Massachusetts Attorney General; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking, 64169-64170 [E6-18364]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 19, 2002, to the Commission on the proposed amendments to Part 35 that if the requirements for recognition of specialty board certifications were to become effective as drafted, there could be potential shortages of individuals qualified to serve as RSOs, AMPs, ANPs, and AUs because they would no longer meet T&E requirements under the certification pathway. The petitioner also states that the ACMUI was concerned that the specialty boards might be ‘‘marginalized’’ and that ACMUI urged the Commission to address T&E issues associated with recognition of specialty boards. The petitioner notes that the NRC modified the regulation by reinserting Subpart J until October 24, 2005. The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 35.57 be amended to recognize medical physicists certified by either the ABR or ABMP on or before October 24, 2005, ‘‘as grandfathered for the modalties that they practiced as of October 24, 2005.’’ The petitioner also states that this amendment ‘‘should be independent of whether or not a medical physicist was named on an NRC or an Agreement State license as of October 24, 2005.’’ The petitioner states that 10 CFR 35.57 should also be amended to recognize all individuals certified by the named boards in Subpart J for RSOs who have relevant work experience even if an individual has not been formally ‘‘named’’ as an RSO and that these individuals ‘‘need to be grandfathered as an RSO by virtue of certification providing the appropriate preceptor statement is submitted.’’ The petitioner states that although the AAPM, ABR, and ABMP recognize that it was never the NRC’s intent to deny recognition to any currently practicing medical physicist or to minimize the importance of a certifying board, these organizations remain concerned about the NRC staff’s method used to grant recognized status to the process used by certifying boards. The petitioner is concerned that the effective date assigned by the staff once it recognizes a board’s process may force individuals certified prior to that date to have to pursue the alternate pathway. The petitioner indicates that it has affirmed with the ABR and ABMP that they believed that existing diplomates’ certifications (i.e., certificates issued before October 25, 2005) would continue to be recognized by the NRC or an Agreement State. The petitioner believes that medical physicists have demonstrated competence to practice through ABR or ABMP certification and remains concerned that the effective date assigned by the NRC staff after it recognizes a board’s process may force VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:49 Oct 31, 2006 Jkt 211001 individuals certified before that date to pursue the alternate pathway. The petitioner believes that the current provision places an undue burden on the medical community and could result in a shortage of AMPs and RSOs. The petitioner notes that the AMP is a recent addition to licenses granted under 10 CFR part 35 and Agreement State regulations. The petitioner describes the previous regulations before the concept of the AMP was introduced as ‘‘inconsistent.’’ The petitioner believes this inconsistency was the basis for the requirement to list an AMP on licenses. The petitioner also states that this requirement specifies that an individual must have a statement signed by a ‘‘preceptor AMP’’ attesting that the individual is capable of acting independently for the specified modality. The petitioner indicated that without medical physicists listed on licenses prior to the new regulation, there is limited opportunity for a medical physicist to serve as a preceptor. The petitioner believes that for a medical physicist to be ‘‘grandfathered’’ under the new regulation, the individual must have been listed on a license as of the effective date of the regulation. The petitioner has stated that its suggested amendment to § 35.57 would allow individuals to serve as AMPs or preceptor AMPs without having to be recognized via the ‘‘alternate pathway.’’ The petitioner also notes that licensees can specify only one individual as an RSO under the current provisions, unlike the position of AU for which there are typically multiple individuals named on a license. The petitioner believes this makes it more difficult for an AMP or other Board diplomates to have acquired the requisite grandfather status before October 24, 2005. The petitioner has stated that the NRC should recognize individuals who were certified by a board listed in former Subpart J for § 35.50 (RSO) and § 35.51 (AMP) prior to October 24, 2005. The petitioner concluded that its proposed amendment should be enacted expeditiously to permit individuals certified by the boards listed in Subpart J to continue practicing medical physics and serving as RSOs to assure the continuation of high quality patient care. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–18363 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 64169 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 [Docket No. PRM–51–10] Massachusetts Attorney General; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated August 25, 2006, which was filed with the Commission by Diane Curran on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General. The petition was docketed by the NRC on September 19, 2006, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM–51–10. The petitioner requests that the NRC revoke certain regulations in their entirety, and revoke other regulations to the extent that these regulations, in the petitioner’s view, state, imply, or assume that the environmental impacts of storing spent nuclear fuel in high-density pools are not significant; issue a generic determination to clarify that the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage of spent fuel, will be considered significant; and require that any NRC licensing decision concerning high-density pool storage of