[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61283-61287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26642]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61283]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 140
[Docket No. PRM-140-1]
RIN 3150-AB01
Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence; Withdrawal of
Proposed Rule and Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the
Public Citizen Litigation Group and Critical Mass Energy Project
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Withdrawal of a proposed rule and denial of a petition for
rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a
proposed rule that would have amended regulations concerning the
criteria for an extraordinary nuclear occurrence (ENO) and is denying a
petition for rulemaking (PRM-140-1) submitted by the Public Citizen
Litigation Group and the Critical Mass Energy Project on this matter.
This action is taken because the Commission has determined that the
current criteria for determining that an ENO has occurred are adequate
and are consistent with the intent of Congress, and that none of the
options in the proposed rule is acceptable.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments
received, and the NRC's letters to the petitioners are available for
public inspection or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room,
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. These documents are also available at the NRC's
rulemaking website at http://www.ruleform.llnl.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; 301-415-3092 (email [email protected]).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
By letter dated July 24, 1979, the Public Citizen Litigation Group
and the Critical Mass Energy Project petitioned the NRC to take two
actions pertaining to a determination whether events at nuclear
reactors are ENOs within the meaning of 10 CFR 140.81. The petition was
submitted on behalf of five individuals who were residents of
Middletown, Pennsylvania, at the time of the March 28, 1979, accident
at the Three Mile Island, Unit 2, nuclear reactor (TMI-2), and who
claimed that they were harmed by that accident.
The petitioners' first request was that the NRC make a
determination that the March 28, 1979, accident at TMI-2 was an ENO,
within the meaning of 10 CFR 140.81. The NRC treated this portion of
the petition as a response to its request for public comment on its
July 23, 1979, Federal Register notice (44 FR 50419) of its decision to
initiate ``the making of a determination as to whether the recent
accident at TMI-2 constitutes an extraordinary nuclear occurrence.'' On
April 23, 1980 (45 FR 27593), the NRC published its finding that the
accident at TMI-2 was not an ENO. That action constituted the
Commission's denial of the petitioners' request for NRC to determine
that the TMI-2 accident was an ENO.
The petitioners further requested that, regardless of its finding
on the TMI-2 accident, the Commission alter or amend the criteria it
uses for making a determination that an event is an ENO.
Basis for Request
If the Commission determines that a particular accident is an ENO,
persons indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act (Section 170.n.1.) of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), (42 U.S.C. 2210n(1))
waive certain legal defenses. Current NRC requirements in 10 CFR
140.81(b)(3) establish a two-part test for making a determination that
an accident at a nuclear reactor or at a plutonium processing or fuel
fabrication plant constitutes an ENO. This two-part test is
specifically contemplated by Section 11.j. of the AEA. Section 11.j.
defines an ENO as an event: (1) Causing an offsite discharge of certain
radioactive material or 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. Thus, applying the
criteria specified in 10 CFR 140.84, the NRC first must find that a
substantial offsite discharge of radioactive material has occurred or a
substantial offsite radiation level has resulted. Second, the NRC must
make a finding that substantial damages to persons or property offsite
have been or probably will be incurred. If both findings are made, the
Commission then must find that the event is an ENO.
With respect to their first request, the petitioners cite certain
occurrences as the basis for their belief that the TMI-2 accident
should be deemed an ENO: the evacuation of area residents with the
concomitant harm to area businesses, large initial payments to victims,
lawsuits filed, and radiological releases.
