Nuclear Energy Institute; Consideration of Petition in the Rulemaking Process, 63725-63727 [2010-26154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules
this action. USDA has therefore
determined to withdraw this rule.
Accordingly, the proposed rule
regarding the establishment of an
estimated trade demand figure to
compute volume regulation percentages
for 2010–11 crop NS raisins published
in the Federal Register on August 6,
2010 (75 FR 47490), is hereby
withdrawn.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989
Grapes, Marketing agreements,
Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Dated: October 8, 2010.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–26163 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
for documents filed under the following
rulemaking docket ID: NRC–2009–0184.
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s Public
Document Room, Room O–1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
NRC’s Agencywide Document 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/
NRC/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 Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Young, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–
5795, e-mail: thomas.young@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
10 CFR Part 70
[Docket No. PRM–70–8; NRC–2009–0184]
Nuclear Energy Institute;
Consideration of Petition in the
Rulemaking Process
AGENCY:
The Petition
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) will consider five of
the issues raised in a petition submitted
by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
and is denying the remaining four issues
of the petition. The petition requests the
NRC amend its regulations to clarify
existing event reporting requirements
based on experience gained since the
requirements were revised.
DATES: The docket for the petition for
rulemaking PRM–70–8 is closed on
October 18, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Further NRC action on the
issues raised by this petition will be
accessible at the Federal rulemaking
portal, https://www.Regulations.gov, by
searching on rulemaking docket ID
NRC–2010–0271. The NRC also tracks
all rulemaking actions in the ‘‘NRC
Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Report
NUREG–0936.’’
You can access publically available
documents related to this petition for
rulemaking using the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.Regulations.gov and search
The NRC received and docketed a
petition for rulemaking (ADAMS
Accession No. ML091110449) dated
April 16, 2009, filed by the NEI
(petitioner). On June 4, 2009 (74 FR
26814), the NRC published a notice of
receipt requesting comment on the
petition. The petitioner requested that
the NRC amend its regulations to clarify
safety event reporting requirements
listed in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70.
The petitioner stated that in a June 2007
white paper, NEI documented
challenges posed by implementation of
the 2000 version of 10 CFR part 70,
Appendix A. The petitioner stated that
the NRC had also observed inconsistent
reporting of events under Appendix A
and had developed a matrix of reporting
issues based on actual events. A
working group, consisting of NRC and
industry representatives, was formed to
achieve a common understanding of
reports required under Appendix A. The
petitioner stated that industry endorses
and is ready to support the suggested
modifications to Appendix A that were
indicated in the petition.
The NRC identified nine issues in the
petition, as follows:
(1) In the introductory text of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70, remove
‘‘except for (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(4), after
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking:
Resolution and closure of petition
docket.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63725
they have submitted an ISA [Integrated
Safety Analysis] Summary in
accordance with § 70.62(c)(3)(ii).
Licensees must comply with (a)(1),
(a)(2), and (b)(4) after October 18, 2000.’’
(2) In paragraph (a) of Appendix A to
10 CFR part 70, change the time
requirement to submit a written report
on events reported to the NRC
Operations Center within 1 hour of
discovery from 30 days to 60 days.
(3) Revise paragraph (a)(2) of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to clarify
that the intake is associated with a
person located outside the controlled
area, in order to make the reporting
requirements commensurate with the
performance requirements described in
10 CFR 70.61(b)(3).
(4) Revise paragraph (a)(3) of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to read:
An acute chemical exposure to an
individual inside the controlled area
from licensed material or hazardous
chemicals produced from licensed
material that could endanger the life of
a worker; or, a chemical release
involving licensed material or
hazardous chemicals produced from
licensed materials that results in a
concentration outside of the controlled
area that exceeds the quantitative
standards established as required by 10
CFR 70.61(b)(4)(ii).
(5) Remove paragraph (a)(5) of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 which
states: ‘‘Loss of controls such that only
one item relied on for safety, as
documented in the Integrated Safety
Analysis summary, remains available
and reliable to prevent a nuclear
criticality accident, and has been in this
state for greater than eight hours.’’
