Energy Solutions; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking, 46569-46570 [E7-16476]

Download as PDF 46569 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 161 Tuesday, August 21, 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–50–88] Energy Solutions; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt. rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking, dated May 29, 2007, filed by Thomas E. Magette of EnergySolutions. The petition was docketed by the NRC on June 6, 2007, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM– 50–88. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to provide a regulatory framework that would allow funds from licensees’ decommissioning trust funds to be used for the cost of disposal of ‘‘major radioactive components’’ (MRCs) that have been removed from reactors prior to the permanent cessation of operations. DATES: Submit comments by November 5, 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 by any one of the following methods. Please include PRM–50–88 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal information, such as your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, etc., will not be removed from your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Aug 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 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. 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: 800–368–5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 The Petitioner The petitioner is EnergySolutions. EnergySolutions is a nuclear services firm that provides services to private and government organizations involved in nuclear activities. The petitioner states that it has broad experience and expertise with the NRC licensing process and the standards that apply to the regulation of nuclear facilities, the use of radioactive materials, the cleanup and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and the disposal of radioactive waste. Background The petitioner states that 10 CFR 50.2 defines decommissioning as not beginning until the site or facility ceases operations, and asserts that the definition implies that an entire facility must be removed from service before an activity can be considered as part of decommissioning. The petitioner also states that 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) allows withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds for decommissioning expenses only, and further limits withdrawals for planning activities prior to the submittal of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) following cessation of operations. According to the petitioner, the disposal costs for MRCs that have been removed from service but are awaiting disposal while the facility is still in service are not covered by decommissioning trust funds. The petitioner states that most licensees, rather than use limited operating funds, defer the disposal of MRCs until the time of decommissioning, when they can use their trust funds to remove and dispose of the MRCs in order to achieve the radiation dose limits specified in Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 20. The petitioner asserts that this disposal may not take place for decades, giving rise to adverse environmental impacts if not properly managed. The Proposed Amendments The petitioner requests that NRC amend its regulations at 10 CFR 50.82, ‘‘Termination of License,’’ to provide a process that would permit a licensee, in advance of permanently ceasing operation at a site, to facilitate the decommissioning process by allowing decommissioning trust funds to be used for disposal of removed MRCs. (Note: The petitioner is not requesting that E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM 21AUP1 46570 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules NRC amend its regulations to allow the use of decommissioning trust funds to cover the costs of removing the MRCs from the reactor.) Specifically, the petitioner is requesting that 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) through (a)(8)(iv) be redesignated as 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv) through (a)(8)(v), and that a new 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) be added. The petitioner proposes the new language read as follows: (iii) Notwithstanding the limitations of §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 8(ii), a licensee may use decommissioning trust funds to dispose of major radioactive components that have been removed from the reactor provided: A. The licensee has submitted to the NRC with a copy to the Federal or State government agency (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State Public Utility Commissions), if any, which has rate regulation oversight responsibility for the licensee’s decommissioning trust fund: (1) A request to allow it to withdraw a specified amount from its decommissioning trust fund for the purpose of disposing of specific major radioactive component(s); (2) A site-specific decommissioning cost estimate that includes the disposal costs for major components stored on site; and (3) An analysis demonstrating that if the licensee withdraws funds for the costs of disposing of the particular component(s) from the decommissioning trust fund, the remaining funds in the licensee’s decommissioning trust fund are sufficient to meet the provisions of §§ 50.82(a)(8)(i)(B) and (C); and B. The NRC has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the