spent nuclear fuel be accompanied by an environmental impact statement that addresses the environmental impacts of this storage and alternatives for avoiding or mitigating any environmental impacts. The petitioner is seeking the generic treatment of spent fuel pool hazards because he believes that a pool accident at any operating nuclear power plant in the New England and MidAtlantic states could significantly affect the health, environmental, and economic well-being of Massachusetts. DATES: Submit comments by January 16, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this petition by any one of the following methods. Please include PRM–51–10 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 64170 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415–1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC’s rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415– 5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal https:// www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415–1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415–1101. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. A copy of the petition can be found in ADAMS under accession number ML062640409. A paper copy of the petition may be obtained by contacting Betty Golden, Office of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 20555–0001, telephone 301–415–6863, toll-free 1–800–368– 5642, or by e-mail bkg2@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:49 Oct 31, 2006 Jkt 211001 of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll Free: 1–800–368–5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The petitioner states that this petition for rulemaking is a companion to the contentions filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General on May 26, 2006, before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in the license renewal proceedings for the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants, and raises the same substantive concern as those contentions, namely, that spent fuel stored in high-density fuel storage pools is much more vulnerable to fire than the NRC’s NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ (May 1996) (GEIS) concludes. The petitioner states that the petition relies on and incorporates by reference the legal and technical assertions made in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s contentions. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene With Respect to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.’s Application for Renewal of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Operating License can be found in NRC’s ADAMS system at accession number ML061640032. The petitioner has filed this petition in the event that the ASLB rules that certain NRC regulations render the petitioner’s contentions inadmissible. Petitioner’s Request The petitioner requests that the NRC: • Revoke 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 51.95(c), and Table B–1 of appendix A to 10 CFR part 51; and revoke 10 CFR 51.23(a) and (b), 51.30(b), 51.53, 51.61, and 51.80(b) to the extent that these regulations state, imply, or assume that the environmental impacts of highdensity pool storage are insignificant and therefore need not be considered in any National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis. The petitioner assets that the revocation of these regulations, which according to the petitioner, ‘‘codify’’ the use of the GEIS by the NRC, is necessary to ensure compliance with NEPA in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal cases. In this regard, the petitioner asserts that new and significant information, provided by the petitioner, shows that spent nuclear fuel stored in high-density fuel storage pools is much more vulnerable to fire than the GEIS concludes. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • Issue a generic determination that the environmental impacts of highdensity pool storage of spent fuel, including the environmental impacts of accidents arising from this storage, are significant. • Amend its regulations concerning severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). The petitioner requests that the body of SAMAs that must be discussed in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an environmental assessment, under 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) and Table B–1 appendix A to 10 CFR part 51 (Postulated Accidents: Severe Accidents) must include alternatives to avoid or mitigate the impacts of highdensity pool fires. • Require that any NRC licensing decision that approves high-density pool storage of spent fuel at a nuclear power plant or any other facility must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement that addresses the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage of spent fuel at that nuclear plant or facility, and presents a reasonable array of alternatives for avoiding or mitigating those impacts. Conclusion The petitioner asserts that a generic rulemaking would be the most effective means to ensure broad protection of public health and the environment. The petitioner states that NRC’s conclusion regarding the degree of vulnerability of high-density spent fuel storage pools to fire is contained in numerous NEPA and other licensing documents, and affects many licensing decisions. Consequently, the petitioner asserts that this NRC conclusion should be revoked ‘‘across the board’’ to ensure that future NRC licensing decisions are not based on inadequate consideration of environmental risks or measures for avoiding or reducing those risks. Moreover, the petitioner asserts he has an interest in seeking generic treatment of spent fuel pool hazards because he believes that a pool accident at any one of the operating nuclear power plants in the New England or Mid-Atlantic states could have a significant effect on the health, environmental, and economic well-being of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–18364 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1

