Regulatory Analysis for Enhanced Weapons Proposed Rule

Regulatory Analysis for Supplemental Proposed
Enhanced Weapons Rule
(10 CFR Part 73)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

[Page intentionally left blank.]

Table of Contents
List of Tables................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... v
Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... vi
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Statement of the Problem and Objective ................................................................................ 1
2.1. Background .................................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 2
2.3. Objective ........................................................................................................................ 2
3. Identification and Analysis of Alternative Approaches ............................................................ 3
3.1. Alternative 1: No Action to Additionally Supplement the Proposed Rule ...................... 3
3.2. Alternative 2: Amend the Proposed Rule, as Currently Supplemented, to Modify
Background Check Requirements related to Section 161A Authorities ......................... 4
4. Evaluation of Benefits and Costs ............................................................................................ 5
4.1. Identification of Affected Attributes ................................................................................. 5
4.2. Analytical Method ........................................................................................................... 6
5. Evaluation of Benefits and Costs .......................................................................................... 20
5.1. Benefits and Costs of the Final Rule ............................................................................ 20
5.2. Uncertainty Analysis ..................................................................................................... 23
5.3. Uncertainty Analysis Results ........................................................................................ 33
5.4. Disaggregation ............................................................................................................. 33
5.5. Safety Goal Evaluation ................................................................................................. 33
6. Decision Rationale for Selection of the Proposed Action ...................................................... 34
7. Implementation...................................................................................................................... 34
8. References ............................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix A................................................................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B................................................................................................................................ B-1
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... C-1

iii

List of Tables
Section 4 Tables
Table 4-1.
Table 4-2.
Table 4-3.
Table 4-4.
Table 4-5.

U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Affected by the Final Rule
Estimated Industry Implementation Costs Averted, per Site (2016 Dollars)
Estimated NRC Implementation Costs Averted (2016 Dollars)
Estimated Industry Recurring and Annual Costs Averted, per Site (2016 Dollars)
Estimated NRC Recurring Costs Averted, per Site (2016 Dollars)

Section 5 Tables
Table 5-1.
Table 5-2.

Summary of Overall Benefits and Costs (Quantitative and Qualitative)
Uncertainty Analysis Variables

Appendix B Tables
Table B-1.
Table B-2.

U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Subject to the Enhanced Weapons
Rule
Category I Strategic Special Nuclear Material Sites Subject to the Enhanced
Weapons Rule

Appendix C Tables
Table C-1.
Table C-2.
Table C-3.
Table C-4.
Table C-5.
Table C-6.

Summary of Quantified One-Time, Recurring, Annual, and Overall Costs of the
Supplemental Proposed Rule (2016 Dollars)
Summary of Quantified One-Time, Recurring, Annual, and Overall Costs
to Industry and the NRC, by Attribute (2016 Dollars)
Summary of Estimated Averted Costs to Industry under the Supplemental
Proposed Rule, by Type of Site (2016 Dollars)
Summary of Estimated Averted Costs to the NRC
under the Supplemental Proposed Rule, by Type of Site (2016 Dollars)
Estimated Per-Site Costs to Industry under the Supplemental Proposed Rule
(2016 Dollars)
Estimated Per-Site Costs to the NRC under the Supplemental Proposed Rule
(2016 Dollars)

iv

List of Figures
Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-4.
Figure 5-5.
Figure 5-6.
Figure 5-7.
Figure 5-8.

Industry Implementation Averted Costs
Industry Operation (Averted Costs - 7% NPV)
Industry Operation (Averted Costs - 3% NPV)
NRC Implementation
NRC Operation (Averted Costs - 7% NPV)
NRC Operation (Averted Costs - 3% NPV)
Total Net Benefit - 7% NPV
Tornado Diagram of Industry Implementation Costs Averted

v

Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADAMS
AEA
AG
CFR
COL
DG
DOJ
FBI
FR
ISFSI
NICS
NRC
NUREG
SAMA
SSNM

Agencywide Documents Access Management System
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
U.S. Attorney General
Code of Federal Regulations
combined license
draft regulatory guide
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Register
independent spent fuel storage installation
National Instant Criminal Background Check System
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC technical report designation
severe accident mitigation alternatives
strategic special nuclear material

vi

Abstract
On February 3, 2011, the NRC published in the Federal Register a new proposed rule,
“Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks and Security Event Notifications”
(76 FR 6200), referred to as the enhanced weapons rulemaking. The 2011 proposed rule would
add §§ 73.18 and 73.19 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) and would
modify the existing 10 CFR 73.51. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes
to supplement the proposed regulations related to background checks that support applications
for authorities allowed under Section 161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
(AEA). This document presents a draft regulatory analysis of the supplemental proposed rule
for the enhanced weapons rulemaking (Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15204A313) and the associated Draft Regulatory Guide
(DG) 5020, Revision 1, “Applying for Enhanced-Weapons Authority, Applying for Preemption
Authority, and Performing Firearms Background Checks under 10 CFR Part 73” (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14322A847). In particular, the draft regulatory analysis evaluates the benefits
and costs associated with requiring firearms background checks for only those licensees and
certificate holders that request the authorities allowed under Section 161A of the AEA.

vii

Executive Summary
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed new regulations on
February 3, 2011, (76 FR 6200) that would implement the NRC’s statutory authority of Section
161A of the AEA. The rulemaking is referred to as the enhanced weapons rulemaking.
Subsequently, with the approval of the U.S. Attorney General, the NRC published Revision 1 to
the Firearms Guidelines (Federal Register (FR) notice, 79 FR 36100; June 25, 2014), which
describes the NRC’s statutory authorities and obligations under Section 161A of the AEA. In
particular, the Firearms Guidelines state that only those regulated entities that apply for
Section 161A authorities need to perform background checks through the U.S. Federal Bureau
of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for their
security personnel requiring access to covered weapons (weapons otherwise prohibited by
State, local and other Federal firearms laws). The NRC proposes to supplement the enhanced
weapons rulemaking to reflect the revisions to the Firearms Guidelines.
The supplemental proposed rule results in fewer regulated entities being required to conduct
firearms background checks on their security personnel. In addition, the NRC would need to
process fewer firearms background check submittals. Therefore the supplemental proposed
rule would avert costs to regulated entities (“the industry”) and to the NRC.
The averted costs from the supplemental proposed rule are in the form of implementation
(one-time) and operational (recurring and annual) costs. The supplemental proposed rule would
result in an averted cost estimated between $37.8 million and $56.6 million (at a 7 percent and
3 percent discount rate, respectively). Although the supplemental proposed rule is necessary
because of the revised Firearms Guidelines, it also represents a cost benefit to both the industry
and the NRC.

viii

[Page intentionally left blank.]

ix

1. Introduction
This document presents a draft regulatory analysis of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s (NRC’s) supplemental proposed rule for the enhanced weapons rulemaking
(Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML15204A313) and the associated Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) 5020, Revision 1, “Applying for
Enhanced-Weapons Authority, Applying For Preemption Authority, and Performing Firearms
Background Checks Under 10 CFR Part 73” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14322A847).
A discussion of backfitting for the supplemental proposed rule is presented in Appendix A. The
recommended regulatory action modifies proposed regulations under §§ 73.18, 73.19 and
existing regulations under § 73.51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
related to background checks that support applications for authorities allowed under Section
161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). These authorities (also referred to
as “Section 161A authorities”) include stand-alone preemption authority and combined
enhanced weapons authority and preemption authority.

2. Statement of the Problem and Objective
The NRC staff is proposing regulations that would implement its authority under Section 161A of
the AEA. On September 11, 2009, with the approval of the U.S. Attorney General (AG), the
NRC published the Firearms Guidelines (74 FR 46800). These guidelines describe the NRC’s
statutory authorities and obligations under Section 161A of the AEA. On June 25, 2014, with
the approval of the AG, the NRC published Revision 1 to the Firearms Guidelines (79 FR
36100).
The NRC proposed new regulations on February 3, 2011 (76 FR 6200), that would implement
the NRC’s new statutory authority of Section 161A of the AEA. The NRC staff is now proposing
further revisions to those proposed regulations that will address how to apply for combined
enhanced weapons authority and preemption authority, as well as stand-alone preemption
authority. The revisions also will require firearms background checks for only licensees and
certificate holders who apply for the authorities.

2.1.

Background

Section 161A.d of the AEA provides that the Commission shall, with the approval of the AG,
develop and promulgate guidelines for the implementation of this statute. This includes
preemption authority only or combined preemption and enhanced weapons authority. The
statute also includes provisions for firearms background checks for the security personnel of
those licensees and certificate holders who apply for Section 161A authorities. The enhanced
weapons rulemaking implements the statute. This supplemental proposed rule would conform
the rulemaking with the revised Firearms Guidelines published in the Federal Register on
June 25, 2014 (79 FR 36100).
The NRC staff prepared a draft regulatory analysis for the proposed rule published on
February 3, 2011 (76 FR 6226). Within the draft regulatory analysis, the NRC staff analyzed the
benefits and costs of implementation of Section 161A of the AEA through the proposed
modifications to 10 CFR Part 73 and development of regulatory guidance. Subsequent to the
2011 proposed rule, the NRC supplemented the enhanced weapons rule (78 FR 2218;
January 10, 2013), changing the number of licensees included in the scope and the number of
licensees affected by the firearm background check requirements. The NRC staff updated the
draft regulatory analysis in the 2013 supplemental proposed rule to reflect the addition of

1

at-reactor independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) within the classes of facilities
eligible to apply for Section 161A authorities.
The NRC staff recommends conforming the proposed implementing regulations to the Firearms
Guidelines issued by the Commission, with the approval of the AG. In this draft regulatory
analysis, the NRC staff provides an analysis of only the benefits and costs resulting from the
above-stated supplemental proposed regulations. The NRC staff considers the benefits and
costs for an individual licensee associated with applying for enhanced weapons authority or for
preemption authority to be unchanged from those described by the draft regulatory analysis in
the 2011 proposed rule.

2.2.

Statement of the Problem

On February 3, 2011, the NRC published proposed regulations in the Federal Register
(76 FR 6200) that would implement the provisions of Section 161A. It also made several
changes to the security event notification requirements in 10 CFR Part 73 to address imminent
attacks or threats against power reactors, as well as suspicious events that could indicate
adversaries conducting reconnaissance or surveillance, or challenging security systems.
Subsequent to publication of the 2011 proposed rule, the NRC and the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) revised the Firearms Guidelines. The revision updated background check
requirements such that only those licensees and certificate holders that apply for Section 161A
authority would need to submit information regarding their security personnel for firearms
background checks using NICS. This supplemental proposed rule implements the revisions to
the Firearms Guidelines.
The costs to a single regulated entity that applies for Section 161A authorities would not change
because of this supplement to the proposed enhanced weapons rulemaking. However, the
supplement would reduce the aggregate costs of the proposed regulation, because the NRC
staff expects that only some of the eligible regulated entities will apply for Section 161A
authorities.

2.3.