In support of their second request that the Commission change the
criteria for making a determination that an event is an ENO, the
petitioners state that the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE)
``established that the purpose of designating certain accidents as
extraordinary nuclear occurrences is to distinguish a serious accident
from an event in which nothing untoward or unusual occurred in the
conduct of nuclear activities.\1\ The petitioners assert that the NRC
has the power and discretion to make the definition of an ENO
responsive to the circumstances and needs of the public. Also,
according to the petitioners, accidents of far less consequence than
the one at TMI-2 could be designated as ENOs in conformity with the
legislative intent of the Price-Anderson Act, as amended. The
petitioners believe that it is appropriate and necessary that the
criteria for the determination of an ENO be revised, altered, or
amended to respond effectively to those circumstances and demonstrated
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William B. Schultz, et al., Public Citizen Litigation Group
and Critical Mass Energy Project, Petition for Rulemaking, July 24,
1979, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Response to Petition
On July 23, 1979 (44 FR 43128), the NRC published a notice in the
Federal Register of its intent to make a determination as to whether
the TMI-2 accident was an ENO. A notice of the filing of the petition
from the Public Citizen Litigation Group and the Critical Mass Energy
Project was published in the Federal Register on August 28, 1979 (44 FR
50419). The notice stated that the NRC intended to treat the
petitioners'
[[Page 61284]]
first request (to find the TMI-2 accident an ENO) as a response to its
request for public comment on its July 1979 notice. The notice further
stated that the petitioners' second request (to change the criteria for
an ENO finding) would be treated as a petition for rulemaking. Both the
July 1979 and the August 1979 notices invited interested persons to
submit written comments or suggestions.
Petitioners' First Request
The NRC considered comments on the petitioner's first request and
in response to its July 1979 notice. For the reasons stated in its of
April 23, 1980, Federal Register notice (45 FR 27590), the Commission
determined that the March 28, 1979, accident at TMI-2 was not an ENO.
Therefore, the petitioners' first request was denied.
Petitioners' Second Request
One comment was received on the second request, from an official of
a nuclear utility. The commenter stated that the current criteria for
determining that an accident was an ENO were consistent with the intent
of Congress that the waiver of certain legal defenses triggered by an
ENO determination be limited to incidents resulting in significant
injury or loss. The commenter also stated that lowering the threshold
for an ENO would lead to higher premiums for insurance coverage and
could at some point endanger the availability of this coverage.
Although the Commission agreed with the commenter that the existing
ENO criteria are consistent with the intent of Congress, it decided
that these criteria should be reexamined because of difficulties in
applying them after the TMI-2 accident. The primary difficulties cited
stemmed from the fact that: (1) One criterion is based on ``objective
clinical evidence of radiation injury''; however, tests for evidence of
such injury are not conclusive; and (2) monetary damages were
difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate accurately in a timely manner
(e.g., lower property values, business losses, evacuation costs). The
Commission also cited a third difficulty with the existing ENO
determination criteria that did not relate to problems encountered in
the TMI-2 determination (i.e., the existing criteria are numerically
inconsistent with the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA)
Protective Action Guidelines (PAG)).
Another factor that influenced the Commission's decision to
reevaluate the ENO determination criteria was that when Congress first
enacted the waiver of defenses provisions of the Price-Anderson Act, as
amended, the conventional belief was that an accident at a nuclear
facility would be catastrophic with large releases of radioactive
material in a short time. The accident at TMI-2 suggested that a more
slowly developing accident could be catastrophic enough to be
considered an ENO. Thus, the Commission decided that it would be
worthwhile to examine whether the criteria it uses to determine whether
an accident is an ENO adequately address a broad range of accident
scenarios.
Proposed Rule
On April 9, 1985 (50 FR 13978), the Commission published proposed
amendments to 10 CFR Part 140 that posed three options that were under
consideration for revised criteria for making an ENO determination, and
solicited public comment on these options. These options used estimates
of offsite doses and ground contamination as indicators of
``substantial releases.'' As to ``substantial damages,'' the options
avoided the measurement problems encountered in applying the present
criteria by focusing on costs, which can be readily counted or
estimated. The dose limits for ``substantial releases'' were set at
values in the range of occupational dose limits but substantially above
the doses to the general public expected from the normal operation of
NRC-licensed facilities. Like the existing criteria, Options 1 and 2
had separate criteria for substantial discharges of radioactive
material or substantial radiation levels offsite.
