Preclosure Safety Analysis-Dose Performance Objectives and Radiation Protection Program; Availability of Final Interim Staff Guidance Document, 30399-30402 [E7-10470]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
regarding the storage cask design, the
amount of radioactive material that
could be released, and the atmospheric
dispersion, were representative, and in
some cases, conservative, relative to the
actual characteristics for the Diablo
Canyon ISFSI. The staff determined that
any dose to affected residents nearest to
the Diablo Canyon site will tend to be
much lower than the doses calculated
for the generic assessments. Based on
these considerations, the dose to the
nearest affected resident, from even the
most severe plausible threat scenarios—
the ground assault and aircraft impact
scenarios discussed above, would likely
be below 5 rem. In many scenarios, the
hypothetical dose to an individual in
the affected population could be
substantially less than 5 rem, or none at
all.
In the supplement, the NRC staff
concludes that the construction,
operation, and decommissioning of the
Diablo Canyon ISFSI, even when
potential terrorist attacks on the facility
are considered, will not result in a
significant effect on the human
environment. NRC security
requirements, imposed through
regulations and orders, and
implemented through the licensee’s
security plans, in combination with the
design requirements for dry cask storage
systems, provide adequate protection
against successful terrorist attacks on
ISFSIs. Therefore, a terrorist attack that
would result in a significant release of
radiation affecting the public is not
reasonably expected to occur.
The supplement to the EA and draft
FONSI are available on NRC’s Web site
at: https://www.nrc.gov/waste.html, by
selecting ‘‘Diablo Canyon ISFSI’’ in the
Quick Links box. Copies are also
available by contacting James R. Hall, as
noted previously.
III. Draft Finding of No Significant
Impact
The NRC staff has prepared a
supplement to the EA related to the
construction and operation of the Diablo
Canyon ISFSI, in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. As set
forth in the supplement to the EA, NRC
has considered the potential for terrorist
attacks on the facility, and has
determined that the storage of spent
nuclear fuel at the Diablo Canyon ISFSI
will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment,
based on the facility design features and
the mitigative security measures
incorporated as part of the NRC
licensing action and in response to NRC
security orders. These design features
and mitigative security measures will
provide high assurance that substantial
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 May 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
environmental impacts will be avoided
and thereby reduced to a non-significant
risk level. Therefore, in accordance with
10 CFR 51.33, NRC has determined that
issuance of a draft FONSI is appropriate.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33(e), a final
determination to prepare an
environmental impact statement or a
final FONSI for the proposed action
shall not be made until the last day of
the public comment period has expired.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action,
including the supplement to the EA and
draft FONSI, the October 24, 2003, EA,
and the Diablo Canyon ISFSI license
and supporting documentation, re
available electronically, at NRC’s
Electronic Reading Room, at: https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this site, you can access NRC’s
Agencywide Document Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC’s
public documents. The ADAMS
accession number for the supplement to
the EA and draft FONSI is
ML071280256. The ADAMS accession
number for the October 24, 2003, EA is
ML032970337, and for the ISFSI license
and related documents, the accession
number is ML040780107. If you do not
have access to ADAMS, or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference
staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737,
or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents, for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day
of May, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Chief, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent
Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7–10471 Filed 5–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[HLWRS–ISG–03]
Preclosure Safety Analysis—Dose
Performance Objectives and Radiation
Protection Program; Availability of
Final Interim Staff Guidance Document
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
30399
Notice of availability.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is announcing the
availability of the final interim staff
guidance (ISG) document, ‘‘HLWRS–
ISG–03 Preclosure Safety Analysis—
Dose Performance Objectives and
Radiation Protection Program,’’ and
NRC responses to the public comments
received on this document. The ISG
clarifies or refines guidance provided in
the Yucca Mountain Review Plan
(YMRP) (NUREG–1804, Revision 2, July
2003). The YMRP provides guidance to
NRC staff for evaluating a potential
license application for a high-level
radioactive waste geologic repository
constructed or operated at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada.
ADDRESSES: HLWRS–ISG–03 is available
electronically at NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room, at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm.html. From this site, a
member of the public can access NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC’s
public documents. The ADAMS
accession number for ISG–03 is
ML071240112. If an individual does not
have access to ADAMS, or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference
staff at 1–800–397–4209, or (301) 415–
4737, or (by e-mail), at pdr@nrc.gov.
This document may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at NRC’s PDR, Mail Stop: O–
1F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
The PDR reproduction contractor will
copy documents, for a fee.
NRC Responses to Public Comments
on Hlwrs–ISG–03: In preparing final
‘‘HLWRS–ISG–03 Preclosure Safety
Analysis—Dose Performance Objectives
and Radiation Protection Program,’’
ADAMS ML071240112, the NRC staff
reviewed and considered 18 comments,
including one editorial comment,
received from two organizations during
the public comment period. Three
comments were related to the ISG
process; and the remaining comments
included recommendations on specific
clarifying changes to the ISG. The three
comments on the ISG process were
consistent with the comments made
earlier on HLWRS–ISG–01, and were
addressed in responses to public
comments on HLWRS–ISG–01 [see 71
FR 57582, Comments 13 (a) and (b)].