Agencies

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64169-64170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18364]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 51

[Docket No. PRM-51-10]


Massachusetts Attorney General; Receipt of Petition for 
Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for 
public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated 
August 25, 2006, which was filed with the Commission by Diane Curran on 
behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General. The petition was docketed by 
the NRC on September 19, 2006, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-51-
10. The petitioner requests that the NRC revoke certain regulations in 
their entirety, and revoke other regulations to the extent that these 
regulations, in the petitioner's view, state, imply, or assume that the 
environmental impacts of storing spent nuclear fuel in high-density 
pools are not significant; issue a generic determination to clarify 
that the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage of spent 
fuel, will be considered significant; and require that any NRC 
licensing decision concerning high-density pool storage of spent 
nuclear fuel be accompanied by an environmental impact statement that 
addresses the environmental impacts of this storage and alternatives 
for avoiding or mitigating any environmental impacts. The petitioner is 
seeking the generic treatment of spent fuel pool hazards because he 
believes that a pool accident at any operating nuclear power plant in 
the New England and Mid-Atlantic states could significantly affect the 
health, environmental, and economic well-being of Massachusetts.

DATES: Submit comments by January 16, 2007. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this petition by any one of the 
following methods. Please include PRM-51-10 in the subject line of your 
comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic 
form will be made available for public inspection. Because your 
comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact 
information, the NRC cautions you against including any

[[Page 64170]]

information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed.
    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us 
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's 
rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions 
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail 
cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 
(301) 415-1966).
    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 
(301) 415-1101.
    Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor 
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, 
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web 
site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 
or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
    A copy of the petition can be found in ADAMS under accession number 
ML062640409. A paper copy of the petition may be obtained by contacting 
Betty Golden, Office of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC, 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-6863, toll-free 1-800-368-
5642, or by e-mail bkg2@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 1-800-
368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The petitioner states that this petition for rulemaking is a 
companion to the contentions filed by the Massachusetts Attorney 
General on May 26, 2006, before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board (ASLB) in the license renewal proceedings for the Pilgrim and 
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants, and raises the same substantive 
concern as those contentions, namely, that spent fuel stored in high-
density fuel storage pools is much more vulnerable to fire than the 
NRC's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 
Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996) (GEIS) concludes. The petitioner 
states that the petition relies on and incorporates by reference the 
legal and technical assertions made in the Massachusetts Attorney 
General's contentions. The Massachusetts Attorney General's Request for 
a Hearing and Petition to Intervene With Respect to Entergy Nuclear 
Operations Inc.'s Application for Renewal of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Plant Operating License can be found in NRC's ADAMS system at accession 
number ML061640032.
    The petitioner has filed this petition in the event that the ASLB 
rules that certain NRC regulations render the petitioner's contentions 
inadmissible.

Petitioner's Request

    The petitioner requests that the NRC:
     Revoke 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 51.95(c), and Table B-1 of 
appendix A to 10 CFR part 51; and revoke 10 CFR 51.23(a) and (b), 
51.30(b), 51.53, 51.61, and 51.80(b) to the extent that these 
regulations state, imply, or assume that the environmental impacts of 
high-density pool storage are insignificant and therefore need not be 
considered in any National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
analysis. The petitioner assets that the revocation of these 
regulations, which according to the petitioner, ``codify'' the use of 
the GEIS by the NRC, is necessary to ensure compliance with NEPA in the 
Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal cases. In this regard, the 
petitioner asserts that new and significant information, provided by 
the petitioner, shows that spent nuclear fuel stored in high-density 
fuel storage pools is much more vulnerable to fire than the GEIS 
concludes.
     Issue a generic determination that the environmental 
impacts of high-density pool storage of spent fuel, including the 
environmental impacts of accidents arising from this storage, are 
significant.
     Amend its regulations concerning severe accident 
mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). The petitioner requests that the body 
of SAMAs that must be discussed in an environmental impact statement or 
related supplement or in an environmental assessment, under 10 CFR 
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) and Table B-1 appendix A to 10 CFR part 51 
(Postulated Accidents: Severe Accidents) must include alternatives to 
avoid or mitigate the impacts of high-density pool fires.
     Require that any NRC licensing decision that approves 
high-density pool storage of spent fuel at a nuclear power plant or any 
other facility must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement 
that addresses the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage 
of spent fuel at that nuclear plant or facility, and presents a 
reasonable array of alternatives for avoiding or mitigating those 
impacts.

Conclusion

    The petitioner asserts that a generic rulemaking would be the most 
effective means to ensure broad protection of public health and the 
environment. The petitioner states that NRC's conclusion regarding the 
degree of vulnerability of high-density spent fuel storage pools to 
fire is contained in numerous NEPA and other licensing documents, and 
affects many licensing decisions. Consequently, the petitioner asserts 
that this NRC conclusion should be revoked ``across the board'' to 
ensure that future NRC licensing decisions are not based on inadequate 
consideration of environmental risks or measures for avoiding or 
reducing those risks. Moreover, the petitioner asserts he has an 
interest in seeking generic treatment of spent fuel pool hazards 
because he believes that a pool accident at any one of the operating 
nuclear power plants in the New England or Mid-Atlantic states could 
have a significant effect on the health, environmental, and economic 
well-being of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-18364 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.