Option 1 would modify Sec. 140.84(a) to provide that a finding of a
substantial discharge of radioactive material or substantial radiation
level offsite should be based on a determination ``that one or more
persons offsite have been or probably will be exposed to radiation or
radioactive materials that would result in estimated doses'' in excess
of certain specified limits. Option 2 had the same dose limits of
Option 1 but specified that the finding must be that any of the doses
``were or could have been received by a person or persons located on or
near any site boundary throughout the duration of the accident.''
Options 1 and 2 also differed with respect to the threshold for
``substantial damage'' to persons or property offsite. One of the
thresholds in Option 1 replaced the existing ``substantial damage''
threshold of ``objective clinical evidence of physical injury from
exposure'' with a dose-equivalent in the range that would produce
symptoms of radiation sickness (i.e., 100 rads) in five or more exposed
persons. Option 2 had neither the current ``objective clinical evidence
of physical injury'' threshold nor the Option 1 threshold of a high
dose to a few people. The Option 2 threshold was that a ``calculated
collective dose'' (i.e., 100,000 person-rem) has been delivered within
a 50-mile radius during the course of an accident. Both options
replaced the present reference to the monetary value of property damage
in Criterion II of the existing rule with effects that could be readily
assessed within a relatively short period of time after an accident.
Such effects include tax assessments, the number of people unemployed,
and the number of people evacuated.
Option 3 departs from the two-part test required in the current
criteria and the other options. Rather than requiring a Commission
finding that the event resulted or probably would result in monetary
damages exceeding certain thresholds, this option called for
identifying conditions which had led or could lead to injury or
damages. This option specified one set of criteria for substantial
releases and levels of radiation offsite such that substantial injuries
or substantial damages have resulted or will probably result. These
criteria were expressed in terms of an integrated air dose that could
be received by an individual over a 24-hour period in excess of 10
rads, or radioactive contamination levels offsite at which real and
personal property are rendered unfit for normal use.
Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
The Commission received 27 letters commenting on the proposed rule.
Although some commenters expressed their views about the merits of the
various options proposed, there was no preponderance of support by the
commenters for any of the options.
Ten commenters expressed an opinion on whether the criteria for
making a determination that an ENO had occurred should be changed. Two
commenters recommended changing the criteria. The Illinois Department
of Nuclear Safety said that it did not believe that the two-pronged
process of declaring a significant release and then determining that
substantial damages were sustained was necessary and agreed with then-
NRC Commissioner Bernthal's recommendation to use a single-criterion
method. The commenter further stated that the existing process was
complicated and time consuming and had inherent problems regarding
accuracy and subjectivity but gave no rationale for these views. The
Mississippi State Department of Health said that it favored Option 3
and that any of the options were more acceptable
[[Page 61285]]
than the existing rule but did not give a basis for this view.
Eight commenters, representing approximately 21 separate entities,
\2\ recommended not changing the criteria. (Some commenters submitted
the consolidated comments from other entities; other commenters
endorsed these consolidated comments and submitted additional comments
of their own.) The eight commenters stated that the existing ENO
criteria were adequate and that no changes were required. Some
commenters pointed out that the NRC's difficulties in applying the ENO
criteria to the TMI-2 accident arose not from the criteria, but from
the fact that the accident was not serious enough to meet the statutory
requirements of substantial offsite releases and substantial offsite
damages. Some commenters also pointed out that no change in the
regulatory criteria would relieve the Commission of the statutory
obligation to determine whether both the offsite release and the
offsite damages were substantial, even if such a determination proves
to be difficult on occasion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, the Law Offices of Bishop, Lieberman, Cook,
Purcell & Reynolds made comments on behalf of Boston Edison Co.,
Carolina Power & Light Co., Commonwealth Edison Co, Florida Power
Corp., Middle South Services Inc., Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania
Power & Light Co., Southern California Edison Co., and Virginia
Electric & Power Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters who opposed changing the criteria stated that
the NRC had not adequately justified reducing the threshold for a
substantial release finding from 20 rem to 5 rem. They asserted that
this reduction would increase the likelihood that an event would be
declared an ENO.
