Evaluation of the Groundwater Task Force Report: Public Meeting, 57987-57989 [2010-23877]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices
of the Historian and the Advisory
Committee on Historical Diplomatic
Documentation, and diplomatic and
consular card files.
16. Export-Import Bank of the United
States, Agency-wide (N1–275–10–5, 3
items, 3 temporary items). Master files
and outputs of an electronic information
system used to aggregate and report data
on agency financial products.
17. Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, Office of the Deputy
Director of National Intelligence for
Analysis (N1–576–09–3, 28 items, 13
temporary items). Records include nonsubstantive working papers and drafts,
lower-level working group and
committee files, analyst telephone books
and resources catalog, office copies of
budget files, training materials, analytic
metrics, routine briefings files,
community support files, and other
records of a routine or transitory nature
associated with the analysis program.
Proposed for permanent retention are
outgoing correspondence, other program
records, and appointment calendars of
the Deputy Director, board and working
group files, analytic mission program
files, records associated with final
national intelligence priorities, daily
compendium of finished intelligence
documents, outreach and presentation
files, ombudsman final recommendation
files, evaluations of intelligence
products, analytic initiatives case files,
analytic improvement guidance, major
briefing materials, program records for
analytic technology and transformation,
and substantive working papers and
drafts.
Dated: September 17, 2010.
Michael J. Kurtz,
Assistant Archivist for Records Services—
Washington, DC.
National Endowment for the
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the
names of members of the Performance
Review Board for the National
Endowment for the Arts. This notice
supersedes all previous notices of the
PRB membership of the Agency.
DATES: Upon publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig McCord, Sr., Director of Human
Resources, National Endowment for the
SUMMARY:
Jkt 220001
In response to incidents
involving radioactive contamination of
groundwater wells and soils at nuclear
power plants, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) convened a
Groundwater Task Force (GTF) in
March 2010 to determine whether past,
current, and planned actions should be
augmented. The GTF, in its final report
dated June 2010, determined that the
NRC is meeting its mission of protecting
public health, safety, and the
environment. However, in view of
stakeholder concerns, the GTF
recommended that the NRC consider
changes to its oversight of licensed
material outside of its designed
SUMMARY:
Arts.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting;
solicitation of public comments.
SES Performance Review Board
16:52 Sep 22, 2010
BILLING CODE 7537–01–P
AGENCY:
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND HUMANITIES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
[FR Doc. 2010–23770 Filed 9–22–10; 8:45 am]
Evaluation of the Groundwater Task
Force Report: Public Meeting
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
ACTION:
Kathleen Edwards,
Director of Administrative Services, National
Endowment for the Arts.
[NRC–2010–0302]
[FR Doc. 2010–23806 Filed 9–22–10; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Room 627, Washington, DC 20506, (202)
682–5473.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See 4314
(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C.,
requires each agency to establish, in
accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Office of Personnel Management,
one or more SES Performance Review
Boards. The Board shall review and
evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior
executive’s performance by the
supervisor, along with any response by
the senior executive, and make
recommendations to the appointing
authority relative to the performance of
the senior executive.
The following persons have been
selected to serve on the Performance
Review Board of the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA):
Joan Shigekawa—Senior Deputy
Chairman.
Larry Baden—Deputy Chairman for
Management and Budget.
Michael Burke—Chief Information
Officer.
Sunil Iyengar—Director, Research &
Analysis.
William O’Brien—Senior Advisor for
Program Innovation.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57987
confinement. The NRC established a
senior management review group to
evaluate the GTF report, identify next
steps, and make recommendations to
the Commission about potential policy
changes. The NRC will host a meeting
with the public to discuss and solicit
input on the potential policy changes
being considered. The meeting will
serve as a forum for members of the
public to provide oral comments. The
NRC is also requesting written
comments on the potential policy
issues, particularly for those members of
the public unable to attend the meeting.
The potential policy issues can be found
in Section C, ‘‘Topics for Discussion:
Potential Policy Issues,’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this notice.