Objective

The objective of the enhanced weapons rulemaking is to implement the statutory provisions
mandated by Section 161A of the AEA. The proposed enhanced weapons rulemaking would
add 10 CFR 73.18, “Authorization for Use of Enhanced Weapons and Preemption of Firearms
Laws,” and 10 CFR 73.19, “Firearms Background Checks for Armed Security Personnel,” and
would amend 10 CFR 73.51, “Requirements for the Physical Protection of Stored Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.” The supplemental proposed rule would modify the
background check process, which was proposed in Sections 73.18 and 73.19 such that only
those licensees and certificate holders who apply for Section 161A authorities would be required
to conduct firearms background checks for their security personnel requiring access to covered
weapons (weapons otherwise prohibited by State, local and other Federal firearms laws).
The February 2011 proposed enhanced weapons rule and this supplemental proposed rule
apply to: operating power reactor sites; decommissioning power reactor sites; new power
reactor sites licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50 (Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities) or 52 (Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants), planned or
under construction; Category I strategic special nuclear material (SSNM) sites; and ISFSI
co-located at power reactors.

2

3. Identification and Analysis of Alternative Approaches
This rulemaking responds to the statutorily mandated provisions of Section 161A of the AEA
and the direction provided by the Firearms Guidelines, so there are no acceptable alternatives
to rulemaking. Application for combined enhanced weapons authority and preemption authority
or stand-alone preemption authority under Section 161A is voluntary. Also, licensee and
certificate holder compliance with the firearms background checks is conditioned upon the
application for enhanced weapons authority or preemption authority. Thus, it is also considered
voluntary for the purposes of this draft regulatory analysis. This section presents an analysis of
the alternatives that the NRC staff considered in meeting the regulatory objectives identified in
Section 2. The NRC staff considered the relative benefits and costs between the status quo
and this supplement.

3.1.

Alternative 1: No Action to Additionally Supplement the Proposed Rule

Under Alternative 1, the “no-action” alternative would represent the 2011 proposed rule as
supplemented in January 2013. The 2011 proposed rule would designate classes of licensees
and certificate holders as eligible to apply for Section 161A authorities. All licensees and
certificate holders falling within these designated classes would be required to conduct firearms
background checks on their security personnel, whether or not these licensees or certificate
holders intended to apply for Section 161A authorities. Licensees and certificate holders would
incur costs to establish and maintain firearms background check programs and train staff on the
firearms background check process. The NRC would incur costs to process firearms
background checks.
Regulated entities within the designated classes would be required to conduct firearms
background checks for their security personnel once the rule is effective and would need to
resubmit their security personnel for firearms background checks no later than every 3 years to
comply with the proposed regulation. New security personnel would need to have a firearms
background check before being assigned duties requiring access to covered weapons
(weapons otherwise prohibited by State, local and other Federal firearms laws). Firearms
background checks entail completing a fingerprint check and submittal of NRC Form 754 to the
FBI’s NICS system. There is a fee for each NRC Form 754 submittal (used for firearms
background checks). In addition, regulated entities would be required to provide firearms
background check process training to their security personnel once the rule is effective and in
accordance with their Firearms Background Check Plan (NRC staff expects annual refresher
training). Finally, regulated entities will notify the NRC of events that disqualify their security
personnel from access to covered weapons and keep records of staff removed from access to
covered weapons.
The NRC will receive the NRC Form 754 submittals and transmit them to the FBI for the NICS
check. The NRC also will communicate the result of the NICS check to the licensee. On an
ongoing basis, the NRC will maintain the firearms background check program which includes
processing the 3-year renewals of licensee firearms background checks. Finally, the NRC will
review the notifications by regulated entities of events that disqualify their security personnel
from access to covered weapons.
However, in this alternative the NRC would not comply with the mandated obligations of
Section 161A of the AEA, as specified by the Firearms Guidelines. Under this alternative, the
requirements from the 2011 proposed rule would be codified, which would not conform to the
2014 Firearms Guidelines. For example, under this alternative all regulated entities eligible to
apply for Section 161A authorities would be required to conduct firearms background checks.
3

This alternative would also result in costs to licensees and certificate holders in the designated
classes that do not apply for Section 161A authorities, by requiring them to conduct firearms
background checks.

3.2.

Alternative 2: Amend the Proposed Rule, as Currently Supplemented, To
Modify Background Check Requirements related to Section 161A
Authorities

Under this alternative, the NRC would supplement the 2011 proposed rule by changing the
firearms background check requirements to comply with the 2014 Firearms Guidelines. This
change would affect the provisions in 10 CFR 73.18, “Authorization for Use of Enhanced
Weapons and Preemption of Firearms Laws,” 10 CFR 73.19, “Firearms Background Checks for
Armed Security Personnel,” and 10 CFR 73.51, “Requirements for the Physical Protection of
Stored Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.” Specifically, the supplemental
proposed rule would modify the firearms background check process such that only those
licensees and certificate holders who apply for Section 161A authorities would be required to
submit security personnel for firearms background checks. Also, periodic firearms background
checks would be required at least once every 5 years; rather than every 3 years. This
alternative differs from Alternative 1 in the number of affected regulated entities and the
frequency of periodic firearms background checks. The NRC staff does not anticipate a large
number of applicants for Section 161A authorities. Therefore under the supplemental proposed
rule, only a fraction of the licensees and certificate holders in the designated classes would
incur costs. For the purposes of this draft regulatory analysis, the NRC staff assumes that
seven sites with operating reactors, one decommissioning reactor site, and two Category I
SSNM sites apply for Section 161A authorities (See Section 4.2.2 for a discussion of this
assumption).
Costs to individual applicants for Section 161A authority are unchanged as a result of this
supplemental proposed rule. The supplemental proposed rule would avert costs to regulated
entities that do not apply for Section 161A authorities. Regulated entities that do not apply for
Section 161A authority would not need to submit applications for Section 161A authority to the
NRC, conduct firearms background checks for their security personnel, develop a Firearms
Background Check Plan, maintain a firearms background check program, or provide firearms
background check training for their security personnel.
As a result of the supplemental proposed rule, the NRC and the FBI also would avert costs
compared to the 2011 proposed rule. The NRC and FBI would process fewer initial and 5-year
renewal submittals of NRC Form 754. Finally, the NRC will review fewer notifications by
regulated entities of events that disqualify their security personnel from access to covered
weapons.
Other regulatory activities associated with the enhanced weapons rulemaking, such as applying
for Section 161A authorities and updating implementation procedures and inspection
procedures, are unchanged as a result of this supplemental proposed rule, and therefore are
not included in this analysis. The draft regulatory analysis performed to support the 2011
proposed rule assessed those benefits and costs and they will be updated and included in the
regulatory analysis that accompanies the final rule.

4

4. Evaluation of Benefits and Costs
This section evaluates the incremental benefits and costs expected to result from this
supplemental proposed rulemaking when compared to the no-action alternative, and are
presented in two subsections. Section 4.1 identifies attributes that the rulemaking is expected
to affect. Section 4.2 describes the method used to evaluate benefits and costs.

4.1.

Identification of Affected Attributes

This rulemaking is expected to affect the following attributes. Their impacts are quantified
where possible. An uncertainty analysis is performed to report benefit and cost estimate
confidence levels and to identify those variables that most affect the variation in the results
distribution. Impacts to security-related attributes are considered qualitatively because
estimates of occurrences of possible attacks and their successful repulsions are unknown.
•

Industry Implementation — As a result of the supplemental proposed rule, regulated
entities that do not apply for Section 161A authorities would no longer have to take
certain actions to comply with the new regulation. The regulated entities would no
longer need to:
o

Read and understand the regulation;

o

Develop a Firearms Background Check Plan;

o

Submit an NRC Form 754 for each security staff member assigned to duties
requiring access to covered weapons;

o

Develop and deliver initial training on the background check process; and

The regulated entities also would not incur costs because of the fee charged for each
NRC Form 754 submitted to NICS.
•

Industry Operation—The supplemental proposed requirements would avert operational
costs for licensees and certificate holders that do not apply for Section 161A authorities,
because they would no longer need to:
o

Resubmit their security personnel for firearms background checks every 5 years;

o

Submit information regarding new security staff for firearms background checks on
an ongoing basis;

o

Update and provide recurring training on the firearms background check process;

o

Maintain records of staff removed from access to covered weapons; and
o

•

Notify the NRC of events that disqualify their staff from access to covered
weapons.

NRC Implementation—The NRC would avert implementation costs as a result of the
supplemental proposed rule because the NRC would need to process fewer NRC

5

Form 754 submittals. However, the NRC would incur additional costs to prepare and
issue this supplemental proposed rule and to revise and update guidance on the
background check process. As a result of the supplemental proposed rule, the NRC
developed draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-5020, Revision 1, “Applying for Enhanced
Weapons Authority, Applying for Preemption Authority, and Accomplishing Firearms
Background Checks under 10 CFR Part 73” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14322A847).
•

NRC Operation—The NRC would avert operational costs under the supplemental
proposed rule because fewer licensees would be required to provide NRC Form 754
submittals every year for new security personnel or for 5-year renewed firearms
background checks. The NRC would also avert costs related to reviewing notifications
of security personnel disqualified from access to covered weapons.

•

Other Government Agencies—The FBI averts costs as a result of this proposed
supplemental rule because it would need to process fewer firearms background checks.
The fee charged to regulated entities for the processing of each NRC Form 754
represents the costs of the NRC and the FBI to process a NICS check. The cost averted
is reflected under the Industry Implementation and Industry Operation attributes.

•

Safeguards and Security Considerations—The proposed regulations will comply with
statutory requirements and provide high assurance that public health and safety, and the
common defense and security, will be enhanced because of licensees’ and certificate
holders’ increased defensive capability to interdict, neutralize, or potentially deter an
attack. This supplemental proposed rule does not alter or limit the added defensive
capabilities proposed under the enhanced weapons proposed rule. Therefore, the
benefit of the supplemental proposed rule related to safeguards and security
considerations is reflected in the cost savings to the NRC and industry.

•

Regulatory Efficiency—The proposed action would reduce the number of firearms
background checks required of the industry, and thereby enhance regulatory efficiency.
Without the supplemental proposed rule, all regulated entities in the designated classes
would have been required to submit firearms background checks. Under this
supplemental proposed rule, only those regulated entities that apply for Section161A
authorities would conduct firearms background checks. The averted costs to the NRC
and the industry reflect the quantitative benefit of the supplemental proposed rule related
to regulatory efficiency. No additional regulatory efficiency gains or costs were identified
for this draft regulatory analysis.

Attributes that are not expected to be affected by this rulemaking include: public health
(accident and routine); occupational health (accident and routine); offsite property; onsite
property; general public; improvements in knowledge; antitrust considerations; environmental
considerations; and other considerations.

4.2.

Analytical Method

This section describes the process used to evaluate benefits and costs associated with the
supplemental proposed rule. The benefits of the supplemental proposed rule include any
desirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary savings, improved safety, improved
security) while the costs include any undesirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary
costs, increased exposures). This draft regulatory analysis was developed following the

6

guidance contained in NUREG/BR-0058, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission,” Revision 4, issued September 2004 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML042820192) and NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6, “United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Regulations Handbook,” 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052720461).
The analysis evaluates four attributes⎯industry implementation, industry operation, NRC
implementation, and NRC operation⎯on a quantitative basis. Quantitative analysis requires a
baseline characterization of the affected universe, including characterization of factors such as
the number of affected entities and the application process that licensees would use as a result
of the supplemental proposed rule. Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 describe the analytical method
and assumptions used in the quantitative and qualitative analysis of these attributes.
4.2.1.

