuracy in information made available to the agency, it was deemed desirable to explicitly refer to information kept in records pursuant to Commission

7435

requirements for inspection by the NRC. as well as information submitted to the NRC, since the standard for accuracy and completeness is the same for all information in whatever form it is made available to the Commission. This explicit statement of the standard of accuracy required for records does not in any way change existing recordkeeping requirements or add to the kind or nature of records expected to be maintained.

Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule codifies in a modified form, and replaces, the "full disclosure" aspects of licensees' and applicants' obligations established by the VEPCO decision. In that decision the Commission recognized its obligation "to promulgate regulations which provide clear. comprehensive guidance to applicants and licensees," VEPCO at 489, but went on to conclude that,

[T]he fact remains that no specific set of regulations, however carefully drawn, can be expected to cover all possible circumstances. Information may come from unexpected sources or take an unexpected form, but if it is material to the licensing decision and therefore to the public health and safety, it must be passed on to the Commission if we are to perform our task....

Since the initial description of the "full disclosure" requirement in VEPCO, however, reporting obligations for substantial additional categories of significant safety information have been affirmatively established, e.g., 10 CFR 21.21, and 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. Both material and reactor licenses contain numerous reporting requirements. Most safety information which a licensee may develop will likely be required to be reported by some specific requirements. Nevertheless, there may be some circumstances where a licensee

possesses some residual safety

information which could affect licensed activities but which is not otherwise required to be reported.

Therefore, the proposed rule provides that if a licensee or an applicant identifies information which has significant implications for public health and safety or the common defense and security, it must be reported to the Commission. The rule makes clear that reporting under this section is not required if such reporting would duplicate information already submitted in accordance with other requirements such as 10 CFR 20.402 through 20.408, 21.21, 50.34, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 73.71.

Consideration was given to proposing

a more broadly worded requirement such as "each applicant or licensee shall notify the Commission of information material to the regulatory process." The

7436.

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 1987 / Proposed Rules

Commission concluded, however, that with such a formulation of the rule, with essentially no guidance on how to determine what must be reported, it would be difficult for licensees or applicants to predict with any certainty what the Commission will deem to be material. Such a rule would likely provide little incentive for licensees or applicants to scrutinize or police their information gathering process for reportable information. The purpose of the reporting requirement which is being proposed is to provide clear notice that if any applicant or licensee recognizes it has information with significant health or safety or common defense or security implications, the information must be reported to the NRC notwithstanding the absence of a specific reporting requirement. Submission of a report depends upon the licensee's recognition of the significance of the information.

The codification of a full disclosure requirement in this manner should not result in additional burdens on applicants and licensees. Licensees and applicants will not be required to develop formal programs similar to

ability to evaluate information, or its trustworthiness, i.e., its failure to consider potentially significant information for evaluation.

Finally, the Commission has decided to exercise its discretion in the application of the term material false statement to miscommunications and limit use of the term to situations where there is an element of intent. A Charge of material false statement is equated by the public and most people in the industry with lying and intention to mislead. Yet under the current policy, a material false statement under the Atomic Energy Act can be either an affirmative statement, oral as well as written, or an omission, and can be unintended and inadvertent as well as international. The Advisory Committee concluded that enforcement of accuracy in communications by citations for a material false statement is "too blunt and heavy an instrument to be effective in achieving improved accuracy and completeness of information given to the NRC by licensees." The Commission agrees. The free flow of information from applicants and licensees is essential to the effectiveness of the

sanctions for inaccurate information which has the likelihood to impede information flow, or which causes licensees to concentrate on limiting and qualifying what they say rather than on the quality of the information provided in order to avoid being charged with lying, does not serve the interests of the

those prescribed under 10 CFR Part 21 to NRC's regulatory program. A policy of
identify, evaluate, and report
information. What is expected is a
professional attitude toward safety
throughout a licensee's or applicant's
organization such that if a person
identifies some potential safety
information, the information will be
freely provided to the appropriate
company officials to deterraine its safety
significance and reportability to the
Commission.

While proposed paragraph (b) defers to the licensee's judgment of the significance of information, the licensee's "identification" of the significance of the information need not be in the form of a specific documented decision before a violation of the rule exists for failure to report. An applicant's or licensee's recognition of information as significant could be established by the fact that specific meetings were held to discuss the matter, analyses performed or other internal actions taken to evaluate the matter. In addition, abuse of a licensee's responsibility under paragraph (b), if not punishable as a violation of paragraph (b), could be addressed by the Commission under its authority to issue orders to modify, suspend or revoke a license. For example, an order would be appropriate where the action of a licensee in not recognizing the significance of the information and failing to report it, together with other relevant facts, raises serious questions about either its competence, i.e., its

NRC.