DATES: Public Meeting Date: Monday,
October 4, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Comment Dates: For individuals who
wish to provide written comments on
the potential policy issues, the
comments are requested by October 15,
2010. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC is able to assure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held in the Commission Hearing Room
at the NRC Headquarters building,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The NRC Headquarters
building is located across the street from
the White Flint metro station. For most
attendees, the metro system is likely the
most convenient mode of transportation,
as there is very limited parking
available. Please also allow time to
register with building security.
Individuals unable to travel to the NRC
Headquarters building may participate
by teleconference or observe by live
Webcast. Please contact the individual
listed below to get details for
participating in this manner.
You may submit comments by any
one of the following methods. Please
include Docket ID NRC–2010–0302 in
the subject line of your comments.
Comments submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be posted on the
NRC Web site and on the Federal
rulemaking Web site Regulations.gov.
Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or
contact information, the NRC cautions
you against including any information
in your submission that you do not want
to be publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57988
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2010–0302. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements and
Directives Branch (RADB), Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492–
3446.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this notice using
the following methods:
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this page,
the public can gain entry into 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 NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The potential
policy issues are available electronically
under ADAMS Accession Number
ML102460172.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this notice can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on Docket ID: NRC–2010–0302.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barry Miller, (301) 415–4117, e-mail
address Barry.Miller@nrc.gov. Public
meeting attendees are requested to preregister with the meeting contact by
September 30, 2010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background and Purpose of the
Public Meeting
The NRC convened the GTF in March
2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML100640188) to evaluate NRC actions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
taken in response to recent releases of
tritium into groundwater by nuclear
facilities, reevaluate the
recommendations made in the Liquid
Radioactive Release Lessons Learned
Task Force Final Report dated
September 1, 2006 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML062650312), and review the
actions taken in SECY–09–0174 (Staff
Progress in Evaluation of Buried Piping
at Nuclear Reactor Facilities, ADAMS
Accession No. ML093160004). The
purpose of the review was to determine
whether the actions taken in response to
recent events need to be augmented.
The GTF completed its work in June
2010, and provided the final report to
the NRC Executive Director for
Operations (EDO) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML101680435). The GTF final
report identified four major themes that
provided focus for the report’s
conclusions: Theme 1—Reassess NRC’s
Regulatory Framework for Groundwater
Protection, Theme 2—Maintain Barriers
as Designed to Confine Licensed
Material, Theme 3—Create More
Reliable NRC Response, and Theme 4—
Strengthen Trust.
As a result of this report, the EDO
tasked a senior management review
group to evaluate the report’s
conclusions and recommendations and
identify actions that can be taken now,
in addition to issues of policy that
should be raised for Commission
consideration. The senior management
review group has completed their
evaluation and compiled a list of
potential policy issues for
consideration. The purpose of this
meeting is to receive input on these
potential policy issues from a diverse
group of public and industry
stakeholders to ensure we have
identified and are considering the right
issues on which to focus our attention
as we move forward. The potential
policy issues can be found in Section C,
Topics for Discussion: Potential Policy
Issues, of this notice. Many of the issues
listed in Section C contain specific
references to the GTF report, with the
references provided in parentheses
following the specific issue.
B. Public Meeting Agenda
A meeting notice and detailed agenda
are available on the NRC public meeting
schedule Web site https://www.nrc.gov/
public-involve/public-meetings/
index.cfm. The meeting will take place
from 9 a.m.–5 p.m. and consist of four
sessions with a short break in between
each one. Each session will correspond
to one of the four themes identified in
the GTF final report: Theme 1, Reassess
NRC’s Regulatory Framework for
Groundwater Protection; Theme 2,
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Maintain Barriers as Designed to
Confine Licensed Material; Theme 3,
Create More Reliable NRC Response;
and Theme 4, Strengthen Trust. Each
session will have a panel consisting of
public and industry stakeholders, with
the aim of representing an array of
perspectives. Each panelist will give an
approximately ten-minute presentation
summarizing their views on the policy
issues covered by their session topic.
