Sherwood Martinelli; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 39354-39355 [E7-13924]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39354
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 72, No. 137
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[Docket No. PRM–50–86]
Sherwood Martinelli; Denial of Petition
for Rulemaking
The Petition
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is denying a petition
for rulemaking (PRM–50–86) submitted
by Sherwood Martinelli. The petitioner
requested that the NRC amend its
regulations to provide financial
protection for individuals harmed by
releases of nuclear material following an
incident or attack at a nuclear facility,
and to require licensees to pay for
satellite communication systems for
nuclear power plant communities to
‘‘protect human health and the
environment.’’ The petitioner also
requested that nuclear facilities licensed
by the NRC or the Federal government
provide adequate funding to enable
every family living within 10 miles of a
nuclear facility to build, stock, and
maintain a personal family shelter to
allow families to shelter in place during
releases of nuclear material following an
incident or attack at a nuclear facility.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for
rulemaking and NRC’s letter to the
petitioner may be examined at the NRC
Public Document Room (PDR), Public
File Area Room O–1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. These
documents also may be viewed and
downloaded electronically via the
rulemaking Web site.
The NRC maintains an Agencywide
Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents. These documents may be
accessed through the NRC’s Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:36 Jul 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
adams.html. If you do not have access
to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@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; e-mail:
MTL@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The petitioner requested that the NRC
amend its regulations to provide
financial protection for individuals
harmed by releases of nuclear material
following an incident or attack at a
nuclear facility, and to require licensees
to pay for satellite communication
systems for nuclear power plant
communities to ‘‘protect human health
and the environment.’’ The petitioner
also requested that nuclear facilities
licensed by the NRC or the Federal
government provide adequate funding
to enable every family living within 10
miles of a nuclear facility to build,
stock, and maintain a personal family
shelter to allow families to shelter in
place during releases of nuclear material
following an incident or attack at a
nuclear facility.
The petitioner also requested that the
NRC amend its regulations so that
anyone living within 10 miles of a
licensed nuclear facility is able to
demand an Independent Safety
Assessment (ISA), which would include
public review of onsite security and
offsite evacuation plans for that
licensee. The petitioner also sought
other types of relief related to security
issues at nuclear power plants.
A notice of receipt of this petition was
not published in the Federal Register.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying this petition
because the NRC has determined that
PRM–50–86 requests the NRC to take
actions that exceed the NRC’s authority,
requests that the NRC address issues
that the NRC has already considered in
previous rulemakings, and fails to
adequately support its requests to revise
NRC regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The petition requests the NRC to
modify its regulations to require nuclear
facilities licensed by the NRC or the
Federal Government to provide
adequate funding to enable every family
living within 10 miles of a nuclear
facility to build, stock, and maintain a
personal family shelter to allow families
to shelter in place during releases of
nuclear material following an incident
or attack at a nuclear facility. The NRC
cannot grant this request, in part
because the NRC is not authorized by
Congress to make financial payments to
individuals. Further, the petition does
not establish that requiring licensees to
pay for these shelters would be
necessary, in light of existing NRC
requirements on emergency
preparedness, to provide reasonable
assurance that adequate protective
measures can and will be taken in the
event of a radiological emergency.
The petition also asks that NRC
regulations be revised to require
licensees to pay for satellite
communication systems for nuclear
power plant communities to ‘‘protect
human health and the environment.’’
The petition does not demonstrate how
requiring licensees to pay for these
satellite communication systems would
provide, in light of existing NRC
requirements on emergency
preparedness, reasonable assurance that
adequate protective measures can and
will be taken in the event of a
radiological emergency.
The petition requests that NRC rules
be changed so that anyone living within
10 miles of a licensed nuclear facility is
able to demand an ISA, which would
include public review of onsite security
and offsite evacuation plans for that
licensee. The NRC already conducts
detailed, objective inspections of
licensed research and test reactors,
operating power reactors, and fuel
facilities. The NRC also performs
assessments under a program called the
Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) at all
operating power reactor facilities on a
continuous basis. These assessments
measure performance in seven
fundamental areas to ensure safe plant
operation. The ROP, as currently
implemented, effectively incorporates
the inspection elements of the 1996
Maine Yankee ISA. The NRC believes
the ROP and NRC’s regulatory
framework effectively examine the same
key aspects of plant safety as an ISA, but
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules
with a better focus on potentially risksignificant problems.