The following discussion indicates
how the comments were addressed, and
the changes, if any, made to ISG–03 as
a result of the comments. Line numbers
in the following comments refer to draft
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30400
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Notices
HLWRS–ISG–03, ADAMS
ML070230090, which was made
available for public comment on
February 20, 2007 (72 FR 7778).
Comment 1. One commenter
recommended that the reference to 10
CFR 63.111 on line 14 be revised to 10
CFR 63.111(a), so that the reference was
explicit to Category 1 event sequences.
The commenter stated that the entire 10
CFR 63.111 does not apply to
preclosure.
Response. NRC disagrees that the
entire 10 CFR 63.111 does not apply to
preclosure. This section of 10 CFR Part
63 provides the regulatory requirements
for performance objectives for the
geologic repository operations area
(GROA) through permanent closure,
which is the preclosure period.
However, NRC agrees that, in the
context of the sentence (ISG lines 12–
14), the reference is to 10 CFR 63.111(a).
Therefore, the reference needs to be
revised.
ISG line 14 has been revised to change
‘‘10 CFR 63.111’’ to ‘‘10 CFR 63.111(a).’’
Comment 2. The commenter
recommended specific revisions to
footnote 1 (below line 38), to define an
off-normal condition. The proposed
revision could be interpreted to mean
that certain deviations from procedures
or equipment failures, that involve
important to safety (ITS) structure,
system, and component (SSC) failures
during the preclosure period, may be
classified as off-normal, not Category 1
events.
Response. NRC disagrees with the
commenter that footnote 1 should be
revised. As defined in 10 CFR 63.2,
SSCs are designated as ITS, if they are
relied on to satisfy the preclosure
performance objectives for Category 1 or
Category 2 event sequences. In contrast,
the SSCs that are relied on for normal
operations are not designated as ITS
SSCs. Therefore, as stated in footnote 1,
equipment failures that do not involve
ITS SSCs and do not lead to
significantly elevated exposures are
considered as off-normal, and not
Category 1 event sequences.
No changes to the ISG were made as
a result of this comment.
Comment 3. The commenter
recommended deleting the last part of
footnote 2 (below line 74), which reads
‘‘if the GROA is licensed,’’ because, if
the GROA is not licensed, then there
would be no radiation protection
program implementation to inspect.
Response. NRC agrees with the
commenter that the last part of the
footnote is not needed because
implementation of the radiation
protection program can only be
inspected if NRC has already licensed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 May 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
the geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain.
The ISG has been revised to delete ‘‘if
the GROA is licensed,’’ in footnote 2.
Comment 4. The commenter
recommended specific revisions to ISG
lines 67–70, which state that NRC
should focus on those event sequences
that lead to the most significant
exposure fields and locations of
representative persons who may receive
the greatest exposure. The commenter
stated that ISG lines 67–70 are
inconsistent with the discussion of
‘‘representative exposure locations,’’ in
ISG line 114, and ‘‘potential highexposure locations may be eliminated
from consideration,’’ in ISG lines 118–
119.
Response. NRC disagrees that ISG
lines 67–70 are inconsistent with ISG
lines 114, 118, and 119. ISG lines 67–
70 refer to the Radiation Protection
Program; whereas ISG lines 114 and
118–119 refer to the Estimation of
Doses. It is appropriate to focus on those
persons who may receive the greatest
exposure, when NRC reviews the
adequacy of a Radiation Protection
Program, and establishment of restricted
areas and access controls; whereas for
dose estimates, potential high-exposure
locations may be eliminated from
consideration because of access controls
and personnel monitoring.
No changes to the ISG were made as
a result of this comment.
Comment 5. The commenter
recommended revising lines 85 through
87, and lines 92 through 94, by deleting
the word ‘‘back,’’ since this implies that
recovery actions are needed to achieve
compliance with Part 63.
Response. NRC agrees with the
suggested change.
ISG lines 85–87, and 92–94, have
been revised to delete the word ‘‘back.’’
Comment 6. The commenter stated
that the method for aggregating annual
doses in the ISG cannot, in all cases, be
used to demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of 10 CFR 63.111, and
that it is not consistent with the
performance objectives of Part 63. The
commenter stated that the approach in
the ISG does not allow consideration of
the frequency of a Category 1 event
sequence in aggregating the dose. The
commenter recommended a specific
definition of aggregate annual dose that
is based on a statistical approach, where
all doses from all Category 1 event
sequences are frequency-weighted.
