Treatment of Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel Cycle Facilities, 46472-46474 [2014-18818]
Download as PDF
46472
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 2014 / Notices
occasions without submitting NRC Form
241, a copy of its Agreement State
specific license, and the required fee for
calendar years 2009, 2010, and 2011,
with the Regional Administrator of the
appropriate NRC regional office.
This is a Severity Level II violation.
(Section 6.9) Civil Penalty—$11,200
(EA–13–105)
GEC’s Response to the Violation
In its letter dated April 15, 2014, GEC
acknowledged the violation, but
disagreed with the NRC’s conclusion
that the GEC president willfully (i.e.,
deliberately) caused the violation. The
NRC’s re-evaluation of the willful aspect
of the violation is addressed in a
separate correspondence to the
president of GEC.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Summary of GEC’s Request for
Mitigation of Civil Penalty Amount
In its response, GEC requested relief
from the civil penalty and requested
that the NRC consider the penalty
imposed on GEC by the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts for the use of a nuclear
density gauge in its jurisdiction without
filing for reciprocity.
In the April 15, 2014, letter, and in an
email correspondence dated April 30,
2014, GEC requested relief from the
proposed civil penalty due to the
unexpected payment to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the
use of a nuclear density gauge in its
jurisdiction without filing for
reciprocity. Specifically, GEC stated that
payment of the additional NRC
proposed civil penalty would pose a
financial hardship for GEC. To support
its request, on May 5, 2014, GEC
submitted by email GEC’s tax returns for
calendar years 2011 and 2012.
NRC Evaluation of GEC’s Request for
Mitigation of Civil Penalty Amount
In response to GEC’s request, the NRC
reviewed GEC’s financial information,
the documentation included as part of
the inspection and investigation, and
the applicable enforcement guidance to
determine the appropriate action.
The Enforcement Policy Section 2.3.4
allows the use of discretion in
application of a Civil Penalty, including
a secondary consideration of the
licensee’s ability to pay. Specifically, it
is not the NRC’s intention that the
economic impact of a civil penalty be so
severe that it puts a licensee out of
business. However, the Enforcement
Policy Section 3.6 also states that one of
the civil penalty assessment factors to
be considered in applying discretion is
the presence of willful behavior that
caused a noncompliance with NRC
requirements in order to obtain an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Aug 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
economic benefit. The NRC determined
that Mr. Geisser, President of GEC, acted
deliberately and provided GEC an
economic benefit of not paying NRC
reciprocity fees for calendar years 2009,
2010, and 2011. The reciprocity fees for
those years provided GEC an economic
benefit of approximately $6,000.
In the NRC’s evaluation of GEC’s
request, the NRC considered the
potential financial implications and
hardships that payment of the proposed
civil penalty would place on GEC, the
financial penalty taken previously
against GEC by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and the economic
benefit GEC received for not complying
with NRC requirements. Specifically,
the NRC considered that a substantial
financial penalty has already been
imposed on GEC by the Commonwealth
for the same violation during the same
time-frame, although in different
jurisdictions, and that payment of the
proposed NRC civil penalty may pose a
financial hardship for GEC.
The NRC determined that GEC
provided an adequate basis that the NRC
civil penalty may pose a financial
hardship for GEC. However, while some
reduction of the full civil penalty is
warranted, the NRC also considered that
the civil penalty should account for the
economic benefit that GEC gained by
not complying with NRC requirements
to file for reciprocity with the NRC and
pay the required fees.
NRC Conclusion
Based on its evaluation, the NRC has
concluded that the violation occurred as
stated and that GEC provided an
adequate basis for mitigation of the civil
penalty. Consequently, a civil penalty in
the amount of $8,400 is imposed.
[FR Doc. 2014–18815 Filed 8–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
to confirm that fuel cycle facilities are
in compliance with appropriate
regulatory requirements. The NRC will
use information submitted by licensees
in response to the generic letter if
additional regulatory action is
warranted.