These presentations will be followed by
a facilitated open discussion with the
general attendees, thereby providing an
opportunity for any attendee to provide
input.
C. Topics for Discussion: Potential
Policy Issues
Provided below are the potential
policy issues identified by the senior
management review group from the GTF
final report. The parenthetical notation
following many of the potential policy
issues is a reference to a conclusion in
the GTF final report. For example, C.3.2
is referencing conclusion C.3.2 in
Appendix C of the report.
Theme 1: Reassess NRC’s Regulatory
Framework for Groundwater Protection
Should NRC’s programs be modified
to ensure harmonization of the
approaches we have taken to
groundwater protection that are applied
to different licensees under NRC
regulations? (C.3.2)
How should the NRC’s programs
accommodate or encourage industry
initiatives that go beyond NRC
requirements?
• E.g., for reactors, is the industry’s
voluntary initiative on groundwater
protection sufficiently comprehensive?
Should it be taken into account in
NRC’s regulatory framework? (B.3.4)
How should NRC’s programs address
protection of the environment?
• Should requirements be
promulgated to require prompt
remediation of unintended releases of
radioactive liquids? (C.3.3)
• Should the NRC consider modifying
Part 20 to address those portions of
International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) 103
related to environmental protection?
(E.3.4)
Should changes be made to the
radiological effluent performance
indicator in the Reactor Oversight
Process to make it more reflective of
performance in the area of plant
releases, both planned and unplanned?
Should the performance indicator take
into account public confidence in
addition to the current risk-informed
approach to radiation protection that
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices
verifies the effluent release program
performance? (B.3.1)
Should a policy statement be
developed based upon NRC’s existing
regulations and guidance to address: (1)
Protection of the environment within
NRC’s regulatory framework, (2) NRC’s
expectations of licensees, (3) the
relationship to other regulatory
schemes, and (4) NRC’s desire to work
cooperatively with other Federal
agencies and States in protecting the
environment?
Should NRC’s regulatory framework
be informed by experience or guidance
developed or applied by the
International Atomic Energy Agency,
the international community or by other
U.S. agencies, e.g., Department of
Energy directives (DOE STD 1153) and
activities?
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Theme 2: Maintain Barriers as Designed
To Confine Licensed Material
Should NRC’s programs be modified
to ensure that systems and components
better contain radioactive liquids and
gases?
• Are additional requirements
appropriate for the design, operation
and maintenance of systems and
components that contain radioactive
liquids and gases? (C.3.1)
• Should a more quantitative
definition of the ‘‘As Low As Is
Reasonably Achievable’’ (ALARA)
concept be adopted with respect to
leakage of radioactive liquids and gases?
• Is it feasible to apply the ALARA
concept in 10 CFR 50.36a to
‘‘unmonitored releases’’ and to restricted
areas as well as unrestricted areas?
• How could the principles in 10 CFR
20.1406 be applied to operating
reactors?
• Do the existing General Design
Criteria (GDC) (e.g., GDC 60 and 64) in
10 CFR part 50, appendix A, provide a
basis to require new licensee programs
with respect to leakage of radioactive
liquids and gases?
Theme 3: Create More Reliable NRC
Response
Should NRC’s programs be modified
to ensure greater consistency when
addressing low risk, high public
interest/confidence issues?
• Should NRC’s oversight programs
be modified to include more specific
guidance on responding to reported
incidents where risk is low but there is
high stakeholder interest? Should this
guidance address the follow up and
disposition of a licensee’s immediate
actions, extent of condition, root cause,
corrective action, and communication
with the stakeholders? (A.3.1, A.3.2,
B.3.3)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
57989
How can the NRC improve
communications and support to other
regulatory agencies, such as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and
the States, in understanding and
exercising respective roles and
responsibilities related to groundwater
protection? (D.3.3)
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
Theme 4: Strengthen Trust
The Postal Service has
requested semi–permanent exceptions
to certain recently–adopted service
performance measurement reporting
requirements. This order grants most of
the requested exceptions. The
Commission asks the Postal Service to
explore other measurement options or
use of proxies for reporting purposes for
the exceptions not granted. This order
also addresses the question of the need
to request an exception or waiver prior
to the use of a proxy as a substitute for
a direct measurement.