Response. NRC disagrees that the
method in the ISG for aggregating
annual doses cannot, in all cases, be
used to demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of 10 CFR 63.111, and
that it is not consistent with the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
performance objectives of Part 63. The
method proposed in the ISG consists of
summing the doses from normal
operational doses, all occurrences of
Category 1 event sequences occurring
one or more times per year, and the
maximum Category 1 event sequence
expected to occur less than once per
year. This is consistent with Part 63’s
approach of using the frequency of
event sequences to categorize them in
broad frequency bins of Category 1 and
Category 2 event sequences. This
approach is a reasonable way to
estimate annual doses during the design
review, because it does not require
exactly determining frequencies for each
and every event sequence, which would
be necessary if all Category 1 event
sequences were frequency-weighted to
determine the aggregate annual dose.
There are many ways to aggregate
doses and this method is one simple
and direct approach to determine
whether the applicant has demonstrated
compliance with the performance
objectives of Part 63. The applicant may
propose another method in a license
application, which NRC will review.
According to the ‘‘Statement of
Considerations’’ for Part 63, November
2, 2001 (66 Federal Register Notice
55742), the approach in the rule is to
provide the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) with the flexibility to select the
type of analysis it believes most
appropriate for the license application.
Regardless of the approach used to
demonstrate compliance, NRC will
inspect for, and enforce compliance
with, the preclosure dose limits during
operations. If during actual operations,
operational releases or events (e.g.,
multiple Category 1 event sequences in
a single year) call into question the basis
of NRC’s safety decision, NRC would
reevaluate the licensing basis, to
determine the safety significance and
take appropriate regulatory action.
Comment 7. The commenter stated
that Table 1, ‘‘Part 63 Performance
Objectives,’’ could be interpreted to
mean that there are separate
performance objectives for normal
operations and Category 1 Event
Sequences because the Total Effective
Dose Equivalent values for these are in
separate columns.
Response. NRC agrees that, in Table 1,
lines 150–163, there should only be one
column for the aggregated annual dose
from normal operations and Category 1
Event Sequences.
ISG lines 150 through 163 have been
revised to combine the columns for
normal operations and Category 1 Event
Sequences.
Comment 8. The commenter
suggested deleting the word ‘‘expected’’
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Notices
before ‘‘Category 1 event sequences,’’ in
ISG lines 309 and 333, and adding the
word ‘‘types of’’ before ‘‘Category 1
event sequences,’’ in ISG line 333, to
provide consistency in wording between
the new Review Method 4 and
Acceptance Criterion 4.
Response. NRC agrees with the
commenter. ISG lines 309 and 333 have
been revised to delete ‘‘expected,’’ and
ISG line 333 has been revised to add
‘‘types of,’’ before ‘‘Category 1 event
sequences.’’
Comment 9. The commenter suggests
revising ISG lines 319–321 because the
commenter interpreted the word
‘‘confirm’’ in the ISG text as implying
‘‘* * * an inspection activity to
determine if a facility has been built as
required.’’
Response. NRC disagrees with the
revision suggested by the commenter.
The intent of the ISG is clearly stated in
ISG lines 1–9; namely, the review of a
license application. The word
‘‘confirm,’’ as used in the ISG, refers to
the review of the ‘‘descriptions’’ of the
Radiation Protection Program, and not
to an inspection activity to determine if
a facility has been built as required.
No changes were made to the ISG as
a result of this comment.
Comment 10. The commenter stated
that the definition of Occupational Dose
in ISG line 390 is incomplete, and
should be revised to be the same as in
10 CFR 20.1003.
Response. NRC agrees with the
commenter.
The ISG has been revised to add the
following at the end of the sentence on
ISG line 390: ‘‘Occupational dose does
not include doses received from
background radiation, from any medical
administration the individual has
received, from exposure to individuals
administered radioactive material and
released under 10 CFR 35.75, from
voluntary participation in medical
research programs, or as a member of
the public.’’
Comment 11. The commenter
suggested the following editorial
changes:
Line 178: Replace the word ‘‘does’’
with ‘‘do.’’
Line 269: Add ‘‘The analysis required
in the paragraph must include, but not
necessarily be limited to, consideration
of,’’ at the beginning of the sentence.
Line 330: Revise ‘‘Page 2.1–80’’ to
‘‘Page 2.1–81.’’
Response. NRC agrees with the
commenter. The ISG has been revised to
reflect these suggested changes.
Comment 12. The commenter stated
that ‘‘NRC appears to be communicating
an expectation for a greater level of
detail in the Yucca Mountain license
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 May 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
application recovery action plan than is
appropriate.’’ The commenter stated
that ‘‘* * * the planning and
monitoring of recovery actions should
be done within the radiation protection
program framework of the draft ISG, and
that there is no need for more detail
until a time nearer to planned
operations.’’ The commenter added that
‘‘* * * the ISG should delineate
expectations before construction
authorization is granted, and additional
expectations before a license to receive
and possess radiological material is
granted.’’
Response. NRC disagrees with the
commenter because the license
application must identify those Category
1 event sequences that are expected to
occur during the lifetime of the facility.
As a part of the license application
review, NRC will verify that the
applicant has planned for recovery from
these events, and that they will be
monitored under the Radiation
Protection Program.