(6) In paragraph (b) of Appendix A to
10 CFR part 70, change the time
requirement to submit written reports
on events reported to the NRC
Operations Center within 24 hours of
discovery, supplemented with the
information in 10 CFR 70.50(c)(1) as it
becomes available, from 30 days to 60
days.
(7) Revise paragraph (b)(3) of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to read,
‘‘An acute chemical exposure to an
individual inside the controlled area
from licensed material or hazardous
chemicals produced from licensed
materials that requires medical
treatment at an off-site medical facility.’’
(8) In paragraph (b)(4) of Appendix A
to 10 CFR part 70, remove ‘‘or may have
affected’’ to clarify the NRC’s
expectation on reporting any natural
phenomenon or other external event,
including fires internal and external to
the facility.
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
63726
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(9) Remove paragraph (b)(5) of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 which
states:
An occurrence of an event or process
deviation that was considered in the
Integrated Safety Analysis and (i) was
dismissed due to its likelihood; or (ii)
was categorized as unlikely and whose
associated unmitigated consequences
would have exceeded those in § 70.61(b)
had the item(s) relied on for safety not
performed their safety function(s).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Public Comments on the Petition
The notice of receipt of the petition
for rulemaking invited interested
persons to submit comments. The
comment period closed on August 18,
2009, and the NRC received four
comment letters from individuals
associated with the industry. The letters
approve of the petitioner’s request and
state that adoption of the proposed
amendments would allow a greater level
of clarity and consistency without
compromising the ability to assess (and
respond, if necessary) to a radiological
emergency.
Reasons for Consideration
The petition raised nine issues. Two
issues requested an additional 30 days
to submit a written report of a reportable
safety event, and the remaining seven
issues addressed specific types of
reportable safety events. The NRC will
consider five of the issues in the
rulemaking process and is denying
consideration of the remaining four
issues in rulemaking.
The first issue requested removal of
text in the introductory paragraph of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. This
issue will be considered in the
rulemaking process, because the
exemption expired on October 18, 2004,
and the text is no longer necessary.
The second and sixth issues requested
an additional 30 days to submit written
reports for reportable events. The
requirement to notify the NRC
Operations Center within 1 hour or 24
hours of discovery of an event would
remain the same; however, the
petitioner requested to extend the time
limit to submit a written report from 30
days to 60 days. Both of these issues
will be considered in the rulemaking
process because allowing additional
time would not impact the regulatory
performance requirements, and would
provide an opportunity for a licensee to
complete a more thorough investigation
without compromising the timely
implementation of corrective actions.
Although there have been no late
reports, allowing an additional 30 days
may reduce the number of amended
reports.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
The fifth issue requested removal of
paragraph (a)(5) of Appendix A to 10
CFR part 70 because reporting this type
of event within 1 hour (e.g., the loss of
controls) is also required to be reported
within 24 hours by paragraph (b)(2) of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. In
addition, a 1-hour reporting requirement
for nuclear criticality safety is not
consistent with the allowed risk for
other high consequence events for
which a single item relied on for safety
is allowed. This issue will be
considered in the rulemaking process
because the licensee would still be
required to report these events within
24 hours of discovery in accordance
with paragraph (b)(2) of Appendix A to
10 CFR part 70. In addition, each facility
is required to submit a safety plan (ISA,
or Integrated Safety Analysis), and all
components (known as controls) of this
plan are thoroughly evaluated to ensure
safety of the workers, the public, and
the environment.