Some commenters also questioned the NRC rationale for changing the
criteria to be consistent with the EPA PAGs. According to the
commenters, these guidelines are intended for emergency planning
purposes and to protect the population at risk from the onset of
release of radioactivity; they were not intended as baseline criteria
for ENO determinations.
Some commenters who opposed changing the criteria stated that the
reduction of the dose level to sustain a finding of a substantial
offsite release of radioactivity to 5 rem was inconsistent with the
intent of Congress, and that the proposed rule would permit the
Commission to define as an ENO an event near the range of radiological
exposures from anticipated occurrences and involving doses within or
near permissible limits. One commenter quoted the authors of the
``Joint Committee on Atomic Energy's Report (JAEC) Accompanying Bills
to Amend Price-Anderson Act to Provide Immediate Financial Assistance
to Claimants and to Require Waiver of Defenses:'' ``[T]here is no
pressing need to invoke the mechanisms and procedures in situations
which are not exceptional and which can well be taken care of by the
traditional system of tort law.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Peter F. Riehm, KMC, Inc., September 6, 1985, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter gave the following opinion:
These proposed reductions would lower the existing dose levels
to values not much different from the current 10 CFR 20 limits. We
believe that these level reductions seriously lower the threshold of
an ENO and that the original purpose may be somewhat diminished by
the adoption of these reduced limits. In the original conception of
10 CFR 140, ``Congress intended that the waiver of defenses be
limited to incidents resulting in significant injury or loss'' and
that current ENO criteria should be consistent with this. It is
possible that the seriousness or significance of an ENO may be
lessened somewhat by these lower criteria.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Joseph F. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric, July 22,
1985, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter expressed the same view:
The legislative history is clear that Congress, in amending the
Atomic Energy Act to incorporate the ENO concept, wished to
establish a threshold to prevent the waiver of defenses provision
from applying in cases ``where nothing untoward or unusual has
occurred in the conduct of nuclear activities.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bishop et al., August 7, 1985, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission finds that the arguments for retaining the existing
criteria are persuasive. The Commission intended to simplify the
application of the ENO criteria, but is now convinced by arguments of
the public commenters that none of these options would accomplish this
intent without undermining the purposes for which the ENO criteria were
established.
In addition, section 11.j. of the AEA indicates that the dual
criteria for findings of substantial releases and findings of
substantial damages are to be used. Section 11.j. of the AEA has the
following passage:
The term extraordinary nuclear occurrence means any event
causing a discharge or dispersal of source, special nuclear, or
byproduct material from its intended place of confinement in amounts
off-site, or causing radiation levels off-site, which the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or the Secretary of Energy, as appropriate,
determines to be substantial, and which the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission or the Secretary of Energy, as appropriate, determines
has resulted or will probably result in substantial damages to
persons off-site or property off-site. [emphasis added].
The Commission interprets this provision to mean that the determination
that an ENO has occurred requires findings of substantial releases and
of substantial damages.
Conclusions on Problems Cited in 1985 Federal Register Notice
With respect to the difficulties with the ENO determination
criteria cited in the 1985 Federal Register notice (discussed earlier),
the Commission now believes that these are not as serious as were once
thought:
(1) Experience gained as a result of the TMI-2 accident suggests
that the Criterion II threshold, requiring objective clinical evidence
of radiation injury (10 CFR 140.85(a)(1)) to five or more individuals
offsite, may not be as important to an ENO determination as the other
findings in Criterion II. A second threshold in this criterion, a
finding that $5 million or more in damage offsite has been or probably
will be sustained (10 CFR 140.85(a)(2)), would appear to trigger an ENO
determination before the radiation injury finding would. After the TMI-
2 accident, no deaths or injury due to the accident were reported.