DATES: Request for waivers from the
Postal Service: October 1, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202–789–
6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Regulatory
History, 75 FR 38757 (JULY 6, 2010).
D. Conduct of the Meeting.
This is a Category 3 Meeting. The
public is invited to participate in this
meeting by providing comments and
asking questions throughout the
meeting. The NRC’s Policy Statement,
‘‘Enhancing Public Participation on NRC
Meetings,’’ (May 28, 2002; 67 FR 36920),
applies to this meeting. The policy
contains information regarding visitors
and security. The NRC provides
reasonable accommodation to
individuals with disabilities where
appropriate. If a member of the public
needs a reasonable accommodation to
participate in the meeting, or needs the
meeting notice or the transcript or other
information from the meeting in another
format (e.g., Braille, large print), please
notify the NRC’s meeting contacts.
Determinations on requests for
reasonable accommodations will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of September 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael R. Johnson,
Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and
Preparedness Programs, Acting Office of the
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–23877 Filed 9–22–10; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Exceptions from Periodic Reporting
Rules
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY:
How can the NRC increase confidence
in its actions and communications
related to groundwater protection?
What role could third party
verification or assessment play in
responding to groundwater protection?
(D.3.3)
What would be the benefit of using
the International Nuclear Event Scale
for communicating the safety
significance of events at Levels 0 or 1
that attract high domestic or
international public interest? Would
this approach lead to confusion on the
significance of the issue?
How can greater clarity be given to the
interplay between NRC regulations and
existing State and other Federal
regulations with respect to the
objectives and level of protection
provided by adherence to the
regulations?
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[Docket No. RM2010–11; Order No. 531]
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Statutory Provisions
III. Use of Proxies
IV. Disposition of Individual Requests
for Exceptions
V. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
The Commission issued an Order
Establishing Final Rules Concerning
Periodic Reporting of Service
Performance Measurements and
Customer Satisfaction (Order No. 465)
on May 25, 2010, bringing Docket No.
RM2009–11 to a conclusion. Within this
order, the Commission established a
two-step process to achieve full
compliance with all reporting
requirements by the filing date of the FY
2011 Annual Compliance Report (ACR).
See Order No. 465 at 18–24.
The first step in the process, and the
subject matter of the instant order,
consists of the Postal Service petitioning
the Commission for semi-permanent
exceptions from reporting pursuant to
rule 3055.3. Id. at 21–22. The second
step, and the subject matter of a future
proceeding, consists of the Postal
Service petitioning the Commission for
temporary waivers of reporting until
such time that reporting can be
provided. The Commission further
indicated that the Postal Service may
seek a temporary waiver of reporting for
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57987-57989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23877]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0302]
Evaluation of the Groundwater Task Force Report: Public Meeting
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting; solicitation of public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to incidents involving radioactive contamination
of groundwater wells and soils at nuclear power plants, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) convened a Groundwater Task Force (GTF) in
March 2010 to determine whether past, current, and planned actions
should be augmented. The GTF, in its final report dated June 2010,
determined that the NRC is meeting its mission of protecting public
health, safety, and the environment. However, in view of stakeholder
concerns, the GTF recommended that the NRC consider changes to its
oversight of licensed material outside of its designed confinement. The
NRC established a senior management review group to evaluate the GTF
report, identify next steps, and make recommendations to the Commission
about potential policy changes. The NRC will host a meeting with the
public to discuss and solicit input on the potential policy changes
being considered. The meeting will serve as a forum for members of the
public to provide oral comments. The NRC is also requesting written
comments on the potential policy issues, particularly for those members
of the public unable to attend the meeting. The potential policy issues
can be found in Section C, ``Topics for Discussion: Potential Policy
Issues,'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
DATES: Public Meeting Date: Monday, October 4, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.