provisions of §§ 50.82(a)(8)(B) and (C) will be met if the licensee withdraws the funds requested under § 50.82(a)(8)(iii)(A)(1). The petitioner’s asserted justifications for this amendment include: (1) Reducing the radioactive source term associated with the contaminated components at reactor sites; (2) Exposing site workers to less radiation; (3) Eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens by avoiding the costs associated with both maintaining the components on-site and providing protection to workers as a result of maintaining those components; (4) Reducing the overall costs to decommission sites; and (5) Ensuring that more funds are available to decommission reactors at the time the reactors cease operation. rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS Conclusion The petitioner concludes that it is in the public interest to provide a regulatory framework to allow funds from licensees’ decommissioning trust funds to be used for the cost of disposal of MRCs that have been removed from reactors prior to the permanent cessation of operations. Accordingly, VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Aug 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 the petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations as described previously in the section titled, ‘‘The Proposed Amendments.’’ Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7–16476 Filed 8–20–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration 10 CFR Part 905 RIN 1901–AB24 Energy Planning and Management Program; Integrated Resource Planning Approval Criteria Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is proposing changes to current regulations that require customers to prepare integrated resource plans (IRP). Western is proposing to facilitate public review of customer IRPs by making them more readily available, such as by posting customer IRPs on Western’s external Web site. Western is also proposing language to encourage participation in regional IRPs by customers who may not be members of a member-based association (MBA). Finally, Western proposes to modify the requirement that each member of an MBA approve the IRP. Publication of this Federal Register notice begins the formal process for the proposed regulation revisions. DATES: The comment period begins today and will end November 19, 2007. Western will present a detailed explanation of the proposed revisions to its current regulations and accept oral and written comments at a joint public information and public comment forum. The public forum will be held on the following date: September 6, 2007, 1 p.m. MDT, Denver, CO. Western will accept written comments any time during the comment period. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ron Horstman, Energy Services Specialist, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228–8213. Comments may be sent by fax to (720) 962–7427 or by electronic mail to horstman@wapa.gov. Western will post PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 information about the public process on its Web site at https://www.wapa.gov. Western will post official comments received via letter and e-mail to its Web site after the close of the comment period. Western must receive written comments by the end of the comment period to ensure they are considered in Western’s decision process. The public forum location will be the Radisson Hotel Denver Stapleton Plaza, 3333 Quebec Street, Denver, Colorado 80207. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Project manager-Ron Horstman, (720) 962–7419, e-mail horstman@wapa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction and Discussion of Proposal Section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Public Law 102–486, amended the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 7275–7276) to require integrated resource planning by Western’s customers. Western implemented section 114 of EPAct through completion of the Energy Planning and Management Program (Program) in October 1995. 60 FR 54151 (October 20, 1995). The Program was revised in March of 2000 to allow customers more alternatives in meeting the IRP requirements. 65 FR 16789 (March 30, 2000). Western’s current regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR part 905. Western is proposing to revise its IRP rule pursuant to 10 CFR 905.24, which allows Western at appropriate intervals to initiate a public process to review and revise its regulations. Specifically, Western is proposing to change its IRP regulations in three respects. The first proposed change is to the public participation requirement under 10 CFR 905.11 (b)(4). Given the large number of members of some MBAs and the diversity of the member’s interests, Western proposes to eliminate the requirement that members of an MBA unanimously approve the IRP (10 CFR 905.11(b)(4)(i) ). Instead, Western proposes to require approval only by the governing body of an MBA, which serves the interests of each MBA member through the member’s representation on the MBA board. Western is proposing no other changes to the full public participation requirement in section 905.11(b)(4). Secondly, Western is proposing to add a paragraph to section 905.12(b) to encourage cooperation among customers in the preparation of regional IRPs by clarifying that such a regional approach is acceptable, with advance approval by Western, even if the participating E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM 21AUP1