The ninth issue requested removal of
paragraph (b)(5) of Appendix A to 10
CFR part 70 because it is redundant
with paragraph (b)(1) of Appendix A to
10 CFR part 70. This issue will be
considered in the rulemaking process
because removing the paragraph would
not negatively impact the regulatory
performance requirements.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying four of the nine
issues raised in the petition because
each issue raised is inconsistent with
the purpose of the reporting
requirement to keep NRC informed
about conditions that could result in an
imminent danger to a worker, a member
of the public, or the environment. As
previously stated in the Federal
Register Notice for the proposed rule
(64 FR 41349, July 30, 1999) the
regulation requires a licensee to inform
NRC about licensee efforts to address
potential emergencies. Once safe
conditions have been restored after an
event NRC will disseminate information
on the event to the nuclear industry to
reduce the likelihood of recurrence of
the event in the future. Also, in the
event of an emergency, NRC will
accurately respond to requests for
information from the public and the
media. Finally, NRC must have
information that enables it to evaluate
licensee and industry performance to
fulfill its statutory mandate to protect
the health and safety of the worker and
the public, and to protect the
environment. The reporting requirement
is based on consideration of the risk and
consequences established in 10 CFR
70.61(b) and is intended to replace and
expand the way in which licensees were
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reporting events prior to the effective
date of the rule on October 18, 2000.
The regulation requires a licensee to
report events based on two criteria:
(1) Whether actual consequences have
occurred or a potential for such
consequences exists, and (2) the
seriousness of the actual or potential
consequences.
The third issue raised by the
petitioner requested that the NRC revise
paragraph (a)(2) of Appendix A to 10
CFR part 70 to clarify that the acute
intake of 30 milligrams or greater of
uranium in soluble form is by an
individual located outside the
controlled area to conform this reporting
requirement to the performance
requirement in 10 CFR 70.61(b)(3). This
request is denied because such a change
would only include an individual
outside the controlled area and would
not include a worker or an individual
located inside the controlled area. The
NRC intends the reporting requirement
in paragraph (a)(2) to be broader than
the performance requirement in 10 CFR
70.61(b). The reporting requirement
applies to workers and all individuals
regardless of location whether outside
or inside the controlled area. The NRC
continues to expect a licensee to notify
the NRC within 1 hour of discovery
whenever the uranium intake limit is
exceeded by any individual regardless
of location.
The fourth issue raised by the
petitioner requested revision of
paragraph (a)(3) of Appendix A to 10
CFR part 70 to eliminate potential
confusion about quantitative values for
acute chemical exposure of individuals
located inside the controlled area. In
addition, the petitioner stated that the
proposed revision would require a
licensee to report a chemical release
concentration exceeding a quantitative
standard for an individual outside the
controlled area, rather than requiring a
licensee to determine whether an acute
chemical exposure to an individual
outside the controlled area actually
occurred before reporting the event.
This request is denied because the
proposed change would include
reporting an acute chemical exposure
only for an individual located inside the
controlled area. The petitioner’s
proposed change is inconsistent with
the intent of the reporting requirement
in paragraph (a)(3) that applies to
workers and all individuals regardless
of location whether outside or inside the
controlled area. The NRC intends the
reporting requirement in paragraph
(a)(3) to be broader than the
performance requirement in 10 CFR
70.61(b)(4)(ii). The NRC should be
informed when such events occur,
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules
regardless of the licensee’s
determination with respect to the
performance requirements. This enables
the NRC to independently evaluate the
licensee’s assessment of whether the
performance requirement was met, on
the basis of supplemental information as
it becomes available under 10 CFR
70.50(c)(1), followed by the written
report.
The seventh issue raised by the
petitioner requested revision of
paragraph (b)(3) of Appendix A to 10
CFR part 70 to limit the 24-hour
reporting requirement for an acute
chemical exposure to an individual
inside the controlled area and only if
the individual required treatment at an
offsite medical facility. The petitioner
proposed that this change would ensure
event reporting at a threshold that the
NRC would generally want to know
about. This issue is denied for the same
reasons as stated in the preceding
paragraphs and because the current
regulation requires a report within 24
hours of discovery of an acute chemical
exposure described in 10 CFR
70.61(c)(4) regardless of the location of
the exposed individual. Section
70.61(c)(4) specifically refers to both
workers and individuals outside the
controlled area. However, the proposed
change would include reporting an
acute chemical exposure only for an
individual located inside the controlled
area. Additionally, the location where
the injured person is treated (e.g., an
offsite medical facility) should not be a
factor whether to notify the NRC. It is
the intent of the NRC to ensure the
safety of individuals inside and outside
the controlled area and has focused the
reporting requirements on potential
impacts on both workers and members
of the public. To achieve this goal, a
licensee must notify the NRC of an acute
chemical exposure that requires medical
treatment, regardless of where the
treatment is administered.