Comment Dates: For individuals who wish to provide written comments
on the potential policy issues, the comments are requested by October
15, 2010. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only
for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the Commission Hearing
Room at the NRC Headquarters building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The NRC Headquarters building is located across the
street from the White Flint metro station. For most attendees, the
metro system is likely the most convenient mode of transportation, as
there is very limited parking available. Please also allow time to
register with building security. Individuals unable to travel to the
NRC Headquarters building may participate by teleconference or observe
by live Webcast. Please contact the individual listed below to get
details for participating in this manner.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please
include Docket ID NRC-2010-0302 in the subject line of your comments.
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on
the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site
Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any
identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
[[Page 57988]]
comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and
therefore, they should not include any information in their comments
that they do not want publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0302. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements and
Directives Branch (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office
of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492-
3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into 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 NRC's PDR
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The potential policy issues are available
electronically under ADAMS Accession Number ML102460172.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2010-0302.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Miller, (301) 415-4117, e-mail
address Barry.Miller@nrc.gov. Public meeting attendees are requested to
pre-register with the meeting contact by September 30, 2010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background and Purpose of the Public Meeting
The NRC convened the GTF in March 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML100640188) to evaluate NRC actions taken in response to recent
releases of tritium into groundwater by nuclear facilities, reevaluate
the recommendations made in the Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons
Learned Task Force Final Report dated September 1, 2006 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML062650312), and review the actions taken in SECY-09-
0174 (Staff Progress in Evaluation of Buried Piping at Nuclear Reactor
Facilities, ADAMS Accession No. ML093160004). The purpose of the review
was to determine whether the actions taken in response to recent events
need to be augmented.
The GTF completed its work in June 2010, and provided the final
report to the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO) (ADAMS
Accession No. ML101680435). The GTF final report identified four major
themes that provided focus for the report's conclusions: Theme 1--
Reassess NRC's Regulatory Framework for Groundwater Protection, Theme
2--Maintain Barriers as Designed to Confine Licensed Material, Theme
3--Create More Reliable NRC Response, and Theme 4--Strengthen Trust.
As a result of this report, the EDO tasked a senior management
review group to evaluate the report's conclusions and recommendations
and identify actions that can be taken now, in addition to issues of
policy that should be raised for Commission consideration. The senior
management review group has completed their evaluation and compiled a
list of potential policy issues for consideration. The purpose of this
meeting is to receive input on these potential policy issues from a
diverse group of public and industry stakeholders to ensure we have
identified and are considering the right issues on which to focus our
attention as we move forward. The potential policy issues can be found
in Section C, Topics for Discussion: Potential Policy Issues, of this
notice. Many of the issues listed in Section C contain specific
references to the GTF report, with the references provided in
parentheses following the specific issue.
B. Public Meeting Agenda
A meeting notice and detailed agenda are available on the NRC
public meeting schedule Web site https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. The meeting will take place from 9 a.m.-5
p.m. and consist of four sessions with a short break in between each
one. Each session will correspond to one of the four themes identified
in the GTF final report: Theme 1, Reassess NRC's Regulatory Framework
for Groundwater Protection; Theme 2, Maintain Barriers as Designed to
Confine Licensed Material; Theme 3, Create More Reliable NRC Response;
and Theme 4, Strengthen Trust. Each session will have a panel
consisting of public and industry stakeholders, with the aim of
representing an array of perspectives. Each panelist will give an
approximately ten-minute presentation summarizing their views on the
policy issues covered by their session topic. These presentations will
be followed by a facilitated open discussion with the general
attendees, thereby providing an opportunity for any attendee to provide
input.
C. Topics for Discussion: Potential Policy Issues
Provided below are the potential policy issues identified by the
senior management review group from the GTF final report. The
parenthetical notation following many of the potential policy issues is
a reference to a conclusion in the GTF final report. For example, C.3.2
is referencing conclusion C.3.2 in Appendix C of the report.
Theme 1: Reassess NRC's Regulatory Framework for Groundwater Protection
Should NRC's programs be modified to ensure harmonization of the
approaches we have taken to groundwater protection that are applied to
different licensees under NRC regulations? (C.3.2)
How should the NRC's programs accommodate or encourage industry
initiatives that go beyond NRC requirements?