However, to date, more than $70 million has been paid out in damages
and expenses (mostly attributable to evacuation costs). If an accident
occurred, the monetary damage estimate would apparently trigger the ENO
determination before the death or injury threshold did. Thus the
likelihood that the Commission would ever need to rely solely on 10 CFR
140.85(a)(1) to make a ``substantial damages'' to persons or property
offsite finding is very small.
(2) The difficulty in estimating monetary damages does not seem to
be as great as previously believed. The Commission now believes that
timely and accurate estimates of monetary damages is possible. There
exists a body of literature in which models for estimating such
parameters and performing relevant studies are described. One study
conducted by Mountain West Research, Inc., investigated the social and
economic effects of the TMI-2 accident on the surrounding community.\6\
The Commission is confident that, should an event meriting an ENO
determination occur again, experts from the relevant disciplines can be
assembled to estimate
[[Page 61286]]
monetary damages. Furthermore, the legislative history of the
modifications to the ``waiver of defenses'' provisions of the Price-
Anderson Act (where the ENO concept was introduced) indicates that
Congress was mindful that criteria to implement such an approach would
be difficult to apply. In its September 14, 1966, report accompanying
House of Representatives Bill No. 17685,\7\ the former JCAE stated:
``[T]he committee recognizes that inclusion of the `extraordinary
nuclear occurrence concept' in this bill adds very considerably to the
complexity of implementing the proposed legislation.'' \8\ Thus, the
difficulty of applying the criteria does not justify changing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ C.B. Flynn, J.A. Chalmers, ``The Social and Economic Effects
of the Accident at Three Mile Island,'' NUREG-CR-1215, January 1980.
\7\ The Senate version of the bill, S-3830, was identical.
\8\ House Report No. 2043, supra, n.1, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The fact that existing ENO determination criteria are not
numerically consistent with PAGs, which was cited in the Federal
Register notice for the 1985 proposed rule, was not seen so much as a
difficulty with applying ENO criteria to TMI-2, but, rather was seen as
a perceived inadequacy of the ENO criteria. But the PAGs were
established with different objectives than the ENO criteria. The
purpose of the PAGs is to reduce the radiation exposure of the public
by setting predetermined action levels for implementing planned
protective actions, such as evacuations. These action levels are
established with public health and safety as the main objective. ``The
concept of PAGs was introduced to radiological emergency response
planning to assist public health and other governmental authorities in
deciding how much of a radiation hazard in the environment constitutes
a basis for initiating emergency protective actions.'' \9\ In contrast,
as stated in 10 CFR 140.81(b), the ENO regulations set forth the
criteria which the Commission will follow to determine whether there
has been an ENO. The Commission has taken the position that health and
safety regulations have been conservatively determined and for a
different purpose and are not appropriate for use as ENO thresholds.
Section 140.81(b)(1) sets forth the scope of the ENO criteria as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ''Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local
Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light
Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' NUREG-0396 (EPA 520/1-78-016),
December 1978, p. 3.
The various limits in present NRC regulations are not
appropriate for direct application in the determination of an
``extraordinary nuclear occurrence'' for they were arrived at with
other purposes in mind, and those limits have been set at a level
which is conservatively arrived at by incorporating a significant
safety factor. Thus, a discharge or dispersal which exceeds the
limits in NRC regulations, or in license conditions, although
possible cause for concern, is not one which would be expected to
cause substantial injury or damage unless it exceeds by some
significant multiple the appropriate regulatory limit. Accordingly,
in arriving at the values in the criteria to be deemed
``substantial'' it is more appropriate to adopt values separate from
NRC health and safety regulations, and of course, the selection of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
these values will not in any way affect such regulations.
Thus, for the reasons stated, the Commission believes that lowering
the thresholds for ENO determinations is not appropriate.