The eighth issue raised by the
petitioner requested the removal of the
text ‘‘or may have affected’’ from
paragraph (b)(4) of Appendix A to 10
CFR part 70 because the phrase is
subjective when considering the safety
function or availability of an item relied
on for safety. This issue is denied
because the full impact of natural
phenomena or other external events
such as a tornado, earthquake, flood, or
fire external or internal to the facility
could prove difficult for a licensee to
fully assess and determine the status of
all items relied on for safety. Since these
events could affect a licensee’s facility,
the NRC needs to be informed about
such events to assess a licensee’s
conclusion of whether any detrimental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
effects did in fact occur, or could have
occurred in the absence of controls that
were present but not part of the safety
basis. To achieve our safety goal to
ensure adequate protection of health
and safety of individuals and the
environment and to implement the
strategy to effectively respond to certain
conditions and a licensee’s actions, it
would be in the best interest of the
licensee and the surrounding
community to report to the NRC the
occurrence of any natural phenomenon
or external event that is severe enough
to potentially impact the intended safety
function or availability or reliability of
one or more items relied on for safety.
For the reasons cited in this
document, the NRC will consider five of
the nine issues raised in this petition in
the rulemaking process, and is denying
the remaining four issues. The NRC will
consider the five issues in the
rulemaking process; however, the
petitioner’s concerns may not be
addressed exactly as the petitioner has
requested. During the rulemaking
process the NRC will solicit comments
from the public and will consider all
comments before finalizing the rule.
Future actions for PRM–70–8 will be
reported in NUREG–0936, ‘‘NRC
Regulatory Agenda’’ which is publicly
available on the NRC Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/
regulatory/rulemaking.html. The
regulatory agenda is a semiannual
compilation of all rules on which the
NRC has recently completed action, or
has proposed action, or is considering
action, and of all petitions for
rulemaking that the NRC is working to
resolve. Further information on the five
issues raised in this petition may be
tracked through https://
www.Regulations.gov under rulemaking
docket ID NRC–2010–0271. Existing
NRC regulations provide the basis for
reasonable assurance that the common
defense and security and public health
and safety are adequately protected. For
the reasons cited in this document, the
NRC closes the docket on PRM–70–8.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, September
30, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
R.W. Borchardt,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–26154 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63727
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0162; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NE–19–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce
plc (RR) RB211–524 Series Turbofan
Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
This action revises an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain RR RB211–524
series turbofan engines. That proposal
would have required initial and
repetitive borescope inspections of the
head section and meterpanel assembly
of the combustion liner, and
replacement if necessary with
serviceable parts. That proposal was
prompted by an inquiry submitted by an
operator, which resulted in RR
performing a complete review of the
affected front combustion liner part
numbers (P/Ns). This action revises the
proposed rule by clarifying the
applicability paragraph (c) of the
proposed AD. We are proposing this AD
to prevent deterioration of the engine
combustion liner, which can result in
combustion liner breakup, case burnthrough, engine fire, and damage to the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by December 17,
2010.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31,
Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom;
telephone: 011–44–1332–242424; fax:
011–44–1332–249936 for the service
information identified in this proposed
AD.
The Docket Operations office is
located at Docket Management Facility,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63725-63727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 70
[Docket No. PRM-70-8; NRC-2009-0184]
Nuclear Energy Institute; Consideration of Petition in the
Rulemaking Process
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Resolution and closure of petition
docket.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider
five of the issues raised in a petition submitted by the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI), and is denying the remaining four issues of the
petition. The petition requests the NRC amend its regulations to
clarify existing event reporting requirements based on experience
gained since the requirements were revised.
DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking PRM-70-8 is closed on
October 18, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition
will be accessible at the Federal rulemaking portal, https://www.Regulations.gov, by searching on rulemaking docket ID NRC-2010-
0271. The NRC also tracks all rulemaking actions in the ``NRC
Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Report NUREG-0936.''