Baseline for Analysis

This draft regulatory analysis measures the incremental costs of the final rule relative to a
“baseline” that reflects anticipated behavior in the event the NRC undertakes no additional
regulatory action (Alternative 1, the “no-action” alternative). As part of the regulatory baseline
used in this analysis, the NRC staff assumes full licensee compliance with existing NRC
regulations and the proposed enhanced weapons rule, as supplemented in January 2013. This
alternative is equivalent to the status quo and serves as a baseline against which other
alternatives may be measured. Section 5 presents the estimated incremental benefits and
costs of the supplemental proposed rule relative to this baseline.
4.2.2.

Affected Entities

The NRC staff estimates that 67 sites with regulated entities would be eligible to apply for
Section 161A authorities under the supplemental proposed rule. However, the NRC staff does
not anticipate all eligible regulated entities to apply. Under the supplemental proposed rule, the
regulated entities that do not apply for Section 161A authorities would experience averted costs
related to firearms background checks. Therefore, those regulated entities that do not apply
represent a cost-savings with regard to the implementation of the supplemental proposed rule.
This draft regulatory analysis assesses the averted costs for those eligible regulated entities that
do not apply for Section 161A authorities.
The enhanced weapons rulemaking applies to sites with:
•

operating power reactors (single or multiunit);

•

projected new power reactors for which a combined license (COL) already has been
issued under 10 CFR Part 52 (i.e., Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 and
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4);

•

power reactors under active construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license (i.e., Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2);

•

decommissioning reactors;

7

•

Category I strategic special nuclear material facilities (e.g., Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear
Operations Group Inc. (B&W) and Nuclear Fuel Services); and

•

at-reactor ISFSIs1.

Appendix B to this analysis presents more information on the sites affected by the supplemental
proposed rule, including information on the categorization of the individual sites.
Assumptions Related to Affected Entities
In keeping with the assumptions made in the draft regulatory analysis for the original proposed
rule, other potential new reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 522 and small modular reactors,
are not included in this analysis. In the case that additional 10 CFR Part 52 applicants are
issued licenses, the regulatory analysis for the final rule will reflect that change.
A multiunit site uses the same security personnel to protect each unit. This also applies to sites
with a mixed set of regulated entities. For example, the same staff using the same weapons will
protect an operating reactor as well as a decommissioning reactor at the same site. In
particular, at-reactor ISFSIs are by definition associated with a power reactor site, so at-reactor
ISFSIs are not treated as separate entities in this draft regulatory analysis. The draft regulatory
analysis evaluates the incremental costs of the final rule on a site (67) basis rather than on a
regulated entity basis. This is because it is typical for each the licensees and certificate holder
at a certain site to request Section 161A authorities at the same time, since security personnel
are usually fungible between facilities at a site. For each type of site included in the analysis,
Table 4-1 under “Applicability Period of the Supplemental Proposed Rule” presents the number
of sites and the average number of years that sites are expected to be subject to the final rule
requirements (i.e., final rule applicability period).
In estimating benefits and costs, the NRC staff classified sites with more than one type of
reactor under the site category with the longest final rule applicability period. For example, a
site with one operating reactor and one or more decommissioning reactor(s) is categorized as a
“site with only reactors that are in commercial operation” because the final rule applicability
period for an operating reactor exceeds the period for a reactor that already is
decommissioning.
Eligible Regulated Entities That Do Not Apply for Section 161A Authorities
The NRC staff expects that 56 out of 67 of the eligible regulated entities will not apply for
Section 161A authorities, as follows:

1

2

At-reactor ISFSIs are defined in the January 10, 2013 supplemental proposed rule (78 FR 2214) to be those
ISFSIs whose physical security program is conducted as a support activity of the co-located power reactor
facility licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50 or 52.
The Bellefonte Nuclear Power Station is not included in this analysis because the site will not be affected by
the final rule. The site. It does not have any operating units, it has no fuel on site, and new construction is
indefinitely delayed. Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 are under the Commission Policy Statement on Deferred
Plants (52 FR 38077; October 14, 1987). Fermi, Unit 3 is not included in this draft analysis because as of
December 23, 2014, no license has been issued. If the license is issued during the final rule phase of the
enhanced weapons rulemaking, the regulatory analysis will be updated accordingly.

8

•

Operating power reactor sites—As of January 2015, 58 operating power reactor sites
would be eligible to apply for Section 161A authorities and of those 58 sites, six
requested standalone preemption authority via confirmatory order. From informal
discussions with regulated entities, the NRC anticipates that one more regulated entity
may apply for Section 161A authorities. Restated, the NRC staff assumes in the draft
regulatory analysis that 51 operating power reactor sites would not apply for Section
161A authorities.

•

Projected new power reactors for which a COL already has been issued under 10 CFR
Part 52—The two sites in this category did not seek Section 161A authority via
confirmatory order. Therefore, the NRC staff assumes in the draft regulatory analysis
that neither COL site licensee would apply for Section 161A authorities.

•

Power reactors under active construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license—Watts Bar
did not seek Section 161A authority via confirmatory order. Therefore, the NRC staff
assumes in the draft regulatory analysis that Watts Bar will not apply for Section 161A
authorities.

•

Decommissioning reactors—One out of four decommissioning sites requested Section
161A authority via confirmatory order. Therefore, the NRC staff assumes in the draft
regulatory analysis that the other three decommissioning sites will not apply for Section
161A authorities.

•

Category I Strategic Special Nuclear Material facilities—The two sites in this category
are fuel fabrication facilities for the U.S. Navy. B&W Nuclear Operations Group Inc.
applied for Section 161A authority via confirmatory order. Because of the affiliation of
the sites in this category to the military, the NRC staff assumes in this draft regulatory
analysis that Nuclear Fuel Services Inc., also will apply for Section 161A authorities
eventually. Restated, in the regulatory analysis both Category I SSNM sites are
assumed to apply for Section 161A authorities.

Applicability Period of the Supplemental Proposed Rule
The supplemental proposed rule applicability period was derived as follows:
•

Sites with Only Reactors That Are in Commercial Operation—The supplemental
proposed rule applicability period for this type of site is estimated to be 34 years. This
estimate is based on the sum of the average remaining operating license term across
sites of this type and then adding a 15-year decommissioning period. For each site, the
NRC staff identified the operating reactor unit with the latest license expiration date.3
The NRC staff then used that license expiration date to calculate the remaining
operating life for the site. For example, for a site where the last unit license expiration
date will occur in 2017, the calculated remaining operating life would be three years

3

Based on information obtained from NRC, NUREG-1350, Volume 25, “2013-2014 Information Digest
(NUREG-1350, Volume 25), ",” Appendix H: “U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Operating Licenses
- Expiration by Year,
2013–2049," August 2013. Available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/,
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1324/ML13241A207.pdf, last accessed on July 7, 2014.

9

(i.e., 2015, 2016, and 2017). The NRC staff assumed that all operating licenses go to
term with the exception of: (1) early terminations already announced (i.e., Vermont
Yankee terminated commercial operation in December 2014 and Oyster Creek plans to
terminate commercial operation in 2019), and (2) license renewal applications already
under consideration (i.e., Indian Point Nuclear Generating) are assumed that they will be
granted. Using the calculated remaining operating license term for each site, the
average remaining operating license term across all sites was calculated. Finally, a
15-year decommissioning period was added. (Refer to “Sites with Only Reactors That
Are Decommissioning” for information on the derivation of the 15-year decommissioning
period.)
•

Sites with Both Operating Reactors and Projected New Reactors under a 10 CFR
Part 52 License—The supplemental proposed rule applicability period for this type of site
is estimated to be 59 years. This estimate is based on the sum of the average estimated
remaining operating life across all sites and then adding a 15-year decommissioning
period. For each site, the NRC staff identified the reactor unit with the latest license
expiration date.4 The NRC staff then used that license expiration date to calculate the
remaining operating life for the site. The NRC staff assumed that all licenses go to term.
After calculating the remaining operating life for each site, the NRC staff then calculated
the average remaining operating life across all sites. Finally, the NRC staff added a
15-year decommissioning period. (Refer to “Sites with Only Reactors That Are
Decommissioning” for information on the derivation of the 15-year decommissioning
period.)

•

Sites with Both Operating Reactors and Reactors under Active Construction under a
10 CFR Part 50 License—The supplemental proposed rule applicability period for this
type of site is estimated to be 55 years. This estimate is based on the remaining
operating life of the only site with reactors under active construction under a 10 CFR
Part 50 license (i.e., the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant) and then adding a 15-year
decommissioning period. (Refer to “Sites with Only Reactors That Are

4

Based on information obtained from NRC, NUREG-1350, Volume 25, “2013-2014 Information Digest
(NUREG-1350, Volume 25), ",” Appendix H: U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Operating
Licenses - Expiration by Year, 2013–2049," August 2013. Available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
Based on information obtained from NRC, NUREG-1350, Volume 25, “2013-2014 Information Digest
(NUREG-1350, Volume 25), ",” Appendix A: “U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Operating
Reactors under Active Construction or Deferred Policy," August 2013. Available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/,Available at:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1324/ML13241A207.pdf, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
For a 10 CFR Part 52 license, the 40-year term of the license does not begin until after the 10 CFR
52.103(g) finding, which occurs after construction is completed. Summer Units 2 and 3 are expected to
begin commercial operation in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are expected to begin
commercial operation in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
Kewaunee permanently ceased commercial operation on May 7, 2013. The site expects to have all spent
fuel transferred from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI by the end of year 2016 (e.g., transfer within 4 years of
ceasing commercial operation). Crystal River permanently ceased commercial operation on February 20,
2013, and transferred fuel from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool. The site expects to have all spent
fuel transferred from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI by the end of year 2019 (e.g., transfer within 6 years of
ceasing commercial operation). Based on these representative plans, it is reasonable to estimate that
licenses will transfer all spent fuel to ISFSI (e.g., dry cask storage) within 15 years of ceasing commercial
operation.

10

Decommissioning” for information on the derivation of the 15-year decommissioning
period.)
•

Sites with Only Reactors That Are Decommissioning—The supplemental proposed rule
applicability period for this type of site is estimated to be 15 years. This estimate is
based on information on time periods contained in Irradiated Fuel Transfer Plans
submitted, under 10 CFR 50.54(bb), by licensees that shutdown their reactor units
earlier than the expiration of their license term.5

•

Sites with Category I Strategic Special Nuclear Material—The supplemental proposed
rule applicability period for this type of site is estimated to be 33 years. This estimate is
based on the assumption that these facilities (fuel fabrication facilities for the U.S. Navy)
will continue to operate for the remainder of their current license plus a period for
decommissioning. The two facilities have 13 and 24 years remaining on their current
renewed licenses. For this analysis, an average of the remaining license periods, or
18 years, was used. The decommissioning period used was the same as the period for
operating reactors, or 15 years. This is a conservative assumption because the
Category I SSNM facilities are smaller in size and use isotopes with shorter half-lives
than operating reactors, therefore it is likely the decommissioning periods for these
facilities will be shorter than an operating reactors.