Agencies

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 21, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46569-46570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16476]


========================================================================
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. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 46569]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-88]


Energy Solutions; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and 
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking, dated May 29, 
2007, filed by Thomas E. Magette of EnergySolutions. The petition was 
docketed by the NRC on June 6, 2007, and has been assigned Docket No. 
PRM-50-88. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations 
to provide a regulatory framework that would allow funds from 
licensees' decommissioning trust funds to be used for the cost of 
disposal of ``major radioactive components'' (MRCs) that have been 
removed from reactors prior to the permanent cessation of operations.

DATES: Submit comments by November 5, 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 by any one of the following methods. 
Please include PRM-50-88 in the subject line of your comments. Comments 
on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made 
available to the public in their entirety on the NRC rulemaking Web 
site. Personal information, such as your name, address, telephone 
number, e-mail address, etc., will not be removed from your submission.
    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.

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: 800-
368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitioner

    The petitioner is EnergySolutions. EnergySolutions is a nuclear 
services firm that provides services to private and government 
organizations involved in nuclear activities. The petitioner states 
that it has broad experience and expertise with the NRC licensing 
process and the standards that apply to the regulation of nuclear 
facilities, the use of radioactive materials, the clean-up and 
decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and the disposal of radioactive 
waste.

Background

    The petitioner states that 10 CFR 50.2 defines decommissioning as 
not beginning until the site or facility ceases operations, and asserts 
that the definition implies that an entire facility must be removed 
from service before an activity can be considered as part of 
decommissioning. The petitioner also states that 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) 
allows withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds for decommissioning 
expenses only, and further limits withdrawals for planning activities 
prior to the submittal of the post-shutdown decommissioning activities 
report (PSDAR) following cessation of operations. According to the 
petitioner, the disposal costs for MRCs that have been removed from 
service but are awaiting disposal while the facility is still in 
service are not covered by decommissioning trust funds. The petitioner 
states that most licensees, rather than use limited operating funds, 
defer the disposal of MRCs until the time of decommissioning, when they 
can use their trust funds to remove and dispose of the MRCs in order to 
achieve the radiation dose limits specified in Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 
20. The petitioner asserts that this disposal may not take place for 
decades, giving rise to adverse environmental impacts if not properly 
managed.

The Proposed Amendments

    The petitioner requests that NRC amend its regulations at 10 CFR 
50.82, ``Termination of License,'' to provide a process that would 
permit a licensee, in advance of permanently ceasing operation at a 
site, to facilitate the decommissioning process by allowing 
decommissioning trust funds to be used for disposal of removed MRCs. 
(Note: The petitioner is not requesting that

[[Page 46570]]

NRC amend its regulations to allow the use of decommissioning trust 
funds to cover the costs of removing the MRCs from the reactor.) 
Specifically, the petitioner is requesting that 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) 
through (a)(8)(iv) be redesignated as 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv) through 
(a)(8)(v), and that a new 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) be added. The 
petitioner proposes the new language read as follows:

    (iii) Notwithstanding the limitations of Sec. Sec.  
50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 8(ii), a licensee may use decommissioning 
trust funds to dispose of major radioactive components that have 
been removed from the reactor provided:
    A. The licensee has submitted to the NRC with a copy to the 
Federal or State government agency (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission and State Public Utility Commissions), if any, which has 
rate regulation oversight responsibility for the licensee's 
decommissioning trust fund:
    (1) A request to allow it to withdraw a specified amount from 
its decommissioning trust fund for the purpose of disposing of 
specific major radioactive component(s);
    (2) A site-specific decommissioning cost estimate that includes 
the disposal costs for major components stored on site; and
    (3) An analysis demonstrating that if the licensee withdraws 
funds for the costs of disposing of the particular component(s) from 
the decommissioning trust fund, the remaining funds in the 
licensee's decommissioning trust fund are sufficient to meet the 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  50.82(a)(8)(i)(B) and (C); and
    B. The NRC has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that 
the provisions of Sec. Sec.  50.82(a)(8)(B) and (C) will be met if 
the licensee withdraws the funds requested under Sec.  
50.82(a)(8)(iii)(A)(1).

    The petitioner's asserted justifications for this amendment 
include:
    (1) Reducing the radioactive source term associated with the 
contaminated components at reactor sites;
    (2) Exposing site workers to less radiation;
    (3) Eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens by avoiding the 
costs associated with both maintaining the components on-site and 
providing protection to workers as a result of maintaining those 
components;
    (4) Reducing the overall costs to decommission sites; and
    (5) Ensuring that more funds are available to decommission reactors 
at the time the reactors cease operation.

Conclusion

    The petitioner concludes that it is in the public interest to 
provide a regulatory framework to allow funds from licensees' 
decommissioning trust funds to be used for the cost of disposal of MRCs 
that have been removed from reactors prior to the permanent cessation 
of operations. Accordingly, the petitioner requests that the NRC amend 
its regulations as described previously in the section titled, ``The 
Proposed Amendments.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7-16476 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

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