You can access publically available documents related to this
petition for rulemaking using the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.Regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under the following rulemaking docket ID:
NRC-2009-0184.
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's Public
Document Room, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
NRC's Agencywide Document 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/NRC/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
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Young, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
5795, e-mail: thomas.young@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
The NRC received and docketed a petition for rulemaking (ADAMS
Accession No. ML091110449) dated April 16, 2009, filed by the NEI
(petitioner). On June 4, 2009 (74 FR 26814), the NRC published a notice
of receipt requesting comment on the petition. The petitioner requested
that the NRC amend its regulations to clarify safety event reporting
requirements listed in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. The petitioner
stated that in a June 2007 white paper, NEI documented challenges posed
by implementation of the 2000 version of 10 CFR part 70, Appendix A.
The petitioner stated that the NRC had also observed inconsistent
reporting of events under Appendix A and had developed a matrix of
reporting issues based on actual events. A working group, consisting of
NRC and industry representatives, was formed to achieve a common
understanding of reports required under Appendix A. The petitioner
stated that industry endorses and is ready to support the suggested
modifications to Appendix A that were indicated in the petition.
The NRC identified nine issues in the petition, as follows:
(1) In the introductory text of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70,
remove ``except for (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(4), after they have
submitted an ISA [Integrated Safety Analysis] Summary in accordance
with Sec. 70.62(c)(3)(ii). Licensees must comply with (a)(1), (a)(2),
and (b)(4) after October 18, 2000.''
(2) In paragraph (a) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70, change the
time requirement to submit a written report on events reported to the
NRC Operations Center within 1 hour of discovery from 30 days to 60
days.
(3) Revise paragraph (a)(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to
clarify that the intake is associated with a person located outside the
controlled area, in order to make the reporting requirements
commensurate with the performance requirements described in 10 CFR
70.61(b)(3).
(4) Revise paragraph (a)(3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to
read:
An acute chemical exposure to an individual inside the controlled area
from licensed material or hazardous chemicals produced from licensed
material that could endanger the life of a worker; or, a chemical
release involving licensed material or hazardous chemicals produced
from licensed materials that results in a concentration outside of the
controlled area that exceeds the quantitative standards established as
required by 10 CFR 70.61(b)(4)(ii).
(5) Remove paragraph (a)(5) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 which
states: ``Loss of controls such that only one item relied on for
safety, as documented in the Integrated Safety Analysis summary,
remains available and reliable to prevent a nuclear criticality
accident, and has been in this state for greater than eight hours.''
(6) In paragraph (b) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70, change the
time requirement to submit written reports on events reported to the
NRC Operations Center within 24 hours of discovery, supplemented with
the information in 10 CFR 70.50(c)(1) as it becomes available, from 30
days to 60 days.
(7) Revise paragraph (b)(3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to
read, ``An acute chemical exposure to an individual inside the
controlled area from licensed material or hazardous chemicals produced
from licensed materials that requires medical treatment at an off-site
medical facility.''
(8) In paragraph (b)(4) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70, remove
``or may have affected'' to clarify the NRC's expectation on reporting
any natural phenomenon or other external event, including fires
internal and external to the facility.
[[Page 63726]]
(9) Remove paragraph (b)(5) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 which
states:
An occurrence of an event or process deviation that was considered in
the Integrated Safety Analysis and (i) was dismissed due to its
likelihood; or (ii) was categorized as unlikely and whose associated
unmitigated consequences would have exceeded those in Sec. 70.61(b)
had the item(s) relied on for safety not performed their safety
function(s).
Public Comments on the Petition
The notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking invited
interested persons to submit comments. The comment period closed on
August 18, 2009, and the NRC received four comment letters from
individuals associated with the industry. The letters approve of the
petitioner's request and state that adoption of the proposed amendments
would allow a greater level of clarity and consistency without
compromising the ability to assess (and respond, if necessary) to a
radiological emergency.
Reasons for Consideration
The petition raised nine issues. Two issues requested an additional
30 days to submit a written report of a reportable safety event, and
the remaining seven issues addressed specific types of reportable
safety events. The NRC will consider five of the issues in the
rulemaking process and is denying consideration of the remaining four
issues in rulemaking.