5

Kewaunee permanently ceased commercial operation on May 7, 2013. The site expects to have all spent
fuel transferred from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI by the end of year 2016 (e.g., transfer within 4 years of
ceasing commercial operation). Crystal River permanently ceased commercial operation on
February 20, 2013, and transferred fuel from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool. The site expects to
have all spent fuel transferred from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI by the end of year 2019 (e.g., transfer
within 6 years of ceasing commercial operation). Based on these representative plans, it is reasonable to
estimate that licenses will transfer all spent fuel to ISFSI (e.g., dry cask storage) within 15 years of ceasing
commercial operation.

11

Table 4-1. U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Affected by the Final Rule a

Number
of Sites

Number of
Sites that do
not apply for
Section 161A
Authorities

Final Rule
Applicability
Period (years) c

Sites with only reactors that are in commercial
operation

58

47

34

Sites with both operating reactors and projected
new reactors under a 10 CFR Part 52 license

2

1

59

Sites with both operating reactors and reactors
under active construction under a 10 CFR Part 50
license

1

0

55

Sites with only reactors that are in
decommissioning

4

3

15

Sites with Category I Strategic Special Nuclear
Materials

2

0

39

67

51

Not applicable

Type of Site b

Total
a

Sites with more than one type of reactor were included under the site category with the longest final rule
applicability period. Refer to Appendix B for information on the categorization of the individual sites.

b

Sources:
NRC, “Operating Nuclear Power Reactors (by Location or Name)” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as of
March 19, 2014. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, 2013-2014 Information Digest (NUREG-1350, Volume 25), Appendix H “U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power
Reactor Operating Licenses - Expiration by Year, 2013–2049,” August 2013. Available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, “Combined License Applications for New Reactors” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as of July 1, 2014.
Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, 2013-2014 Information Digest (NUREG-1350, Volume 25), Appendix A “U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power
Reactors - Operating Reactors under Active Construction or Deferred Policy,” August 2013. Available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, “Locations of Power Reactor Sites Undergoing Decommissioning” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as of
April 24, 2014. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/, last accessed on
July 7, 2014.
NRC, “Locations of Major U.S. Fuel Cycle Facilities” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as of March 29, 2012.
Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/fuel-cycle/, last accessed September 27, 2014.
c

The final rule applicability periods for operating reactor sites, reactor sites under construction and Category I SSNM
sites includes 15 years for a decommissioning period.

Sign Conventions
The sign convention used in this analysis is that all favorable consequences for the alternative
are positive and all adverse consequences for the alternative are negative. Negative values are
shown using parentheses (e.g., negative $500 is displayed as ($500)).
Labor Rates
In estimating the incremental costs of the supplemental proposed rule, the analysis uses two
hourly labor rates that include salary, fringe benefits (e.g., paid leave and health benefits), and
other overhead (e.g., payroll costs):

12

The average labor rate for licensee staff is estimated to be $125 per hour.6
The labor rate for NRC staff is estimated to be $124 per hour.7

•
•

Both average labor rates are in 2016 dollars.
4.2.3.

Assumptions

This subsection discusses the analysis of the costs associated with the implementation of the
supplemental proposed rule. The analysis employs the following assumptions and
considerations:
•

All licensees are assumed to be in full compliance with the existing baseline
requirements and the requirements in the 2011 proposed rule as modified by the 2013
supplemental proposed rule. The costs to comply with the baseline requirements are
not expected to change with the supplemental proposed rule. Therefore, this analysis
only presents the incremental costs associated with the supplemental proposed rule
changes.

•

All costs presented in this subsection are in 2016 dollars.

•

Implementation costs are assumed to be incurred as early as 2016. Eligible licensees
and certificate holders may apply for Section 161A authorities once the final rule is
effective, on a voluntary basis. The NRC staff assumes in this draft regulatory analysis
that the final rule will be effective in 2016 and that all applications are submitted at that
time. This is a conservative assumption because the regulated entities more likely will
submit applications over time.

•

Licensees will incur costs over the final rule applicability period, as presented in
Table 4-1. The actual time period that each site will be operated will depend on the
term of the operating license, and on whether the licensee chooses to operate the site
for the duration of the licensed period.

•

The costs incurred in each year of the analysis are discounted to the present using a
7-percent and 3-percent discount rate, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4,
“Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” (See
Section 5 for these results.)

6

Based on data developed from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for “Security Guards” (Standard Occupational
Code 33-9032), “Power Plant Operators, Distributors, and Dispatchers” (Standard Occupational Code 51-8010)
and for “Nuclear Power Reactor Operators” (Standard Occupational Code 51-8011), hourly labor rates for
industry range from about $58 to $102. Based on NRC review of licensee cost estimates for the Indian Point
Nuclear Generating severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) submittal, the non-manual labor category
labor rates (covers system engineers, project managers, health physics and radiation protection workers) ranged
between $100 and $120 per hour (2014 dollars). As a conservative assumption and to adjust to 2016 dollars,
this analysis uses an hourly labor rate of $125.

7

NRC, [email protected], "“NRC Labor Rates for Use in 2015 Regulatory Analyses (as of October 2014),"),”
October 29, 2014.

13

•

Based on the NRC Form 754 submittals from the six sites that requested Section 161A
authorities via confirmatory orders, the NRC staff made the following estimates of the
number of security personnel at each category of site:
•

On average each operating power reactor and new reactor (planned and under
construction) site employs 200 security personnel. This is based on averaging
the number of NRC Form 754 submittals over the 6 sites that requested
Section 161A authorities via confirmatory orders.

•

On average each Category I SSNM site employs 250 security personnel. This is
based on the 200 personnel on average at operating reactor sites plus
50 additional personnel for tactical teams.

•

On average, each decommissioning site employs 100 security personnel, which
is based on half of the number at operating power reactors.

4.2.4.

Per Site Costs Averted by Cost Category

For purposes of this analysis, the costs averted under the supplemental proposed rule were
categorized as follows:
•
implementation (one-time) costs averted for the industry
•
implementation (one-time) costs averted for the NRC
•
recurring and annual costs averted for the industry
•
recurring and annual costs averted for the NRC
The remainder of this subsection describes the derivation of the estimated per site costs averted
for each of the cost categories.
4.2.4.1.

Industry Implementation Costs Averted

As a result of the supplemental proposed rule, regulated entities would no longer be required to
take the following one-time actions once the enhanced weapons rulemaking is effective:
(1) read and understand the supplemental proposed rule, (2) develop and submit a Firearms
Background Check Plan, (3) conduct firearms background checks on security personnel using
NRC Form 754, and train security personnel on the firearms background check process. To
assess averted costs, the analysis employs the following assumptions that reflect labor and
costs a regulated entity would no longer incur as a result of the supplemental proposed rule:
•

On average, a site would avert 32 hours of licensee staff time to read and understand
the supplemental proposed rule. This reflects two staff members spending 16 hours
each reading the supplemental proposed rule and associated guidance.

•

A site would incur labor to develop and submit a Firearms Background Check Plan. The
NRC estimates that a site would avert on average 350 hours to develop and submit a
Firearms Background Check Plan which is based on two months of productive hours
(2,080 productive hours per year x 1/6 of a year).
A site would incur labor to submit security personnel for firearms background checks
using NRC Form 754. The NRC staff estimates that each NRC Form 754 submittal
would use 2 hours of staff time (0.5 hours for security personnel to complete the form
and 1.5 hours to process and submit the form). For operating power reactor and new

14

reactor sites, this results in 400 hours of staff time averted (200 personnel x 2 hours =
400 hours). For decommissioning reactor sites, this results in 200 hours of staff time
averted (100 personnel x 2 hours = 200 hours).
•

A site would incur a fee for each NRC Form 754 submitted. The fee charged for the
confirmatory orders was $70 per form. For operating power reactor and new reactor
sites, this results in $14,000 averted costs due to fees (200 personnel x $70 per form
= $14,000). For decommissioning reactor sites, this results in $7,000 averted costs due
to fees (100 personnel x $70 per form = $7,000).

•

Based on the experience with the NRC Form 754 submittals related to the confirmatory
orders, the NRC estimates that 1 percent of the submittals would receive a delayed or
denied response, which would result in additional processing labor of 8 hours per form
on average. For operating power reactor and new reactor sites, this results in 16 hours
of staff time averted (200 personnel x 1% of submittals x 8 hours = 16 hours). For
decommissioning reactor sites, this results in 8 hours of staff time averted (100
personnel x 1 percent of submittals x 8 hours = 8 hours).

•

On average, a site would use 60 hours of staff time to develop the initial training for the
firearms background checks. The training would address the firearms background
check process including actions security personnel can take in the event of a delayed or
denied NICS result. The NRC staff estimates that the training would last about 1 hour
and it takes about 60 hours to develop and receive approval for each hour of a training
course.
A site would deliver initial firearms background check training to all of their security
personnel. Operating and new power reactor sites would use on average 200 hours to
conduct initial training (200 security personnel x 1 hour training = 200 hours).
Decommissioning power reactor sites would use on average 100 hours to conduct initial
training (100 security personnel x 1 hour training = 100 hours).

•

Table 4-2 shows the estimated Industry implementation costs averted per site, by type of site.
Table 4-2. Estimated Industry Implementation Costs Averted, per Site (2016 Dollars)
One-Time Cost
to the Industry c

Type of Site
Sites with only reactors that are in commercial
operation a

$146,000

Sites with both operating reactors and projected new
reactors under a 10 CFR Part 52 license a

$146,000

Sites with both operating reactors and reactors under
active construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license a

$146,000

Sites with only reactors that are in decommissioning b

$101,000

a

One-time cost averted for industry for operating and new reactor sites = [32+350+400+16+60+200=1,058
hours] x [$124/hour]+[$14,000 in fees].

b

One-time cost averted for Industry for decommissioning reactor sites = [32+350+200+8+60+100=750
hours] x [$124/hour]+[$7,000 in fees].

c

Costs in the table are rounded to three significant figures.

15

4.2.4.2.

NRC Implementation Costs Averted and Incurred

As a result of the supplemental proposed rule, the NRC will avert costs related to processing the
firearms background checks. The NRC would also incur costs to develop and publish the
supplemental proposed rule and to update associated guidance. To assess benefits and costs,
the analysis employs the following assumptions that reflect labor the NRC would avert or incur
as a result of the supplemental proposed rule:
•

The NRC would avert labor to process firearms background checks using NRC Form
754. The NRC uploads forms to the FBI and communicates the result back to the
regulated entity. Based on the experience with the NRC Form 754 submittals related to
the confirmatory orders, the NRC staff estimates that the NRC would expend 8 minutes
per form (5 minutes to upload, and 3 minutes to communicate the result to the licensee).
NRC processing time is the same for approved, delayed, or denied NICS responses.
For operating power reactor and new reactor sites, this results in 27 hours of staff time
averted (200 personnel x 8 minutes per form / 60 minutes per hour = 27 hours). For
decommissioning reactor sites, this results in 13 hours of staff time averted
(100 personnel x 8 minutes per form / 60 minutes per hour = 13 hours).