Summary of Commission Findings
The Commission has considered the comments in favor of modifying
the criteria for determining that an ENO has occurred along the lines
of the options presented in the proposed rule and those comments in
favor of retaining the existing criteria. The Commission finds the
latter more persuasive. Specifically, the Commission finds that:
(1) Although the existing criteria for determining that an ENO has
occurred may be difficult to apply, they are consistent with the intent
of Congress and need not be modified. 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 previously noted, the
legislative history of the amendments to the ``waiver of defenses''
provisions of the Price-Anderson Act (where the ENO concept was
introduced) indicates that Congress was mindful that criteria to
implement such an approach would be difficult to apply. The difficulty
of applying the criteria does not justify changing them.
(2) None of the options offered by the Commission in the 1985
proposed rule satisfies the legislative intent of Congress in defining
an ENO. Under Option 1, a ``substantial release'' is an exposure to one
or more persons offsite. Option 2 specifies a ``substantial release''
as an exposure to one or more persons located on or near any site
boundary during the accident. However, both options would lower the
``substantial release thresholds'' from a whole body dose of 20 rem to
5 rem and similarly lower individual organ thresholds. At that level,
individuals would not normally experience symptoms of radiation
sickness. Thus, if Option 1 or Option 2 were adopted, a ``substantial
release'' determination could be made for releases unlikely to produce
detectable radiation injuries offsite. The rationale for lowering of
the dose limits from 20 rem to 5 rem (i.e., numerical consistency with
EPA's PAGs) failed to consider the fact that the PAGs are for
initiating emergency response actions. The PAGs have no bearing on the
dose levels at which the ``waiver of defenses'' provisions should be
invoked. Therefore, the Commission finds that lowering ``substantial
releases'' thresholds for ENO determinations is not warranted.
(3) As noted previously, Option 3 differs from the existing
criteria and the other two options. Option 3 relies upon the
probability that substantial injury or damages will be the consequence
of some threshold dose exposure rate or contamination level and
eliminates the need to estimate actual or probable damages and
injuries. For example, one of the thresholds in Option 3 is that if the
integrated air dose to an individual over any 24-hour period exceeds 10
rads, the Commission would find that ``substantial releases'' and
``substantial injuries'' have probably resulted and declare the event
an ENO, even if no injuries or damages are sustained or projected. In
effect, this option uses a single criterion for ``substantial release''
and ``substantial damage'' and thus is inconsistent with the two-part
test for ENO determinations defined in Section 11.j. of the AEA.
Therefore, the Commission finds that Option 3 of the proposed rule is
also not appropriate.
Commission Action
Several factors contributed to the delay in completing the
resolution of this petition until this time. The Commission dealt with
the central request of the petitioners (i.e., to declare the TMI-2
accident an ENO) in a timely fashion. The petition was received on July
25, 1979, and the NRC published its finding that the accident was not
an ENO in the Federal Register on April 23, 1980. In announcing its
finding, the Commission did not specifically deny the petitioners'
request to declare the TMI-2 accident an ENO.
The other request of the petitioners, to modify the ENO
determination criteria, was considered to be of secondary importance.
The Commission decided to consider this proposal but accorded it a low
priority because of resource considerations and the existence of
[[Page 61287]]
higher priority rulemaking actions. In the meantime, in light of the
public comments received, the Commission has reexamined its reasoning
for the need for modification of the ENO criteria and the options that
it proposed in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule (50 FR
13978). The Commission also considered the legislative history of the
Price-Anderson Act in arriving at its finding in this matter.
Because the current criteria for determining that an ENO has
occurred are consistent with the intent of Congress and none of the
options proposed in the 1985 rulemaking are deemed acceptable, the
Commission now finds that revision of these criteria is not warranted.
For these reasons, the second request in the petition for rulemaking
(PRM-140-1) from the Public Citizen Litigation Group and the Critical
Mass Energy Project is denied and the April 9, 1985, proposed rule is
withdrawn.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of October 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-26642 Filed 10-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U