The first issue requested removal of text in the introductory
paragraph of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. This issue will be
considered in the rulemaking process, because the exemption expired on
October 18, 2004, and the text is no longer necessary.
The second and sixth issues requested an additional 30 days to
submit written reports for reportable events. The requirement to notify
the NRC Operations Center within 1 hour or 24 hours of discovery of an
event would remain the same; however, the petitioner requested to
extend the time limit to submit a written report from 30 days to 60
days. Both of these issues will be considered in the rulemaking process
because allowing additional time would not impact the regulatory
performance requirements, and would provide an opportunity for a
licensee to complete a more thorough investigation without compromising
the timely implementation of corrective actions. Although there have
been no late reports, allowing an additional 30 days may reduce the
number of amended reports.
The fifth issue requested removal of paragraph (a)(5) of Appendix A
to 10 CFR part 70 because reporting this type of event within 1 hour
(e.g., the loss of controls) is also required to be reported within 24
hours by paragraph (b)(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. In addition,
a 1-hour reporting requirement for nuclear criticality safety is not
consistent with the allowed risk for other high consequence events for
which a single item relied on for safety is allowed. This issue will be
considered in the rulemaking process because the licensee would still
be required to report these events within 24 hours of discovery in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. In
addition, each facility is required to submit a safety plan (ISA, or
Integrated Safety Analysis), and all components (known as controls) of
this plan are thoroughly evaluated to ensure safety of the workers, the
public, and the environment.
The ninth issue requested removal of paragraph (b)(5) of Appendix A
to 10 CFR part 70 because it is redundant with paragraph (b)(1) of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. This issue will be considered in the
rulemaking process because removing the paragraph would not negatively
impact the regulatory performance requirements.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying four of the nine issues raised in the petition
because each issue raised is inconsistent with the purpose of the
reporting requirement to keep NRC informed about conditions that could
result in an imminent danger to a worker, a member of the public, or
the environment. As previously stated in the Federal Register Notice
for the proposed rule (64 FR 41349, July 30, 1999) the regulation
requires a licensee to inform NRC about licensee efforts to address
potential emergencies. Once safe conditions have been restored after an
event NRC will disseminate information on the event to the nuclear
industry to reduce the likelihood of recurrence of the event in the
future. Also, in the event of an emergency, NRC will accurately respond
to requests for information from the public and the media. Finally, NRC
must have information that enables it to evaluate licensee and industry
performance to fulfill its statutory mandate to protect the health and
safety of the worker and the public, and to protect the environment.
The reporting requirement is based on consideration of the risk and
consequences established in 10 CFR 70.61(b) and is intended to replace
and expand the way in which licensees were reporting events prior to
the effective date of the rule on October 18, 2000. The regulation
requires a licensee to report events based on two criteria: (1) Whether
actual consequences have occurred or a potential for such consequences
exists, and (2) the seriousness of the actual or potential
consequences.
The third issue raised by the petitioner requested that the NRC
revise paragraph (a)(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to clarify that
the acute intake of 30 milligrams or greater of uranium in soluble form
is by an individual located outside the controlled area to conform this
reporting requirement to the performance requirement in 10 CFR
70.61(b)(3). This request is denied because such a change would only
include an individual outside the controlled area and would not include
a worker or an individual located inside the controlled area. The NRC
intends the reporting requirement in paragraph (a)(2) to be broader
than the performance requirement in 10 CFR 70.61(b). The reporting
requirement applies to workers and all individuals regardless of
location whether outside or inside the controlled area. The NRC
continues to expect a licensee to notify the NRC within 1 hour of
discovery whenever the uranium intake limit is exceeded by any
individual regardless of location.
The fourth issue raised by the petitioner requested revision of
paragraph (a)(3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to eliminate potential
confusion about quantitative values for acute chemical exposure of
individuals located inside the controlled area. In addition, the
petitioner stated that the proposed revision would require a licensee
to report a chemical release concentration exceeding a quantitative
standard for an individual outside the controlled area, rather than
requiring a licensee to determine whether an acute chemical exposure to
an individual outside the controlled area actually occurred before
reporting the event.