•

Compared to the no-action alternative, the NRC would incur costs related to developing
and publishing the supplemental proposed rule. Based on the number of hours already
expended by NRC staff on the enhanced weapons rulemaking, the NRC staff estimates
1,000 hours develop and publish the second supplemental proposed rule and associated
guidance.

Table 4-3 shows the estimated NRC implementation costs averted per site, by type of site.
Table 4-3. Estimated NRC Implementation Costs Averted (2016 Dollars)
One-Time Cost to the NRC d

Type of Site
All Sites a

($124,000)

Sites with only reactors that are
in commercial operation, per site b

$3,310

Sites with both operating reactors and projected new
reactors under a 10 CFR Part 52 license, per site b

$3,310

Sites with both operating reactors and reactors
under active construction under a Part 10 CFR 50
license, per site b

$3,310

Sites with only reactors that are
in decommissioning, per site c

$1,650

a

One-time costs incurred for NRC related to developing and publishing the supplemental proposed rule =
[1,000 hours ] x [$124/hour].

b

One-time cost averted for NRC for operating and new reactor sites = [27 hours] x [$124/hour].
One-time cost averted for NRC for decommissioning reactor sites = [13 hours ] x [$124/hour].
Costs in the table are rounded to three significant figures.

c
d

16

4.2.4.3.

Industry Recurring and Annual Costs Averted

As a result of the supplemental proposed rule, regulated entities would avert costs associated
with maintaining their Firearms Background Check Plan. The actions regulated entities would
no longer be required to take are:
•

re-submitting security personnel for firearms background checks every 5 years;

•

submitting firearms background checks for new staff;

•

training staff annually on the firearms background check process;

•

submitting notifications to the NRC of events that would disqualify security personnel
from access to covered weapons; and

•

maintaining records of staff removed from access to covered weapons.

To assess averted costs, the analysis employs the following assumptions, which reflect labor
and fees a regulated entity would no longer incur as a result of the supplemental proposed rule:
•

A site would avert labor costs in resubmitting security personnel for firearms background
checks using NRC Form 754 at least every 5 years, which would be a regulatory
requirement. The regulated entities would therefore avert the same costs every 5 years
as for the initial firearms background checks. For operating power reactor and new
reactor sites, this results in 400 hours of staff time averted every 5 years (200 personnel
x 2 hours to complete and process NRC Form 754 = 400 hours). For decommissioning
reactor sites, this results in 200 hours of staff time averted every 5 years (100 personnel
x 2 hours = 200 hours).

•

A site would avert a fee for each NRC Form 754 submitted for the 5-year resubmittals.
The fee charged for the confirmatory orders was $70 per form. For operating power
reactor and new reactor sites, this results in $14,000 averted costs due to fees every 5
years (200 personnel x $70 per form = $14,000). For decommissioning reactor sites,
this results in $7,000 averted costs due to fees every 5 years (100 personnel x $70 per
form = $7,000).

•

Based on the experience with the NRC Form 754 submittals related to the confirmatory
orders, the NRC estimates that 1 percent of the initial submittals would receive a
delayed or denied response, which would average 8 hours of additional processing
labor. The NRC estimates that the rate of delayed or denied NICS responses for the
5-year renewals would be much lower (0.1 percent) because the initial checks would
identify disqualified staff. Annually, these responses result in negligible costs averted.
However, the cost averted is factored into the 5-year resubmittals. For operating power
reactor and new reactor sites, this results in 1.6 hours of staff time averted (200
personnel x 0.1 percent of submittals x 8 hours = 1.6 hours). For decommissioning
reactor sites, this results in 200 hours of staff time averted (100 personnel x 0.1 percent
of submittals x 8 hours = 0.8 hours).

•

Based on elicitation from NRC staff with expertise in security staffing at regulated
entities, 5 percent of the security personnel turnover on average each year. Sites would

17

avert costs related to conducting firearms background checks on new staff hired each
year to fill vacancies. For operating power reactor and new reactor sites, this results in
20 hours of staff time averted each year (200 personnel x 5 percent x 2 hours to
complete and process NRC Form 754 = 20 hours). For decommissioning reactor sites,
this results in 10 hours of staff time averted each year (100 personnel x 5 percent x 2
hours to complete and process NRC Form 754 = 10 hours).
•

A site would avert fees related to conducting firearms background checks for new
employees each year. For operating power reactor and new reactor sites, this results in
$700 of averted fees each year (200 personnel x 5 percent turnover x $70 per NRC
Form 754 = $700). For decommissioning reactor sites, this results in $350 of averted
fees each year (100 personnel x 5 percent x $70 per NRC Form 754 = $350).

•

A site would average 30 hours of staff time each year to update the initial firearms
background check training. The update would address changes to the firearms
background check process. The NRC staff estimates that updating the training would
take about half the time it takes to develop initial training. (60 hours x 0.5 = 30 hours).

•

A site would deliver firearms background check training annually to all of its security
personnel (new and existing). Operating and new power reactor sites would average
200 hours in annual training (200 security personnel x 1 hour training = 200 hours).
Decommissioning power reactor sites would average 100 hours in annual training
(100 security personnel x 1 hour training = 100 hours).

Every fifth year, the costs averted by a site differs from the other years due to the 5-year
resubmittals of firearms background checks. Costs averted in years without the 5-year
resubmittals (years 2 through 5 after the effective date of the rule, years 7 through 10, etc.)
include costs related to new employee firearms background checks, and updating and
delivering training. For operating power reactor and new reactor sites, this results in 250 hours
of staff time averted each year (20 + 30 + 200 hours = 250 hours) and $700 in fees. For
decommissioning reactor sites, this results in 140 hours of staff time averted each year (10 + 30
+ 100 hours = 140 hours) and $3,500 in fees. Costs during the years that 5-year resubmittals
are conducted (years 6, 11, etc.) include conducting firearms background checks, and updating
and delivering training. For operating power reactor and new reactor sites, this results in
632 hours of staff time averted each year (400 + 1.6 + 30 + 200 hours = 632 hours, rounded to
the nearest whole number of hours) and $14,000 in fees. For decommissioning reactor sites,
this results in 331 hours of staff time averted each year (200 + 0.8 + 30 + 100 hours = 331
hours, rounded to the nearest whole number of hours) and $7,000 in fees.
Table 4-4 shows the estimated Industry recurring and annual costs averted per site, by type of
site.

18

Table 4-4. Estimated Industry Recurring and Annual Costs Averted, per Site
(2016 Dollars)
Annual Cost to the
Industry
(years without 5-year
renewals) e

Recurring and Annual
Cost to the Industry
(years with 5-year
renewals) e

Sites with only reactors that are in commercial
operation a,b

$32,000

$93,000

Sites with both operating reactors and projected
new reactors under a 10 CFR Part 52 license a,b

$32,000

$93,000

Sites with both operating reactors and reactors
under active construction under a 10 CFR Part
50 license a,b

$32,000

$93,000

Sites with only reactors that are in
decommissioning c,d

$17,900

$48,400

Type of Site

a

Annual costs averted for operating and new reactor sites = [250 hours] x [$124/hour]+[$700 in fees].

b

Recurring and annual costs averted for operating and new reactor sites = [632 hours] x [$124/hour] + [$14,000 in fees].

c

Annual costs averted for decommissioning reactor sites = [140 hours] x [$124/hour] + [$350 in fees].

d

Recurring and annual costs averted for Industry for decommissioning reactor sites = [331 hours] x [$124/hour] + [$7,000
in fees].

e

Costs in the table are rounded to three significant figures.

4.2.4.4.

NRC Recurring Costs Averted

As a result of the supplemental proposed rule, the NRC would avert costs associated with
processing firearms background checks each year. To assess averted costs, the analysis
employs the following assumptions, which reflect labor the NRC would no longer incur each
year as a result of the supplemental proposed rule:
•

At least every 5 years, the NRC would incur labor to process firearms background checks
resubmitted using NRC Form 754 by regulated entities. The NRC would therefore avert the
same costs every 5 years as for the initial firearms background checks. For operating power
reactor and new reactor sites, this results in 27 hours of NRC staff time averted
(200 personnel x 8 minutes per form / 60 minutes per hour = 27 hours). For
decommissioning reactor sites, this results in 13 hours of NRC staff time averted
(100 personnel x 8 minutes per form / 60 minutes per hour = 13 hours).

•

The NRC would also avert costs related to processing firearms background checks for new
employees of regulated entities each year. However, because the turnover rate of security
personnel at regulated entities is low and because the NRC labor for processing each
firearms background check submittal is low, the annual cost to the NRC to process firearms
background checks for new employees is small (less than $1,000 per year) compared to
other costs in the regulatory analysis. Therefore, the NRC staff did not include in the
operating cost calculations the annual costs averted by the NRC for processing firearms
background checks for new employees at regulated entities.

Table 4-5 shows the estimated NRC recurring and annual costs averted per site, by type of site.

19

Table 4-5. Estimated NRC Recurring Costs Averted, per Site
(2016 Dollars)
Recurring Costs to the
NRC c

Type of Site
Sites with only reactors that are in commercial operation a

$3,310

Sites with both operating reactors and projected new
reactors under a 10 CFR Part 52 license a

$3,310

Sites with both operating reactors and reactors under active
construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license a

$3,310

Sites with only reactors that are in decommissioning b

$1,650

a

Recurring and annual costs averted for operating and new reactor sites = [27 hours] x [$124/hour].

b

Recurring and annual costs averted for Industry for decommissioning reactor sites = [13 hours] x
[$124/hour].
Costs in the table are rounded to three significant figures.

c

5. Evaluation of Benefits and Costs
This section organizes the analytical results into four sections. Section 5.1 presents results on
the benefits and costs of the supplemental proposed rule as a whole, as well as disaggregated
results for each of the regulatory requirements that comprise the supplemental proposed rule.
Section 5.2 evaluates the uncertainties in the benefit and cost estimate and identifies those
uncertain variables that most affect the variation in the results. Section 5.3 discusses
disaggregation of the requirements in the supplemental proposed rule. Section 5.3 addresses
the applicability of a safety goal evaluation to the supplemental proposed rule.

5.1.

Benefits and Costs of the Final Rule

This section discusses the incremental benefit and cost estimates for the supplemental
proposed rule.

5.1.1.

Summary of Benefits and Costs

Table 5-1 summarizes the incremental benefits and costs of the supplemental proposed rule as
compared to the baseline. Appendix C includes tables that summarize the incremental benefits
and costs of the supplemental proposed rule as compared to the baseline for each quantifiable
attribute of the supplemental proposed rule.
The supplemental proposed rule as a whole (Alternative 2) would result in an estimated averted
cost of between $37.8 million and $56.6 million (at a 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate,
respectively). These costs are associated with four affected attributes⎯industry implementation
and operation, and NRC implementation and operation. Section 4.2.5 provides detail on the
incremental activities under the supplemental proposed rule, and estimates the one-time,
recurring and annual costs associated with these activities.
Overall, the benefits of the supplemental proposed regulation include averted costs to both the
industry and the NRC by reducing the number of industry security personnel who would be
required to undergo firearms background checks. The NRC would incur one-time costs as a

20

result of developing and publishing the supplemental proposed rule. In addition, the
supplemental proposed rule implements the mandates of Section 161A of the AEA, as
described in the Firearms Guidelines.