The ISG recommends that the
reviewer determine that the applicant
has described key elements of the
recovery action plans. A plan should
provide enough detail to determine that
the corrective actions taken will assure
adequate access to vital areas, and
protection of safety equipment. It
should describe the basic steps taken to
recover from an event and the radiation
exposure levels that may be present.
No changes to the ISG were made as
a result of this comment.
Comment 13. The commenter
commended NRC on ‘‘applying the riskinformed principles in an exemplary
manner,’’ in ISG lines 59–66, and 143–
147. However, the commenter added
that the section on ‘‘Estimation of Doses
in the PCSA’’ (ISG lines 102–147) was
‘‘* * * not consistent with the riskinformed principles,’’ and the draft ISG
‘‘* * * removes the flexibility intended
by the regulation,’’ in the area of the
aggregate annual dose for normal
operations and Category 1 event
sequences.
Response. NRC disagrees with the
commenter. The ISG provides DOE with
sufficient flexibility to estimate dose for
selected representative radiation
workers or classes, on-site persons, and
off-site members of the public, with no
summation of doses from different
classes or to perform single-bounding
dose estimations for radiation workers
or classes, on-site persons, and off-site
members of the public.
No changes to the ISG were made as
a result of this comment.
Comment 14. The commenter stated
that the method in the ISG, to calculate
an aggregate annual dose, does not
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30401
allow the applicant to sum only those
doses for an individual or class of
workers, but instead requires the
aggregate dose to include doses to all
workers. Also the commenter stated that
the summation of doses should not be
interpreted to remove the licensee’s
flexibility to apply the planned special
exposure provisions of 10 CFR 20.1206
in the mitigation of Category 1 event
sequences.
Response. NRC disagrees with the
commenter. There are many ways to
aggregate doses and the method in the
ISG is one acceptable way to
demonstrate whether the applicant has
demonstrated compliance with the
performance objectives of Part 63. The
applicant has the flexibility to propose
another method in a license application,
which NRC will review as long as it is
supported by technical bases.
Planned special exposures (PSEs),
defined in 10 CFR Part 20, are
infrequent exposures to radiation,
separate from, and in addition to,
annual dose limits. PSEs are for
exceptional situations, whereas the
estimation of annual dose in the ISG
includes only those doses from normal
operations and Category 1 event
sequences. Since Category 1 event
sequences are those that are expected to
occur one or more times during the life
of the facility, these events are not an
exceptional situation and are not
precluded when determining the annual
dose.
No changes to the ISG were made as
a result of this comment.
Comment 15. The commenter
suggested that the ISG clarify
terminology used in two different
instances. The commenter stated that
the first term requiring clarification is
‘‘controlled area site boundary,’’
introduced in ISG line 21. ISG lines 36
and 37 define the ‘‘site boundary’’ as
analogous to the ‘‘controlled area site
boundary’’ defined in Part 20. The
commenter stated that NRC should not
assume that the ‘‘Yucca Mountain
Repository site boundary’’ and the
‘‘controlled area for preclosure
purposes,’’ are necessarily the same.
DOE should be able to define the
controlled area so long as it is outside
the restricted area, but inside the site
boundary, as long as the requisite safety
and radiation protection requirements
are met. The commenter also suggests
the use of a different term, such as
‘‘preclosure controlled area,’’ so that
limitations are not placed on the
applicant. The second term for which
the commenter suggested clarification is
in ISG line 102, ‘‘* * * doses from
those Category 1 event sequences that
are expected to occur one or more times
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30402
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Notices
per year.’’ The commenter states that,
‘‘it is not clear why an acceptable design
and operational concept would include
planning for SSC failures, more often
than once per year, that resulted in a
radiation dose,’’ and these should be
considered ‘‘as part of normal
operations as opposed to as a Category
1 event sequence.’’
Response. The Part 63 definition of
‘‘controlled area’’ is found in Subpart
L—‘‘Postclosure Public Health and
Environmental Standards,’’ in section
63.302, and not in Subpart K—
‘‘Preclosure Public Health and
Environmental Standards.’’ Since 10
CFR 63.111(a) requires the GROA to
meet the requirements of Part 20, the
Part 20 definitions are to be applied
within the context of Part 63. The site
boundary is analogous to the controlled
area, defined in Part 20, because the
preclosure limits are based on the
boundary of the site, defined for
preclosure, as that area, surrounding the
GROA, for which DOE exercises
authority over its use, in accordance
with the provisions of Part 63. DOE
should clearly identify the controlled
site boundary in its demonstration of
compliance with Part 20 requirements.
However, NRC agrees that the use of the
term ‘‘controlled area site boundary’’
may be confusing, and thus is deleting
that term from the ISG.