The request for public review of
onsite security plans cannot be granted
because public review of these plans is
not permissible. Allowing the details of
these plans to be made public could aid
adversaries. However, information
concerning emergency plans is publicly
available. Residents within a radius of
approximately 10 miles from a nuclear
power plant receive emergency
information materials annually,
including information about protective
actions such as evacuation and
sheltering. For more information
concerning emergency plans, including
public inspection of these plans, a
resident should contact their local
emergency management organization.
The petition also seeks revisions to
NRC regulations because the petitioner
claims that the Price-Andersen Act , the
structures of corporate organizations,
and NRC regulations do not adequately
provide financial protection for
individuals harmed by releases of
nuclear material following an incident
or attack at a nuclear facility. This claim
challenges a statutory framework that
the NRC is not authorized to change.
Further, the petition does not explain
why the current NRC regulations do not
assure that the public will receive
prompt financial compensation under
available indemnity and underlying
financial protection for damage
resulting from the hazardous properties
of radioactive materials or radiation.
The petition seeks other relief related
to security issues at nuclear power
plants. The petition does not provide
significant new information or
arguments that were not previously
considered by the Commission in its
final rule on the Design Basis Threat,
which was published in the Federal
Register on March 19, 2007 (72 FR
12705), and became effective on April
18, 2007.
For the reasons cited in this
document, the NRC denies this petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day
of July 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–13924 Filed 7–17–07; 8:45 am]
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 24
Guides for Select Leather and Imitation
Leather Products; Corrections
AGENCY:
Federal Trade Commission.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:36 Jul 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
Request for public comments;
correction.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade
Commission published a document in
the Federal Register on May 23, 2007
(72 FR 28906) requesting public
comments on the Commission’s Guides
for Select Leather and Imitation Leather
Products (‘‘Leather Guides’’).
Inadvertently, the ADDRESSES Block of
the Federal Register Notice did not state
that if the Notice appeared at https://
www.regulations.gov, members of the
public could file an electronic comment
through that Web site, as well as by
accessing the following Web site:
https://secure.commentworks.com/ftcleatherguides, and following the
instructions on the web-based form.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald S. Clark, Secretary of the
Commission, at (202) 326–2514.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the FTC’s Erratum. The
ADDRESSES Block in the May 23, 2007
Notice is amended to add the following
two sentences at the end of the first
paragraph in the ADDRESSES Block: ‘‘If
this notice appears at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may also file
an electronic comment through that
Web site. The Commission will consider
all comments that regulations.gov
forwards to it.’’
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–13833 Filed 7–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
33 CFR Part 334
United States Navy Restricted Area,
Naval Support Activity, Panama City,
FL
AGENCY:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
DoD.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is proposing to
establish ten restricted areas at Naval
Support Activity (NSA), Panama City
(PC), Florida. NSA, Panama City, and its
major tenant command, the Naval
Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), have
been recognized as one of the lead
research, development, test and
evaluation laboratories of the U.S. Navy.
In addition, the Naval Diving and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39355
Salvage Training Center (NDSTC)
relocated from the Washington Navy
Yard to NSA PC and now hosts a
consolidated training for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard,
the Navy’s satellite dive schools, the
U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air
Force. As such, a large majority of
military dive training is now
concentrated at NSA, PC. The proposed
restricted areas in Panama City waters
meet strict military training parameters
that cannot be duplicated elsewhere.
Military training in and around St.
Andrews Bay has existed in harmony
with local boat traffic and development
since 1945. NSA, PC requests to
formalize these ongoing activities
within the waters of St. Andrews Bay in
efforts to maximize public safety and to
preserve current military training vital
to the Global War on Terror and to all
service military readiness.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before August 17, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number COE–
2007–0017, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail:
david.b.olson@usace.army.mil. Include
the docket number COE–2007–0017 in
the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Attn: CECW–CO (David B. Olson), 441
G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314–
1000.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to
security requirements, we cannot
receive comments by hand delivery or
courier.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket number COE–2007–0017. All
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available on-line at
https://regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the commenter indicates that the
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise
protected, through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov web site is an
anonymous access system, which means
we will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail directly to the Corps
without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39354-39355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13924]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 39354]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[Docket No. PRM-50-86]
Sherwood Martinelli; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition
for rulemaking (PRM-50-86) submitted by Sherwood Martinelli. The
petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to provide
financial protection for individuals harmed by releases of nuclear
material following an incident or attack at a nuclear facility, and to
require licensees to pay for satellite communication systems for
nuclear power plant communities to ``protect human health and the
environment.'' The petitioner also requested that nuclear facilities
licensed by the NRC or the Federal government provide adequate funding
to enable every family living within 10 miles of a nuclear facility to
build, stock, and maintain a personal family shelter to allow families
to shelter in place during releases of nuclear material following an
incident or attack at a nuclear facility.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking and NRC's letter to
the petitioner may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR),
Public File Area Room O-1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
These documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically via
the rulemaking Web site.