21

Table 5-1. Summary of Overall Benefits and Costs (Quantitative and Qualitative)
Benefits – Averted Costs (2016 Dollars) and
Qualitative Factors
Alternative 2:
Supplemental
Proposed Rule

Industry Implementation Costs Averted: $8,200,000
Industry Operation Costs Averted:
$29.4 million using a 7% discount rate
$48.2 million using a 3% discount rate
NRC Implementation Costs Averted: $209,000
NRC Operation Costs Averted:
$25,900 using a 7% discount rate
$49,000 using a 3% discount rate
Total Implementation Costs Averted: $8,410,000
Total Operation Costs Averted:
$29.5 million using a 7% discount rate
$48.3 million using a 3% discount rate
Total Costs Averted:
$37.8 million using a 7% discount rate
$56.6 million using a 3% discount rate
Qualitative consideration of factors
Other Government Agencies – The FBI averts costs as a
result of this proposed supplemental rule because it would
process fewer firearms background checks. The fee charged to
regulated entities for the processing of each NRC Form 754
represents the costs of the NRC and the FBI to process a NICS
check. The cost averted is reflected under the Industry
Implementation and Industry Operation attributes.
Safeguards and Security Considerations – The regulations
proposed in the enhanced weapons rulemaking regarding
access to covered weapons and firearms background checks
will comply with statutory requirements and provide high
assurance that public health and safety and the common
defense and security will be enhanced because of licensees’
and certificate holders’ increased defensive capability to interdict
and neutralize an attack, or potentially to deter an attack. This
supplemental proposed rule does not alter or limit the additional
defensive capabilities proposed under the enhanced weapons
proposed rule. Therefore, the benefit of the supplemental
proposed rule related to safeguards and security considerations
is reflected in the cost savings to the NRC and industry
Regulatory Efficiency – The proposed action would result in
enhanced regulatory efficiency by reducing the number of
firearms background checks required of the industry.
Previously, all regulated entities in the designated classes would
have been required to submit firearms background checks.
Under this supplemental proposed rule, only those regulated
entities that apply for Section 161A authorities would submit
information regarding their security personnel for firearms
background checks. The costs averted to the NRC and the
industry reflect the quantitative benefit of the proposed action
related to regulatory efficiency. This draft regulatory analysis
identified no additional regulatory efficiency gains or costs.

22

Costs (2016 Dollars)
NRC Implementation Costs: ($124,000)

5.2.

Uncertainty Analysis

As this entire analysis is based on estimates of values and unknown amounts of risk, a
sensitivity analysis can be useful for the variables for which there is the greatest amount of
uncertainty. A Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was completed with the assistance of @Risk™,
software specially designed for this type of analysis. The Monte Carlo approach answers the
question: What distribution of net benefits results from multiple draws of the probability
distribution assigned to key variables?
5.2.1.

Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions

The Monte Carlo analysis requires the identification of the variables that are uncertain. In this
analysis, those variables are: (1) the decommissioning duration, (2) the number of sites that
apply for Section 161A authorities, (3) the industry implementation activities durations, and
(4) labor categories and rates for individuals assigned to perform this work. Table 5-2
summarizes the variable assumptions in the analysis.
Table 5-2. Uncertainty Analysis Variables
Low
Uncertainty Variable Description
Distribution estimate
Final Rule Applicability Period (Years)
Sites with reactors that are in commercial operation
Pert8
26
Sites with both operating reactors and projected new
Pert
51
reactors under a 10 CFR Part 52 license
Sites with both operating reactors and reactors
under active construction under a 10 CFR Part 50
Pert
47
license
Sites with only reactors that are being
Pert
7
decommissioned
Number of sites that apply for Section 161A authorities
Sites with reactors that are in commercial operation
Pert
6
that apply for Section 161A authorities
Sites with only reactors that are being
decommissioned that apply for Section 161A
Pert
0.9
authorities
Personnel and Fees
Number of Security Personnel Requiring NICS Background Checks Per Site

Most
Likely

High
Estimate

34

64

59

74

55

70

15

30

7

58

1.0

4.0

Operating and new power reactor sites

Pert

150

200

220

Decommissioning power reactor sites

Pert

90

100

110

Category I Strategic Special Nuclear Material

Pert

200

250

275

8

A program evaluation and review technique (PERT) distribution is a special form of the beta distribution with a
minimum and maximum value specified. The shape parameter is calculated from the defined most likely value.
The PERT distribution is similar to a triangular distribution in that it has the same set of three parameters.
Technically, it is a special case of a scaled beta (or beta general) distribution. It can generally be considered
asto be superior to the triangular distribution when the parameters result in a skewed distribution, as the smooth
shape of the curve places less emphasis in the direction of skew. Similar to the triangular distribution, the PERT
distribution is bounded on both sides, and therefore may not be adequate for some modeling purposes where it
is desired to capture tail or extreme events.

23

Uncertainty Variable Description
Licensees

Distribution

Low
estimate

Most
Likely

High
Estimate

Hours of Labor and Fees by Attribute
Industry (one-time, per site)
Rulemaking Costs
Read the Final Rule (hours)

Pert

16

32

80

Develop Firearms Background Check Plan (hours)

Pert

300

350

500

Training
Develop Initial Training about Background Check
Process to Designated Personnel (hours)
Initial training duration (hours per trainee)

Pert

40

60

80

Pert

0.75

1

1.1

1.8

2

2.2

0.009

0.01

0.02

6

8

16

Conducting Firearms Background Checks
Hours to prepare and process each NRC Form 754
Pert
Fraction of security personnel that receive a delayed
Pert
or denied response from NICS
Hours of licensees staff time for additional time
Pert
requests
Industry (recurring, per site)

Update and Deliver Recurring Training about Background Check Process to Designated Personnel
Percent of time required to update the annual
Pert
0.45
0.5
0.75
(percent based on initial training)
Annual training duration (hours per trainee)
Pert
0.75
1
1.1
Staff turnover annually
Pert
4%
5%
7%
Maintain Background Check Program
Percent of staff reporting disqualifying events per
year

Pert

0.09%

0.10%

0.50%

Pert
Pert

$100
$120

$125
$124

$130
$125

Labor Rates
Industry
NRC

5.2.2.

Uncertainty Analysis Results

Ten thousand simulations were run. Figures 5-1 through 5-7 display the histograms of the
realized benefits. The analysis showed that industry would realize averted costs (savings) in
implementation and operation costs. The mean averted costs are $7.89 million for industry
implementation and $27.4 million for industry operation based on a 7 percent discount rate
(2016 dollars). The mean total net benefit is $35.4 million of averted costs based on a 7 percent
discount rate (2016 dollars) as shown in Figure 5-7 and summarized in Table 5-3.

24

Figure 5-1.

25

Figure 5-2.

26

Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-4.

27

28

Figure 5-5.

29

Figure 5-6.

30

Figure 5-7.

Table 5-3 provides other pertinent descriptive statistics.

31

Table 5-3. Uncertainty Results Descriptive Statistics (2016 million dollars)
Uncertainty Result

Minimum

Mean

Mode

Median

Maximum

5%

95%

Industry
Implementation Costs
Averted

$5.98

$7.89

$7.99

$7.86

$9.72

$7.03

$8.72

Industry Operation
Costs Averted
(7% Discount Rate)

$19.4

$27.4

$27.3

$27.4

$34.7

$23.7

$30.9

Industry Operation
Costs Averted
(3% Discount Rate)

$31.8

$44.9

$40.8

$44.9

$56.9

$38.8

$50.7

NRC Implementation
Costs Averted

$0.038

$0.079

$0.086

$0.080

$0.106

$0.056

$0.098

NRC Operation Costs
Averted
(7% Discount Rate)

$0.020

$0.025

$0.025

$0.025

$0.029

$0.023

$0.027

NRC Operation Costs
Averted
(3% Discount Rate)

$0.038

$0.048

$0.047

$0.048

$0.054

$0.043

$0.052

Total Net Benefit
(7% Discount Rate)

$25.5

$35.4

$35.0

$35.4

$44.0

$30.9

$39.6

Figure 5-8 shows a Tornado Diagram, which identifies the eight factors whose uncertainty
drives the largest impact on the costs averted for the total net benefit. The uncertainty
regarding the number of sites that applies for Section 161A authorities has the largest impact on
industry implementation costs averted, is asymmetrical, and can result in less averted cost
savings if more licensees request Section 161A authorities. The next two variables, industry
labor rates and operating and new reactor site training program costs highlights the sensitivity of
labor costs to the total net benefit. The remaining five variables, NRC Form 754 processing,
training development, rulemaking costs, and staff turnover rate have lesser and comparable
impacts on the total net benefit.

32

Figure 5-8.
Tornado Diagram of Total Net Benefit
Total Net Benefit - 7% NPV
Inputs Ranked By Effect on Output Mean

Operating and new power reactor sites / Personnel and Fees

$31,867,275.00

Industry / Labor Rates

$38,241,913.00

$32,610,371.00

Operating and new power reactor sites / Training

$37,218,682.00

$33,285,085.00

Hours to prepare and process a NRC Form 754 / Prepare Form 754 f…

$37,016,151.00

$34,677,384.00

Training

$36,085,639.00

$34,787,902.00

Develop Firearms Background Check Plan / Rulemaking Costs

$35,912,602.00

$35,015,273.00

Hours to update the training each year. / Industry (recurring, per site)

$34,928,242.00

Staff turnover annually / Industry (recurring, per site)

$35,883,152.00
$35,758,230.00

$35,019,700.00

$35,820,697.00

Baseline = $35,378,772.30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Total Net Benefit - 7% NPV
Values in Millions ($)

5.3.

Uncertainty Analysis Results

A Monte Carlo analysis found that amending the proposed rule, as currently supplemented, to
modify background check requirements related to Section 161A authorities would result in
positive averted costs (e.g., savings) for all 10,000 simulations. Given the uncertainties involved
in obtaining these estimates, a reasonable inference from the analysis is that proceeding with
the supplemental rule represents a socially efficient use of resources.

5.4.

Disaggregation

The NRC staff has evaluated the rulemaking to determine whether specific requirements have
to be considered separately, but has determined that the requirements in the supplemental
proposed rule are narrowly focused, meaning the benefits and costs can be reasonably and
practically evaluated and disaggregation would not result in meaningful implications on the
analysis results. Therefore, the analysis of disaggregated requirements is not appropriate.

5.5.

Safety Goal Evaluation

Safety goal evaluations are applicable only to regulatory initiatives considered to be generic
safety enhancement backfits subject to the substantial additional protection standard at
§ 50.109(a)(3). Some aspects of this rule may have generic safety impacts because they may
affect the likelihood of core damage or spent fuel damage, which generally are the focus of a
quantitative safety goal evaluation. However, the magnitude of this change is not readily
quantifiable due to uncertainties discussed in Section 4.2. A more dominant effect of this rule is
to reduce burden on the regulated entities and the NRC, resulting in cost savings for both.
Because the change in safety associated with the rulemaking cannot be quantified, the
regulatory changes cannot be compared to the NRC’s safety goals.