The second term, ‘‘doses from those
Category 1 event sequences that are
expected to occur one or more times per
year’’ is used in the ISG method to
aggregate doses. Although NRC agrees
with the commenter that ITS SSCs
should be designed and maintained in
such a manner to prevent or avoid
frequent failure, this term does not
imply that a design that plans for
frequent occurrences of ITS SSCs will
be acceptable to NRC. Rather, this term
is used to ensure that if the applicant
submits an application with a Category
1 event sequence that occurs more than
once per year, then the reviewer will
include all occurrences of that event,
when determining if the estimated
annual dose meets the performance
objectives of Part 63.
ISG line 21 has been revised by
changing ‘‘controlled site boundary’’ to
‘‘controlled area.’’
ISG lines 36 and 37 have been revised
by deleting the sentence, ‘‘The site
boundary * * * Part 20.’’
ISG lines 55 and 56 have been revised
by changing ‘‘controlled area site
boundaries’’ to ‘‘the boundaries of the
controlled area.’’
ISG line 136 has been revised by
changing ‘‘controlled area site
boundary’’ to ‘‘boundary of the site.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:01 May 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
ISG line 144 has been revised by
changing ‘‘controlled area site
boundary’’ to ‘‘boundary of the site.’’
ISG lines 169 and 177 have been
revised by changing ‘‘controlled-area
boundary’’ to ‘‘controlled area.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Jon Chen, Project Manager, Division of
High-Level Waste Repository Safety,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001 [Telephone: (301) 415–5526; fax
number: (301) 415–5399; e-mail:
jcc2@nrc.gov];
Robert K. Johnson, Senior Project
Manager, Division of High-Level
Waste Repository Safety, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001 [Telephone: (301) 415–6900; fax
number: (301) 415–5399; e-mail:
rkj@nrc.gov].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day
of May, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sheena Whaley,
Chief, Engineering Branch, Division of HighLevel Waste Repository Safety, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7–10470 Filed 5–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and
Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.
Extension:
Rule 15Bc3–1 and Form MSDW SEC File
No. 270–93; OMB Control No. 3235–
0087
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit this collection of
information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension
and approval.
Rule 15Bc3–1 (17 CFR 240.15Bc3–1)
under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) provides
that a notice of withdrawal from
registration with the Commission as a
bank municipal securities dealer must
be filed on Form MSDW.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Commission uses the information
submitted on Form MSDW in
determining whether it is in the public
interest to permit a bank municipal
securities dealer to withdraw its
registration. This information is also
important to the municipal securities
dealer’s customers and to the public,
because it provides, among other things,
the name and address of a person to
contact regarding any of the municipal
securities dealer’s unfinished business.
Based upon past submissions, the
staff estimates that approximately 20
respondents in total will utilize this
notice procedure annually, with a total
burden of 10 hours for all respondents.
The staff estimates that the average
number of hours necessary for each
respondent to comply with the
requirements of Rule 15Bc3–1 is 0.5
hours. The average cost per hour is
approximately $101. Therefore, the total
cost of compliance for all respondents is
$1010 ($101 × 0.5 × 20 = $1010).
Written comments are invited on: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this
publication.
Direct your written comments to R.
Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria,
VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:
PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must
be submitted to OMB within 60 days of
this notice.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–10374 Filed 5–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 104 (Thursday, May 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30399-30402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[HLWRS-ISG-03]
Preclosure Safety Analysis--Dose Performance Objectives and
Radiation Protection Program; Availability of Final Interim Staff
Guidance Document
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the
availability of the final interim staff guidance (ISG) document,
``HLWRS-ISG-03 Preclosure Safety Analysis--Dose Performance Objectives
and Radiation Protection Program,'' and NRC responses to the public
comments received on this document. The ISG clarifies or refines
guidance provided in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP) (NUREG-1804,
Revision 2, July 2003). The YMRP provides guidance to NRC staff for
evaluating a potential license application for a high-level radioactive
waste geologic repository constructed or operated at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada.
ADDRESSES: HLWRS-ISG-03 is available electronically at NRC's Electronic
Reading Room, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, a
member of the public can access NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. The ADAMS accession number for ISG-03 is ML071240112.
If an individual does not have access to ADAMS, or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or (301)
415-4737, or (by e-mail), at pdr@nrc.gov.
This document may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at NRC's PDR, Mail Stop: O-1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents, for a fee.
NRC Responses to Public Comments on Hlwrs-ISG-03: In preparing
final ``HLWRS-ISG-03 Preclosure Safety Analysis--Dose Performance
Objectives and Radiation Protection Program,'' ADAMS ML071240112, the
NRC staff reviewed and considered 18 comments, including one editorial
comment, received from two organizations during the public comment
period. Three comments were related to the ISG process; and the
remaining comments included recommendations on specific clarifying
changes to the ISG. The three comments on the ISG process were
consistent with the comments made earlier on HLWRS-ISG-01, and were
addressed in responses to public comments on HLWRS-ISG-01 [see 71 FR
57582, Comments 13 (a) and (b)].
The following discussion indicates how the comments were addressed,
and the changes, if any, made to ISG-03 as a result of the comments.