The NRC maintains an Agencywide Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC
PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@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; e-mail:
MTL@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to
provide financial protection for individuals harmed by releases of
nuclear material following an incident or attack at a nuclear facility,
and to require licensees to pay for satellite communication systems for
nuclear power plant communities to ``protect human health and the
environment.'' The petitioner also requested that nuclear facilities
licensed by the NRC or the Federal government provide adequate funding
to enable every family living within 10 miles of a nuclear facility to
build, stock, and maintain a personal family shelter to allow families
to shelter in place during releases of nuclear material following an
incident or attack at a nuclear facility.
The petitioner also requested that the NRC amend its regulations so
that anyone living within 10 miles of a licensed nuclear facility is
able to demand an Independent Safety Assessment (ISA), which would
include public review of onsite security and offsite evacuation plans
for that licensee. The petitioner also sought other types of relief
related to security issues at nuclear power plants.
A notice of receipt of this petition was not published in the
Federal Register.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying this petition because the NRC has determined
that PRM-50-86 requests the NRC to take actions that exceed the NRC's
authority, requests that the NRC address issues that the NRC has
already considered in previous rulemakings, and fails to adequately
support its requests to revise NRC regulations.
The petition requests the NRC to modify its regulations to require
nuclear facilities licensed by the NRC or the Federal Government to
provide adequate funding to enable every family living within 10 miles
of a nuclear facility to build, stock, and maintain a personal family
shelter to allow families to shelter in place during releases of
nuclear material following an incident or attack at a nuclear facility.
The NRC cannot grant this request, in part because the NRC is not
authorized by Congress to make financial payments to individuals.
Further, the petition does not establish that requiring licensees to
pay for these shelters would be necessary, in light of existing NRC
requirements on emergency preparedness, to provide reasonable assurance
that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of
a radiological emergency.
The petition also asks that NRC regulations be revised to require
licensees to pay for satellite communication systems for nuclear power
plant communities to ``protect human health and the environment.'' The
petition does not demonstrate how requiring licensees to pay for these
satellite communication systems would provide, in light of existing NRC
requirements on emergency preparedness, reasonable assurance that
adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
radiological emergency.
The petition requests that NRC rules be changed so that anyone
living within 10 miles of a licensed nuclear facility is able to demand
an ISA, which would include public review of onsite security and
offsite evacuation plans for that licensee. The NRC already conducts
detailed, objective inspections of licensed research and test reactors,
operating power reactors, and fuel facilities. The NRC also performs
assessments under a program called the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)
at all operating power reactor facilities on a continuous basis. These
assessments measure performance in seven fundamental areas to ensure
safe plant operation. The ROP, as currently implemented, effectively
incorporates the inspection elements of the 1996 Maine Yankee ISA. The
NRC believes the ROP and NRC's regulatory framework effectively examine
the same key aspects of plant safety as an ISA, but
[[Page 39355]]
with a better focus on potentially risk-significant problems.
The request for public review of onsite security plans cannot be
granted because public review of these plans is not permissible.
Allowing the details of these plans to be made public could aid
adversaries. However, information concerning emergency plans is
publicly available. Residents within a radius of approximately 10 miles
from a nuclear power plant receive emergency information materials
annually, including information about protective actions such as
evacuation and sheltering. For more information concerning emergency
plans, including public inspection of these plans, a resident should
contact their local emergency management organization.
The petition also seeks revisions to NRC regulations because the
petitioner claims that the Price-Andersen Act , the structures of
corporate organizations, and NRC regulations do not adequately provide
financial protection for individuals harmed by releases of nuclear
material following an incident or attack at a nuclear facility. This
claim challenges a statutory framework that the NRC is not authorized
to change. Further, the petition does not explain why the current NRC
regulations do not assure that the public will receive prompt financial
compensation under available indemnity and underlying financial
protection for damage resulting from the hazardous properties of
radioactive materials or radiation.
The petition seeks other relief related to security issues at
nuclear power plants. The petition does not provide significant new
information or arguments that were not previously considered by the
Commission in its final rule on the Design Basis Threat, which was
published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2007 (72 FR 12705), and
became effective on April 18, 2007.
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this
petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of July 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7-13924 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