This change recognizes the negative connotations which are associated by the public and the industry with the term material false statement but retains the use of this label as an additional enforcement tool in egregious situations, which will be determined on a case-bycase basis. The Commission expects to use the term rarely because with the adoption of this proposed rule, the Commission will have the mechanism to apply the full range of enforcement sanctions to inaccurate communications or records without reliance on the term material false statement. Consequently, the Commission sees no need to develop a specific definition of the term "material false statement." 1 The

Any characterization or use which the Commission gives to the term material false statement as used in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended. is, of course, limited to the Commission's civil enforcement actions and has no legal impact on the meaning given to similar terms and phrases used in other statutes, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1001. or on the authority of the Department of Justice to prosecute under such statutes. Thus, regardless of what enforcement action NRC may take for a communication failure, the failure may be subject to criminal sanctions.

Department of Justice supports this approach in view of the potential for confusion from the Commission's use of the term material false statement in its civil context and prosecutions for material false statements under 18 U.S.C. 1001. However, should a violation of the proposed requirement for complete and accurate information be lableled as a material false statement, it is expected that the communication failure will be flagrant and involving, for example, instances (1) where an inaccurate or incomplete written or sworn oral statement is made knowing the statement is inaccurate or incomplete, or with careless disregard for its accuracy or completeness; or (2) where an inaccurate or incomplete unsworn oral statement is made with a clearly demonstrable knowledge of its inaccuracy or incompleteness.

The Commission's existing material false statement policy is currently reflected in the General Statement of

Policy and Procedure for NRC

Enforcement Actions, 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C. Modifications to this policy to reflect the new rules and the changes to Commission policy announced here will be made at the time a final rule on this subject is adopted by the Commission.

Environmental Impact: Categorical
Exclusion

With respect to the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, and 72, the NRC has determined that the proposed rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). The NRC has also determined that the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 55, 110. and 150 meet the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared in connection with the issuance of the proposed rule. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule would add a specific information collection requirement that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirement. Regulatory Analysis

The Commission's current requirement for accuracy and completeness of information provided to the Commission is specified in the adjudicatory decision rendered with

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 1987 / Proposed Rules

respect to an enforcement action taken
against Virginia Electric Power
Company in 1976. The proposed rule
would articulate this requirement, which
governs the day-to-day interactions
between NRC personnel and licensees
and applicants, in a regulation issued
under the Commission's general
authority to establish instructions for
the provision of information and reports
to the Commission rather than by
interpretation of the material false
statement provision of section 188 of the
Atomic Energy Act in an adjudicatory
decision. Codifying this requirement is
preferable to the only alternative, which
is continued reliance on the
adjudicatory decision, as the only
statement of the requirement.
Codification of the requirement will
given the regulated community more
explicit and accessible notice of the
standards of accurancy expected of it
and will given the Commission greater
flexibility to enforce these standards
without unnecessarily applying the label

material false statement to
communications from licensees and
applicants. In view of the extensive
public comments and the
recommendations of the Advisory
Committee for Review of the
Enforcement Policy received in response
to the Commission's request for
evaluation of the existing practice and
proposed changes to it, it is apparent
that this proposed rule is the preferred
alternative and the cost entailed in its
promulgation and application is
necessary and appropriate. The
foregoing discussion constitutes the
regulatory analysis for this proposed
rule.

Backfit Statement

The proposed rule codifies the existing obligations of applicants and licensees to provide information relating to licensed activities which could have significant implications for those activities and to ensure that all information provided to the Commission or maintained pursuant to Commission requirements is complete and accurate in all material respects. The Commission has determined, therefore, that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to the proposed rule. The rule is purely administrative in nature, and therefore does not result in the "modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility...or the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility..." See 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory
and consistent with NRC's Size
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Standards published December 9, 1985
(50 FR 50241), 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, which will affect large
and small licensees alike, merely
codifies an existing requirement,
established through an adjudicatory
decision, that all information provided
to the Commission relating to licensed
activities or maintained pursuant to
Commission requirements be complete
and accurate in all material respects. In
addition, the proposed rule, if adopted.
would reduce the existing burden on
licensees because the full disclosure
aspect of the current judicially imposed
requirement has been modified to limit it
to that information which the licensee
itself has determined has a significant
implication for licensed activities.

Any small entity subject to this
regulation which determines that,
because of its size, it is likely to bear a
disproportionate adverse economic
impact should notify the Commission of
this in a comment that indicates the
following:

(a) The licensee's size in terms of annual income or revenue, and number of employees;

(b) How the proposed regulation would result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared to that on a larger licensee;

(c) How the proposed regulations ⚫could be modified to take into account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 30

Byproduct material, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Penalty. Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 40

Government contracts, Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting requirements, Source material, Uranium. 10 CFR Part 50

Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference. Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting requirements.

10 CFR Part 55

7437

Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 60

High-level waste, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear materials. Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 61

Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 70

Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Penalty, Radiation

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Scientific equipment. Security measures. Special nuclear material.

10 CFR Part 71

Hazardous materials-transportation. Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 10 CFR Part 72

Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

10 CFR Part 110

Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information. Export, Import, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment. 10 CFR Part 150

Hazardous materials-transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Penalty. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Security measures, Source material. Special nuclear material.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reoganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 55, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 110 and 150.

« PreviousContinue »