33

6. Decision Rationale for Selection of the Proposed Action
Relative to the “no-action” alternative, the supplemental proposed rule would avert between
$37.6 million and $56.4 million (at a 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate, respectively) in costs
to industry. Averted recurring costs to the NRC are estimated to be between $25,900 and
$49,000 (at a 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate, respectively). NRC implementation costs
are estimated to be $85,000 (present value) averted, leading to a net averted cost to the NRC of
$111,000 to $134,000 (at a 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate, respectively). Therefore, the
total averted cost resulting from this supplemental proposed rule is estimated to range from
$37.8 million (7-percent discount rate) to $56.6 million (3-percent discount rate). Although the
supplemental proposed rule is necessary to conform to the 2014 Firearms Guidelines, it also
represents a cost benefit to both the Industry and the NRC.
Based on the NRC’s assessment of the benefits and costs of the supplemental proposed rule
on licensees and certificate holders, the NRC staff recommends supplementing the proposed
rule as the benefits are justified by the costs.

7. Implementation
The supplemental proposed rule will be published for public comment in the Federal Register.
After that public comment period, the NRC staff will develop and publish a final rule in the
Federal Register. The NRC staff assumes in this regulatory analysis that the final rule will be
effective in 2016. The final rule would take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register with no compliance date for licensees and certificate holders who do not intend to
apply for Section 161A authorities. However, licensees who have been issued a confirmatory
order, approving their application for Section 161A authorities, would have a compliance date of
60 days after the effective date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to transition
from the requirements of their orders to the requirements of the final rule. The NRC staff does
not expect this rule to have any impact on other requirements.

8. References
“Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Kewaunee Power Station, Certification of Permanent
Cessation of Power Operations;” February 25, 2013. ADAMS Accession No. ML13058A065.
Available at: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1305/ML13058A065.pdf, last accessed on
August 13, 2014.
“Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Kewaunee Power Station, Update to Irradiated Fuel
Management Plan under 10 CFR 50.54(bb),” Glen Allen, VA, April 15, 2014. ADAMS Accession
No. ML14219A738. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1421/ML14219A738.pdf, last accessed on
August 13, 2014.
Duke Energy, “Crystal River Unit 3—Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations
and That Fuel Has Been Permanently Removed from Reactor,” Crystal River, FLA,
February 20, 2013. ADAMS Accession No. ML13056A005.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1305/ML13056A005.pdf, last accessed on August 13, 2014.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “May 2013 National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, United States,” Washington, DC, April 1, 2014.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes_nat.htm, last accessed on July 7, 2014.

34

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Cost Index, Historical
Listing—Volume V,” “Table 8. Employment Cost Index for Wages and Salaries, for Civilian
Workers, by Occupation and Industry, Continuous Occupational and Industry Series (not
seasonally adjusted)”, Washington, DC, pp. 31, April 2014.
http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/ecicois.pdf, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, News Release, “Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation—March 2014,” “Table 1. Employer Costs Per Hour Worked for
Employee Compensation and Costs as a Percent of Total Compensation: Civilian Workers, by
Major Occupational and Industry Group, March 2014,” Washington, DC, pp. 3, June 11, 2014.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06112014.pdf, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 71 FR 62664, “Power Reactor Security Requirements,
Proposed Rule,” (amending 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73), Washington, DC, October 26, 2006.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-10-26/pdf/06-8678.pdf, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, 74 FR 13926, “Power Reactor Security Requirements, Final Rule,” (amending
10 CFR Parts 50, 52, 72, and 73), Washington, DC, March 27, 2009.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-03-27/pdf/E9-6102.pdf, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, 76 FR 6200, “Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event
Notifications, Proposed Rule” (amending 10 CFR Part 73), Washington, DC, February 3, 2011.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-03/pdf/2011-1766.pdf, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, “Combined License Applications for New Reactors,” data current as of July 1, 2014,
Washington, DC. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html, last accessed on July 7,
2014.
NRC, “Locations of Major U.S. Fuel Cycle Facilities,” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as
of March 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/fuel-cycle/, last
accessed September 2, 2014
NRC, “Locations of Power Reactor Sites Undergoing Decommissioning,” data current as of April
24, 2014, Washington, DC. http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/, last
accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, NUREG-1350, Volume 25, “2013-2014 Information Digest,” “Appendix A: U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Operating Reactors under Active Construction or
Deferred Policy,” Washington, DC, August 2013. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/, last accessed on July 7, 2014.
NRC, NUREG-1350, Volume 25, “2013-2014 Information Digest,” “Appendix H: U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Operating Licenses - Expiration by Year, 2013–2049,”
Washington, DC, August 2013.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/, last accessed on
July 7, 2014.
NRC, NUREG/BR-0184, “Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook,” “Section 5.7:
Quantification of Attributes,” Washington, DC, January 1997.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0501/ML050190193.pdf, last accessed on July 29, 2014.

35

NRC, “Operating Nuclear Power Reactors (by Location or Name),” data current as of
March 19, 2014, Washington, DC. http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/, last accessed on
July 7, 2014.
NRC, [email protected], “NRC Labor Rates for Use in Regulatory Analyses (as of
October 2013),” January 2, 2014.

36

[Page intentionally left blank.]

37

Appendix A
Backfitting

A-1

[Page intentionally left blank.]

A-2

Backfitting
This supplemental proposed rule contains: (i) proposed provisions which reduce the regulatory
burden associated with the original 2011 proposed rule and the 2013 supplemental proposed
rule, and (ii) additional provisions – not contained in either the original 2011 proposed rule and
the 2013 supplemental proposed rule – which facilitate licensees’ capability to obtain burden
reduction (i.e., proposed sunsetting of the interim designation order and the confirmatory
orders). The provisions of this supplemental proposed rule are effectively voluntary in nature,
and would not impose modifications or additions to existing structures, components, designs, or
existing procedures or organizations if adopted in final form. Accordingly, the provisions of this
supplemental proposed rule, if adopted as a final rule, would not constitute backfitting or
otherwise be inconsistent with any issue finality provision in Part 52, and the consideration of
backfitting for the original 2011 proposed rule and the 2013 supplemental proposed rule,
considered together, bounds the backfitting and issue finality consideration for this supplemental
proposed rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required and has not been completed for any
of the provisions of this supplemental proposed rule.

A-3

Appendix B
U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites
Affected by the Enhanced Weapons Rule

B-1

[Page intentionally left blank.]

B-2

Table B-1. U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Subject to the Enhanced Weapons Rule
Reactors at Site

No.

Site Name

Location

Operating
Reactor
1 Unit

Operating
Reactors
2 Units

Operating
Reactors
3 Units

Projected
New
Reactor
Issued
Combined
License
under
10 CFR Part
52

Reactors
under Active
Construction
under
10 CFR Part
50
License

Reactors
Undergoing
Decommissioning

Type of Site for Purposes of
Analysis

1

Arkansas Nuclear One

London, AR

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

2

Beaver Valley Power
Station

Shippingport, PA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

3

Braidwood Station

Braceville, IL

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

4

Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant

Athens, IL

5

Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant

Southport, NC

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

6

Byron Station

Byron, IL

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

7

Callaway Plant

Fulton, MO

8

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant

Lusby, MD

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

9

Catawba Nuclear
Station

York, SC

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

10

Clinton Power Station

Clinton, IL

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

11

Columbia Generating
Station

Benton County, WA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

12

Comanche Peak
Nuclear Power Plant

Glen Rose, TX

13

Cooper Nuclear Station

Brownville, NE

14

Crystal River

Crystal River, FL

15

Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station

Oak Harbor, OH

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X
X

Site with only reactors that are in
decommissioning
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

B-3

Table B-1. U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Subject to the Enhanced Weapons Rule
Reactors at Site

No.

Site Name

Location

Operating
Reactor
1 Unit

Operating
Reactors
2 Units

Operating
Reactors
3 Units

Projected
New
Reactor
Issued
Combined
License
under
10 CFR Part
52

Reactors
under Active
Construction
under
10 CFR Part
50
License

Reactors
Undergoing
Decommissioning

Type of Site for Purposes of
Analysis

16

Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant

Avila Beach, CA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

17

Donald C. Cook Nuclear
Plant

Bridgman, MI

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

18

Dresden Nuclear Power
Station

Morris, IL

X

19

Duane Arnold Energy
Center

Palo, IA

20

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant

Baxley, GA

21

Fermi

Newport, MI

X

22

Fort Calhoun Station

Ft. Calhoun, NE

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

23

Grand Gulf Nuclear
Station

Port Gibson, MS

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

24

H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant

Hartsville, SC

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

25

Hope Creek Generating
Station

Hancocks Bridge, NJ

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

26

Indian Point Nuclear
Power Plant

Buchanan, NY

27

James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant

Scriba, NY

28

Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant

Columbia, AL

29

Kewaunee

Kewaunee, WI

30

LaSalle County Station

Marseilles, IL

X

Site with only reactors that are in
a
commercial operation
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X
X

X

X

Site with only reactors that are in
a
commercial operation

Site with only reactors that are in
a
commercial operation
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X
X

Site with only reactors that are in
decommissioning
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

B-4

Table B-1. U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Subject to the Enhanced Weapons Rule
Reactors at Site

No.

Site Name

Location

Operating
Reactor
1 Unit

Operating
Reactors
2 Units

Operating
Reactors
3 Units

Projected
New
Reactor
Issued
Combined
License
under
10 CFR Part
52

Reactors
under Active
Construction
under
10 CFR Part
50
License

Reactors
Undergoing
Decommissioning

Type of Site for Purposes of
Analysis

31

Limerick Generating
Station

Limerick, PA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

32

McGuire Nuclear Station

Huntersville, NC

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

33

Millstone Power Station

Waterford, CT

X

34

Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant

Monticello, MN

35

Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station

Scriba, NY

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

36

North Anna Power
Station

Mineral, VA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

37

Oconee Nuclear Station

Seneca, SC

38

Oyster Creek Nuclear
c
Generating Station

Forked River, NJ

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

39

Palisades Nuclear Plant

Covert, MI

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

40

Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station

Wintersburg, AZ

41

Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station

Delta, PA

42

Perry Nuclear Power
Plant

Perry, OH

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

43

Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station

Plymouth, MA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

44

Point Beach Nuclear
Plant

Two Rivers, WI

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

45

Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant

Welch, MN

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
a
commercial operation
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X
X

X

B-5

Site with only reactors that are in
a
commercial operation

Table B-1. U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Subject to the Enhanced Weapons Rule
Reactors at Site

No.