Line numbers in the following comments refer to draft
[[Page 30400]]
HLWRS-ISG-03, ADAMS ML070230090, which was made available for public
comment on February 20, 2007 (72 FR 7778).
Comment 1. One commenter recommended that the reference to 10 CFR
63.111 on line 14 be revised to 10 CFR 63.111(a), so that the reference
was explicit to Category 1 event sequences. The commenter stated that
the entire 10 CFR 63.111 does not apply to preclosure.
Response. NRC disagrees that the entire 10 CFR 63.111 does not
apply to preclosure. This section of 10 CFR Part 63 provides the
regulatory requirements for performance objectives for the geologic
repository operations area (GROA) through permanent closure, which is
the preclosure period. However, NRC agrees that, in the context of the
sentence (ISG lines 12-14), the reference is to 10 CFR 63.111(a).
Therefore, the reference needs to be revised.
ISG line 14 has been revised to change ``10 CFR 63.111'' to ``10
CFR 63.111(a).''
Comment 2. The commenter recommended specific revisions to footnote
1 (below line 38), to define an off-normal condition. The proposed
revision could be interpreted to mean that certain deviations from
procedures or equipment failures, that involve important to safety
(ITS) structure, system, and component (SSC) failures during the
preclosure period, may be classified as off-normal, not Category 1
events.
Response. NRC disagrees with the commenter that footnote 1 should
be revised. As defined in 10 CFR 63.2, SSCs are designated as ITS, if
they are relied on to satisfy the preclosure performance objectives for
Category 1 or Category 2 event sequences. In contrast, the SSCs that
are relied on for normal operations are not designated as ITS SSCs.
Therefore, as stated in footnote 1, equipment failures that do not
involve ITS SSCs and do not lead to significantly elevated exposures
are considered as off-normal, and not Category 1 event sequences.
No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment.
Comment 3. The commenter recommended deleting the last part of
footnote 2 (below line 74), which reads ``if the GROA is licensed,''
because, if the GROA is not licensed, then there would be no radiation
protection program implementation to inspect.
Response. NRC agrees with the commenter that the last part of the
footnote is not needed because implementation of the radiation
protection program can only be inspected if NRC has already licensed
the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.
The ISG has been revised to delete ``if the GROA is licensed,'' in
footnote 2.
Comment 4. The commenter recommended specific revisions to ISG
lines 67-70, which state that NRC should focus on those event sequences
that lead to the most significant exposure fields and locations of
representative persons who may receive the greatest exposure. The
commenter stated that ISG lines 67-70 are inconsistent with the
discussion of ``representative exposure locations,'' in ISG line 114,
and ``potential high-exposure locations may be eliminated from
consideration,'' in ISG lines 118-119.
Response. NRC disagrees that ISG lines 67-70 are inconsistent with
ISG lines 114, 118, and 119. ISG lines 67-70 refer to the Radiation
Protection Program; whereas ISG lines 114 and 118-119 refer to the
Estimation of Doses. It is appropriate to focus on those persons who
may receive the greatest exposure, when NRC reviews the adequacy of a
Radiation Protection Program, and establishment of restricted areas and
access controls; whereas for dose estimates, potential high-exposure
locations may be eliminated from consideration because of access
controls and personnel monitoring.
No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment.
Comment 5. The commenter recommended revising lines 85 through 87,
and lines 92 through 94, by deleting the word ``back,'' since this
implies that recovery actions are needed to achieve compliance with
Part 63.
Response. NRC agrees with the suggested change.
ISG lines 85-87, and 92-94, have been revised to delete the word
``back.''
Comment 6. The commenter stated that the method for aggregating
annual doses in the ISG cannot, in all cases, be used to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 63.111, and that it is not
consistent with the performance objectives of Part 63. The commenter
stated that the approach in the ISG does not allow consideration of the
frequency of a Category 1 event sequence in aggregating the dose. The
commenter recommended a specific definition of aggregate annual dose
that is based on a statistical approach, where all doses from all
Category 1 event sequences are frequency-weighted.
Response. NRC disagrees that the method in the ISG for aggregating
annual doses cannot, in all cases, be used to demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 63.111, and that it is not consistent
with the performance objectives of Part 63. The method proposed in the
ISG consists of summing the doses from normal operational doses, all
occurrences of Category 1 event sequences occurring one or more times
per year, and the maximum Category 1 event sequence expected to occur
less than once per year. This is consistent with Part 63's approach of
using the frequency of event sequences to categorize them in broad
frequency bins of Category 1 and Category 2 event sequences. This
approach is a reasonable way to estimate annual doses during the design
review, because it does not require exactly determining frequencies for
each and every event sequence, which would be necessary if all Category
1 event sequences were frequency-weighted to determine the aggregate
annual dose.