This request is denied because the proposed change would include
reporting an acute chemical exposure only for an individual located
inside the controlled area. The petitioner's proposed change is
inconsistent with the intent of the reporting requirement in paragraph
(a)(3) that applies to workers and all individuals regardless of
location whether outside or inside the controlled area. The NRC intends
the reporting requirement in paragraph (a)(3) to be broader than the
performance requirement in 10 CFR 70.61(b)(4)(ii). The NRC should be
informed when such events occur,
[[Page 63727]]
regardless of the licensee's determination with respect to the
performance requirements. This enables the NRC to independently
evaluate the licensee's assessment of whether the performance
requirement was met, on the basis of supplemental information as it
becomes available under 10 CFR 70.50(c)(1), followed by the written
report.
The seventh issue raised by the petitioner requested revision of
paragraph (b)(3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to limit the 24-hour
reporting requirement for an acute chemical exposure to an individual
inside the controlled area and only if the individual required
treatment at an offsite medical facility. The petitioner proposed that
this change would ensure event reporting at a threshold that the NRC
would generally want to know about. This issue is denied for the same
reasons as stated in the preceding paragraphs and because the current
regulation requires a report within 24 hours of discovery of an acute
chemical exposure described in 10 CFR 70.61(c)(4) regardless of the
location of the exposed individual. Section 70.61(c)(4) specifically
refers to both workers and individuals outside the controlled area.
However, the proposed change would include reporting an acute chemical
exposure only for an individual located inside the controlled area.
Additionally, the location where the injured person is treated (e.g.,
an offsite medical facility) should not be a factor whether to notify
the NRC. It is the intent of the NRC to ensure the safety of
individuals inside and outside the controlled area and has focused the
reporting requirements on potential impacts on both workers and members
of the public. To achieve this goal, a licensee must notify the NRC of
an acute chemical exposure that requires medical treatment, regardless
of where the treatment is administered.
The eighth issue raised by the petitioner requested the removal of
the text ``or may have affected'' from paragraph (b)(4) of Appendix A
to 10 CFR part 70 because the phrase is subjective when considering the
safety function or availability of an item relied on for safety. This
issue is denied because the full impact of natural phenomena or other
external events such as a tornado, earthquake, flood, or fire external
or internal to the facility could prove difficult for a licensee to
fully assess and determine the status of all items relied on for
safety. Since these events could affect a licensee's facility, the NRC
needs to be informed about such events to assess a licensee's
conclusion of whether any detrimental effects did in fact occur, or
could have occurred in the absence of controls that were present but
not part of the safety basis. To achieve our safety goal to ensure
adequate protection of health and safety of individuals and the
environment and to implement the strategy to effectively respond to
certain conditions and a licensee's actions, it would be in the best
interest of the licensee and the surrounding community to report to the
NRC the occurrence of any natural phenomenon or external event that is
severe enough to potentially impact the intended safety function or
availability or reliability of one or more items relied on for safety.
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC will consider five
of the nine issues raised in this petition in the rulemaking process,
and is denying the remaining four issues. The NRC will consider the
five issues in the rulemaking process; however, the petitioner's
concerns may not be addressed exactly as the petitioner has requested.
During the rulemaking process the NRC will solicit comments from the
public and will consider all comments before finalizing the rule.
Future actions for PRM-70-8 will be reported in NUREG-0936, ``NRC
Regulatory Agenda'' which is publicly available on the NRC Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html. The regulatory
agenda is a semiannual compilation of all rules on which the NRC has
recently completed action, or has proposed action, or is considering
action, and of all petitions for rulemaking that the NRC is working to
resolve. Further information on the five issues raised in this petition
may be tracked through https://www.Regulations.gov under rulemaking
docket ID NRC-2010-0271. Existing NRC regulations provide the basis for
reasonable assurance that the common defense and security and public
health and safety are adequately protected. For the reasons cited in
this document, the NRC closes the docket on PRM-70-8.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, September 30, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
R.W. Borchardt,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-26154 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