Site Name

Location

Operating
Reactor
1 Unit

Operating
Reactors
2 Units

Operating
Reactors
3 Units

Projected
New
Reactor
Issued
Combined
License
under
10 CFR Part
52

Reactors
under Active
Construction
under
10 CFR Part
50
License

Reactors
Undergoing
Decommissioning

Type of Site for Purposes of
Analysis

46

Quad Cities Nuclear
Power Station

Cordova, IL

47

R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant

Ontario, NY

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

48

River Bend Station

St. Francisville, LA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

49

Salem Nuclear
Generating Station

Hancocks Bridge, NJ

50

San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station

San Clemente, CA

51

Seabrook Station

Seabrook, NH

52

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

Soddy-Daisy, TN

53

Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant

New Hill, NC

54

South Texas Project

Bay City, TX

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

55

St. Lucie Plant

Jensen Beach, FL

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

56

Surry Power Station

Surry, VA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

57

Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station

Berwick, PA

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

58

Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station

Middletown, PA

59

Turkey Point Nuclear
Generating

Homestead, FL

60

Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station

Vernon, VT

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X
X

Site with only reactors that are in
decommissioning
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X

X

X

Site with only reactors that are in
a
commercial operation
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

X
X

B-6

Site with only reactors that are in
b
decommissioning

Table B-1. U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Subject to the Enhanced Weapons Rule
Reactors at Site

No.

Site Name

Location

Operating
Reactor
1 Unit

61

Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station

Jenkinsville, SC

62

Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant

Waynesboro, GA

63

Waterford Steam
Electric Station

Killona, LA

X

64

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

Spring City, TN

X

65

Wolf Creek Generating
Station

Burlington, KS

X

Operating
Reactors
2 Units

Operating
Reactors
3 Units

X

X

Projected
New
Reactor
Issued
Combined
License
under
10 CFR Part
52

Reactors
under Active
Construction
under
10 CFR Part
50
License

Reactors
Undergoing
Decommissioning

Type of Site for Purposes of
Analysis

X

Site with both operating reactors and
projected new reactors under a
10 CFR Part 52 license

X

Site with both operating reactors and
projected new reactors under a Part
10 CFR 52 license
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation
X

Site with both operating reactors and
reactors under active construction
under a 10 CFR Part 50 license
Site with only reactors that are in
commercial operation

a

Site has operating reactor(s) and decommissioning reactor(s). Because the final rule applicability period for an operating reactor exceeds the period for a reactor that already is decommissioning, the
site is categorized as a “site with only reactors that are in commercial operation” for purposes of this analysis.
b

The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station terminated commercial operation in December 2014 and thus, is categorized as “site with only reactors that are in decommissioning.” The operating
license renewal applications for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 are under NRC consideration and it was assumed that these license renewals will be granted.
c

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station plans to terminate commercial operation in 2019.

Sources:
(1) NRC, “Operating Nuclear Power Reactors (by Location or Name)” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as of March 19, 2014. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/, last accessed on
May 26, 2014.
(2) NRC, “Locations of Power Reactor Sites Undergoing Decommissioning” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as of April 24, 2014. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/infofinder/decommissioning/power-reactor/, last accessed on May 26, 2014.
(3) NRC, 2013-2014 Information Digest (NUREG-1350, Volume 25), “Appendix A: U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Operating Reactors under Active Construction or Deferred Policy,” August
2013. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/#pubinfo, last accessed on May 26, 2014.
(4) NRC, “Combined License Applications for New Reactors” Web page, www.nrc.gov. Data current as of April 17, 2014. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html, last accessed
on May 26, 2014

B-7

Table B-2. Category I Strategic Special Nuclear Material Sites Subject to the Enhanced Weapons Rule

No.

Site Name

Location

1

Babcock &
Wilcox Nuclear
Operations Group

Lynchburg, VA

2

Nuclear Fuel
Services

Erwin, TN

Type of Site for Purposes of Analysis
Site with Category I Strategic Special
Nuclear Material (fuel fabrication for the
U.S. Navy)
Site with Category I Strategic Special
Nuclear Material (fuel fabrication for the
U.S. Navy)

B-8

Appendix C
Summary Tables of the Benefits and Costs of the
Enhanced Weapons Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking

C-1

[Page intentionally left blank.]

C-2

Table C-1. Summary of Quantified One-Time, Recurring, Annual,
and Overall Costs of the Supplemental Proposed Rule (2016 Dollars) a
Cost Category

One-Time
Costs

Recurring
and Annual
Costs

One-Time Costs Averted $8,280,000
$0
Recurring Costs Averted
$0
$78,300,000
Total $8,280,000 $78,300,000
a

Values rounded to three significant figures.

C-3

Present Value
7% Discount
Rate
$8,280,000
$29,500,000
$37,800,000

3%
Discount
Rate
$8,280,000
$48,300,000
$56,600,000

Table C-2. Summary of Quantified One-Time, Recurring, Annual, and Overall Costs
to Industry and the NRC, by Regulatory Requirement (2016 Dollars) a
Cost Category

Averted Costs to Industry
One-Time
Costs

Recurring
and Annual
Costs

Industry Initial Costs
$8,200,000
$0
Averted
Industry Recurring
$0
$77,200,000
and Annual Costs
Averted
NRC Initial Costs
$0
$0
Averted
NRC Recurring and
$0
$0
Annual Costs Averted
Total $8,200,000 $77,200,000
a

Averted Costs to the NRC

Present Value

One-Time
Costs

7%
Discount
Rate
$8,200,000

3%
Discount
Rate
$8,200,000

$0

$29,400,000

$48,200,000

$0

Recurring
and Annual
Costs

Present Value

$0

7%
Discount
Rate
$0

3%
Discount
Rate
$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$85,000

$0

$85,000

$85,000

$0

$0

$0

$1,140,000

$25,900

$49,000

$37,600,000

$56,400,000

$85,000

$1,140,000

$111,000

$134,000

Values rounded to three significant figures.

C-4

Incremental Costs by Type of Site
Tables C-3 and C-4 show the costs by the type of site to industry and the NRC, respectively. The tables also show the per-site costs
and number of sites used to estimate total costs.
Table C-3. Summary of Estimated Averted Costs to Industry
under the Supplemental Proposed Rule, by Type of Site (2016 Dollars) a

Type of Site

Per-Site Costs

Number of
Sites

Total Costs

$146,000

51

$7,446,000

$146,000

2

$292,000

One-Time Costs
Sites with reactors that are in commercial operation
Sites with both operating reactors and projected new reactors
under a 10 CFR Part 52 license
Sites with both operating reactors and reactors under active
construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license
Sites with only reactors that are in decommissioning

$146,000
1
$101,000
3
Total One-Time Costs Averted a

$146,000
$303,000
$8,190,000

Recurring and Annual Costs
Sites with reactors that are in commercial operation
Sites with both operating reactors and projected new reactors
under a 10 CFR Part 52 license
Sites with both operating reactors and reactors under active
construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license
Sites with only reactors that are in decommissioning

$1,360,000

51

$69,360,000

$2,460,000

2

$4,920,000

$2,270,000
1
$275,000
3
Total Recurring and Annual Costs Averted

a

Values rounded to three significant figures.

C-5

$2,270,000
$825,000
$77,400,000

Table C-4. Summary of Estimated Averted Costs to the NRC
under the Supplemental Proposed Rule, by Type of Site (2016 Dollars) a

Type of Site
One-Time Costs
All Sites
Sites with reactors that are in commercial operation
Sites with both operating reactors and projected new
reactors under a 10 CFR Part 52 license
Sites with both operating reactors and reactors under active
construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license
Sites with only reactors that are in decommissioning

Per-Site Costs

Number of
Sites

Total Costs

n/a
$3,310

67
51

-$124,000
$169,000

$3,310

2

$6,620

$3,310
1
$1,650
3
Total One-Time Costs Averted

$3,310
$4,950
$59,900

Recurring and Annual Costs
Sites with reactors that are in commercial operation
Sites with both operating reactors and projected new reactors
under a 10 CFR Part 52 license
Sites with both operating reactors and reactors under active
construction under a 10 CFR Part 50 license
Sites with only reactors that are in decommissioning

$20,000

51

$1,020,000

$36,700

2

$73,400

$33,300
1
$5,000
3
Total Recurring and Annual Costs Averted

a

$33,300
$15,000
$1,140,000

Values rounded to three significant figures.

Tables C-5 and C-6 summarize the estimated per-site costs associated with each of the cost categories for industry and the NRC,
respectively.

C-6

Table C-5. Estimated Per-Site Costs to Industry under the Supplemental Proposed Rule
(2016 Dollars) a

Cost Category

Sites with reactors
that are in
commercial
operation

Sites with both
operating reactors
and projected new
reactors under a 10
CFR Part 52 license

$146,000
$1,360,000

$146,000
$2,460,000

Averted Implementation Costs for Industry
Averted Operational Costs for Industry
a

Sites with both
operating reactors
and reactors under
active construction
under a 10 CFR Part
50 license
$146,000
$2,270,000

Sites with only
reactors that are in
decommissioning
$101,000
$275,000

Values rounded to three significant figures.

Table C-6. Estimated Per-Site Costs to the NRC under the Supplemental Proposed Rule
(2016 Dollars) a
Sites with both
Sites with both
Sites with
operating reactors
operating reactors
Sites with only
reactors that are
and projected new
and reactors under
Cost Category
reactors that are in
in commercial
reactors under a 10
active construction
decommissioning
operation
CFR Part 52
under a 10 CFR Part
license
50 license
One-Time Costs
One-Time Rulemaking Costs
($124,000)
Averted Implementation Costs for NRC
$3,310
$3,310
$3,310
$1,650
Recurring Costs
Total Averted Operational Cost for NRC
$20,000
$36,700
$33,300
$5,000
a

Values rounded to three significant figures.

C-7

Table C-5. Estimated Per-Site Costs to Industry under the Supplemental Proposed Rule
(2016 Dollars) a
Sites with both
Sites with both
operating reactors
Sites with reactors
operating reactors
and reactors under
that are in
Cost Category
and projected new
active construction
commercial
reactors under a 10
under a 10 CFR Part
operation
CFR Part 52 license
50 license
Averted Implementation Costs for Industry
$146,000
$146,000
$146,000
Averted Operational Costs for Industry
$1,360,000
$2,460,000
$2,270,000
a

Sites with only
reactors that are in
decommissioning
$101,000
$275,000

Values rounded to three significant figures.

Table C-6. Estimated Per-Site Costs to the NRC under the Supplemental Proposed Rule
(2016 Dollars) a
Sites with both
Sites with both
operating reactors
operating reactors
Sites with
Sites with only
and reactors under
and projected new
reactors that are
reactors that are in
Cost Category
active construction
reactors under a 10
in commercial
decommissioning
under a 10 CFR Part
CFR Part 52
operation
50 license
license
One-Time Costs
One-Time Rulemaking Costs
($124,000)
Averted Implementation Costs for NRC
$3,310
$3,310
$3,310
$1,650
Recurring Costs
Total Averted Operational Cost for NRC
$20,000
$36,700
$33,300
$5,000
a

Values rounded to three significant figures.

ADAMS ACCESSION No.: PKG: ML14265A166; Regulatory Analysis: ML15007A248;
WITS: 201200244

SECY-012

*via email

OFFICE NRR/DPR/ORMB/PM* NRR/DPR/PRMB/SPM* NRR/DPR/PRMB/BC* NRR/DPR/DD*

NRR/DPR/D

NAME

MEllenson

DATE

12/17/2014

FSchofer
w/ comments
1/12/2015

TInverso

Amohseni

LKokajko

1/12/2015
OFFICAL RECORD COPY

1/12/2015

1/12/2015

C-7