E.g., for reactors, is the industry's voluntary initiative
on groundwater protection sufficiently comprehensive? Should it be
taken into account in NRC's regulatory framework? (B.3.4)
How should NRC's programs address protection of the environment?
Should requirements be promulgated to require prompt
remediation of unintended releases of radioactive liquids? (C.3.3)
Should the NRC consider modifying Part 20 to address those
portions of International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
103 related to environmental protection? (E.3.4)
Should changes be made to the radiological effluent performance
indicator in the Reactor Oversight Process to make it more reflective
of performance in the area of plant releases, both planned and
unplanned? Should the performance indicator take into account public
confidence in addition to the current risk-informed approach to
radiation protection that
[[Page 57989]]
verifies the effluent release program performance? (B.3.1)
Should a policy statement be developed based upon NRC's existing
regulations and guidance to address: (1) Protection of the environment
within NRC's regulatory framework, (2) NRC's expectations of licensees,
(3) the relationship to other regulatory schemes, and (4) NRC's desire
to work cooperatively with other Federal agencies and States in
protecting the environment?
Should NRC's regulatory framework be informed by experience or
guidance developed or applied by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the international community or by other U.S. agencies, e.g.,
Department of Energy directives (DOE STD 1153) and activities?
Theme 2: Maintain Barriers as Designed To Confine Licensed Material
Should NRC's programs be modified to ensure that systems and
components better contain radioactive liquids and gases?
Are additional requirements appropriate for the design,
operation and maintenance of systems and components that contain
radioactive liquids and gases? (C.3.1)
Should a more quantitative definition of the ``As Low As
Is Reasonably Achievable'' (ALARA) concept be adopted with respect to
leakage of radioactive liquids and gases?
Is it feasible to apply the ALARA concept in 10 CFR 50.36a
to ``unmonitored releases'' and to restricted areas as well as
unrestricted areas?
How could the principles in 10 CFR 20.1406 be applied to
operating reactors?
Do the existing General Design Criteria (GDC) (e.g., GDC
60 and 64) in 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, provide a basis to require
new licensee programs with respect to leakage of radioactive liquids
and gases?
Theme 3: Create More Reliable NRC Response
Should NRC's programs be modified to ensure greater consistency
when addressing low risk, high public interest/confidence issues?
Should NRC's oversight programs be modified to include
more specific guidance on responding to reported incidents where risk
is low but there is high stakeholder interest? Should this guidance
address the follow up and disposition of a licensee's immediate
actions, extent of condition, root cause, corrective action, and
communication with the stakeholders? (A.3.1, A.3.2, B.3.3)
How can the NRC improve communications and support to other
regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the States, in understanding and exercising respective roles and
responsibilities related to groundwater protection? (D.3.3)
Theme 4: Strengthen Trust
How can the NRC increase confidence in its actions and
communications related to groundwater protection?
What role could third party verification or assessment play in
responding to groundwater protection? (D.3.3)
What would be the benefit of using the International Nuclear Event
Scale for communicating the safety significance of events at Levels 0
or 1 that attract high domestic or international public interest? Would
this approach lead to confusion on the significance of the issue?
How can greater clarity be given to the interplay between NRC
regulations and existing State and other Federal regulations with
respect to the objectives and level of protection provided by adherence
to the regulations?
D. Conduct of the Meeting.
This is a Category 3 Meeting. The public is invited to participate
in this meeting by providing comments and asking questions throughout
the meeting. The NRC's Policy Statement, ``Enhancing Public
Participation on NRC Meetings,'' (May 28, 2002; 67 FR 36920), applies
to this meeting. The policy contains information regarding visitors and
security. The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If a member of the public needs a
reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting, or needs the
meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the meeting
in another format (e.g., Braille, large print), please notify the NRC's
meeting contacts. Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodations will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of September 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael R. Johnson,
Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs, Acting
Office of the Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-23877 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