There are many ways to aggregate doses and this method is one
simple and direct approach to determine whether the applicant has
demonstrated compliance with the performance objectives of Part 63. The
applicant may propose another method in a license application, which
NRC will review. According to the ``Statement of Considerations'' for
Part 63, November 2, 2001 (66 Federal Register Notice 55742), the
approach in the rule is to provide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
with the flexibility to select the type of analysis it believes most
appropriate for the license application.
Regardless of the approach used to demonstrate compliance, NRC will
inspect for, and enforce compliance with, the preclosure dose limits
during operations. If during actual operations, operational releases or
events (e.g., multiple Category 1 event sequences in a single year)
call into question the basis of NRC's safety decision, NRC would
reevaluate the licensing basis, to determine the safety significance
and take appropriate regulatory action.
Comment 7. The commenter stated that Table 1, ``Part 63 Performance
Objectives,'' could be interpreted to mean that there are separate
performance objectives for normal operations and Category 1 Event
Sequences because the Total Effective Dose Equivalent values for these
are in separate columns.
Response. NRC agrees that, in Table 1, lines 150-163, there should
only be one column for the aggregated annual dose from normal
operations and Category 1 Event Sequences.
ISG lines 150 through 163 have been revised to combine the columns
for normal operations and Category 1 Event Sequences.
Comment 8. The commenter suggested deleting the word ``expected''
[[Page 30401]]
before ``Category 1 event sequences,'' in ISG lines 309 and 333, and
adding the word ``types of'' before ``Category 1 event sequences,'' in
ISG line 333, to provide consistency in wording between the new Review
Method 4 and Acceptance Criterion 4.
Response. NRC agrees with the commenter. ISG lines 309 and 333 have
been revised to delete ``expected,'' and ISG line 333 has been revised
to add ``types of,'' before ``Category 1 event sequences.''
Comment 9. The commenter suggests revising ISG lines 319-321
because the commenter interpreted the word ``confirm'' in the ISG text
as implying ``* * * an inspection activity to determine if a facility
has been built as required.''
Response. NRC disagrees with the revision suggested by the
commenter. The intent of the ISG is clearly stated in ISG lines 1-9;
namely, the review of a license application. The word ``confirm,'' as
used in the ISG, refers to the review of the ``descriptions'' of the
Radiation Protection Program, and not to an inspection activity to
determine if a facility has been built as required.
No changes were made to the ISG as a result of this comment.
Comment 10. The commenter stated that the definition of
Occupational Dose in ISG line 390 is incomplete, and should be revised
to be the same as in 10 CFR 20.1003.
Response. NRC agrees with the commenter.
The ISG has been revised to add the following at the end of the
sentence on ISG line 390: ``Occupational dose does not include doses
received from background radiation, from any medical administration the
individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered
radioactive material and released under 10 CFR 35.75, from voluntary
participation in medical research programs, or as a member of the
public.''
Comment 11. The commenter suggested the following editorial
changes:
Line 178: Replace the word ``does'' with ``do.''
Line 269: Add ``The analysis required in the paragraph must
include, but not necessarily be limited to, consideration of,'' at the
beginning of the sentence.
Line 330: Revise ``Page 2.1-80'' to ``Page 2.1-81.''
Response. NRC agrees with the commenter. The ISG has been revised
to reflect these suggested changes.
Comment 12. The commenter stated that ``NRC appears to be
communicating an expectation for a greater level of detail in the Yucca
Mountain license application recovery action plan than is
appropriate.'' The commenter stated that ``* * * the planning and
monitoring of recovery actions should be done within the radiation
protection program framework of the draft ISG, and that there is no
need for more detail until a time nearer to planned operations.'' The
commenter added that ``* * * the ISG should delineate expectations
before construction authorization is granted, and additional
expectations before a license to receive and possess radiological
material is granted.''
Response. NRC disagrees with the commenter because the license
application must identify those Category 1 event sequences that are
expected to occur during the lifetime of the facility. As a part of the
license application review, NRC will verify that the applicant has
planned for recovery from these events, and that they will be monitored
under the Radiation Protection Program.
The ISG recommends that the reviewer determine that the applicant
has described key elements of the recovery action plans. A plan should
provide enough detail to determine that the corrective actions taken
will assure adequate access to vital areas, and protection of safety
equipment. It should describe the basic steps taken to recover from an
event and the radiation exposure levels that may be present.
No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment.
Comment 13. The commenter commended NRC on ``applying the risk-
informed principles in an exemplary manner,'' in ISG lines 59-66, and
143-147. However, the commenter added that the section on ``Estimation
of Doses in the PCSA'' (ISG lines 102-147) was ``* * * not consistent
with the risk-informed principles,'' and the draft ISG ``* * * removes
the flexibility intended by the regulation,'' in the area of the
aggregate annual dose for normal operations and Category 1 event
sequences.
Response. NRC disagrees with the commenter. The ISG provides DOE
with sufficient flexibility to estimate dose for selected
representative radiation workers or classes, on-site persons, and off-
site members of the public, with no summation of doses from different
classes or to perform single-bounding dose estimations for radiation
workers or classes, on-site persons, and off-site members of the
public.
No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment.
Comment 14. The commenter stated that the method in the ISG, to
calculate an aggregate annual dose, does not allow the applicant to sum
only those doses for an individual or class of workers, but instead
requires the aggregate dose to include doses to all workers. Also the
commenter stated that the summation of doses should not be interpreted
to remove the licensee's flexibility to apply the planned special
exposure provisions of 10 CFR 20.1206 in the mitigation of Category 1
event sequences.
Response. NRC disagrees with the commenter. There are many ways to
aggregate doses and the method in the ISG is one acceptable way to
demonstrate whether the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the
performance objectives of Part 63. The applicant has the flexibility to
propose another method in a license application, which NRC will review
as long as it is supported by technical bases.
Planned special exposures (PSEs), defined in 10 CFR Part 20, are
infrequent exposures to radiation, separate from, and in addition to,
annual dose limits. PSEs are for exceptional situations, whereas the
estimation of annual dose in the ISG includes only those doses from
normal operations and Category 1 event sequences. Since Category 1
event sequences are those that are expected to occur one or more times
during the life of the facility, these events are not an exceptional
situation and are not precluded when determining the annual dose.
No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment.
Comment 15. The commenter suggested that the ISG clarify
terminology used in two different instances. The commenter stated that
the first term requiring clarification is ``controlled area site
boundary,'' introduced in ISG line 21. ISG lines 36 and 37 define the
``site boundary'' as analogous to the ``controlled area site boundary''
defined in Part 20. The commenter stated that NRC should not assume
that the ``Yucca Mountain Repository site boundary'' and the
``controlled area for preclosure purposes,'' are necessarily the same.
DOE should be able to define the controlled area so long as it is
outside the restricted area, but inside the site boundary, as long as
the requisite safety and radiation protection requirements are met. The
commenter also suggests the use of a different term, such as
``preclosure controlled area,'' so that limitations are not placed on
the applicant. The second term for which the commenter suggested
clarification is in ISG line 102, ``* * * doses from those Category 1
event sequences that are expected to occur one or more times
[[Page 30402]]
per year.'' The commenter states that, ``it is not clear why an
acceptable design and operational concept would include planning for
SSC failures, more often than once per year, that resulted in a
radiation dose,'' and these should be considered ``as part of normal
operations as opposed to as a Category 1 event sequence.''
Response. The Part 63 definition of ``controlled area'' is found in
Subpart L--``Postclosure Public Health and Environmental Standards,''
in section 63.302, and not in Subpart K--``Preclosure Public Health and
Environmental Standards.'' Since 10 CFR 63.111(a) requires the GROA to
meet the requirements of Part 20, the Part 20 definitions are to be
applied within the context of Part 63. The site boundary is analogous
to the controlled area, defined in Part 20, because the preclosure
limits are based on the boundary of the site, defined for preclosure,
as that area, surrounding the GROA, for which DOE exercises authority
over its use, in accordance with the provisions of Part 63. DOE should
clearly identify the controlled site boundary in its demonstration of
compliance with Part 20 requirements. However, NRC agrees that the use
of the term ``controlled area site boundary'' may be confusing, and
thus is deleting that term from the ISG.
The second term, ``doses from those Category 1 event sequences that
are expected to occur one or more times per year'' is used in the ISG
method to aggregate doses. Although NRC agrees with the commenter that
ITS SSCs should be designed and maintained in such a manner to prevent
or avoid frequent failure, this term does not imply that a design that
plans for frequent occurrences of ITS SSCs will be acceptable to NRC.
Rather, this term is used to ensure that if the applicant submits an
application with a Category 1 event sequence that occurs more than once
per year, then the reviewer will include all occurrences of that event,
when determining if the estimated annual dose meets the performance
objectives of Part 63.
ISG line 21 has been revised by changing ``controlled site
boundary'' to ``controlled area.''
ISG lines 36 and 37 have been revised by deleting the sentence,
``The site boundary * * * Part 20.''
ISG lines 55 and 56 have been revised by changing ``controlled area
site boundaries'' to ``the boundaries of the controlled area.''
ISG line 136 has been revised by changing ``controlled area site
boundary'' to ``boundary of the site.''
ISG line 144 has been revised by changing ``controlled area site
boundary'' to ``boundary of the site.''
ISG lines 169 and 177 have been revised by changing ``controlled-
area boundary'' to ``controlled area.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Jon Chen, Project Manager, Division of High-Level Waste Repository
Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 [Telephone: (301) 415-
5526; fax number: (301) 415-5399; e-mail: jcc2@nrc.gov];
Robert K. Johnson, Senior Project Manager, Division of High-Level Waste
Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001
[Telephone: (301) 415-6900; fax number: (301) 415-5399; e-mail:
rkj@nrc.gov].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of May, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sheena Whaley,
Chief, Engineering Branch, Division of High-Level Waste Repository
Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7-10470 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