Submit comments by November
6, 2014. 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: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0187. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Marcano, Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–287–9063, email:
Jonathan.Marcano@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
[NRC–2014–0187]
A. Obtaining Information
Treatment of Natural Phenomena
Hazards in Fuel Cycle Facilities
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Draft generic letter; public
meeting and request for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is seeking public
comment on a draft generic letter to
request information from licensees to
address the treatment of natural
phenomena hazards in fuel cycle
facilities. The NRC has determined that
facility-specific information is necessary
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0187 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0187.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 2014 / Notices
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–
0187 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information in
comment submissions that you do not
want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will
post all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov as well as
enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not
routinely edit comment submissions to
remove identifying or contact
information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
The NRC is issuing draft Generic
Letter 2013 XX–XX: ‘‘Treatment of
Natural Phenomena Hazards In Fuel
Cycle Facilities’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13157A158), to request
information from addressees to
demonstrate if compliance is being
maintained with the regulatory
requirements and applicable license
conditions regarding the treatment of
natural phenomena events in the
facilities’ safety assessments; and to
determine if additional NRC regulatory
action is necessary to ensure that
licensees are in compliance with their
current licensing basis and existing NRC
regulations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Aug 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
On March 11, 2011, the TohokuTaiheiyou-Oki earthquake occurred near
the east coast of Honshu, Japan. This
magnitude 9.0 earthquake and the
subsequent tsunami caused significant
damage to at least four of the six units
of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear
power station and, as a result, there was
a loss of offsite and onsite electrical
power systems.
On March 23, 2011, the Chairman of
the NRC, via Tasking Memorandum—
COMGBJ–11–0002, ‘‘NRC Actions
Following the Events in Japan,’’ directed
the NRC’s Executive Director for
Operations to establish the NRC NearTerm Task Force (NTTF) to evaluate
available technical and operational
information from the events in Japan
following the March 11, 2011,
earthquake and tsunami at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power
station. The NTTF was tasked to
consider lessons learned from the event
and to develop recommendations to
improve the regulatory systems for
reactors in the United States and their
applicability to licensed facilities other
than power reactors.
On July 12, 2011, in light of the
accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant, the NTTF
presented a set of recommendations as
a result of a systematic and methodical
review of NRC processes and
regulations applicable to nuclear power
reactors in the United States (ADAMS
Accession No. ML111861807). The
NTTF recommendations are intended to
clarify and strengthen the regulatory
framework for protection against natural
disasters, mitigation and emergency
preparedness of nuclear power reactors
in the United States.
For fuel cycle facilities, in light of the
lessons learned from the accident at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power
plant, the staff performed a systematic
evaluation and inspection of selected
fuel cycle facilities to confirm that
licensees were in compliance with
regulatory requirements and license
conditions; and to evaluate their
readiness under natural phenomena
hazards (NPH) events and other
licensing bases events related to NPH.
The staff’s assessment considered the
NTTF recommendations to determine
whether additional regulatory actions by
the NRC are warranted.
The staff completed inspections at
selected fuel facilities and the results
were used to perform a systematic
evaluation of the processes and
regulations applicable to fuel facilities.
The results of the evaluation allow the
staff to conclude that the current
regulatory approach and requirements
of these licensees continues to serve as
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46473
a basis for reasonable assurance of
adequate protection of public health and
safety. However, the staff identified
generic issues regarding compliance
with the current regulatory framework
with regards to the treatment of certain
natural phenomena events in the
facilities (uranium conversion,
enrichment and fuel fabrication) safety
assessments. The NRC is issuing this
draft generic letter to request
information from licensees to verify that
compliance is being maintained with
regulatory requirements and license
conditions regarding the treatment of
natural phenomena events.
III. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
The NRC is considering the
cumulative effects of regulation (CER) as
they relate to this Generic Letter. The
CER considers the challenges licensees
face in addressing the implementation
of new regulatory positions, programs,
and requirements (e.g., rulemaking,
guidance, backfits, inspections). The
CER initiative stems from the total
burden imposed on licensees by the
NRC from simultaneous or consecutive
regulatory actions that can adversely
affect the licensee’s capability to
implement those requirements while
continuing to operate or construct its
facility in a safe and secure manner. The
NRC proposed several rulemaking
process enhancements to address CER
in SECY–11–0032, ‘‘Consideration of
the Cumulative Effects of Regulation in
the Rulemaking Process,’’ dated October
11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML112840466). In SECY–12–0137,
‘‘Implementation of the Cumulative
Effects of Regulation Process Changes,’’
dated October 5, 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12223A162) built
upon the recommendations in SECY–
11–0032. In its Staff Requirements
Memorandum to SECY–12–0137
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13071A635),
the Commission directed the staff to,
among other items, ‘‘continue to
develop and implement outreach tools
that will allow NRC to consider more
completely the overall impacts of
multiple rules, orders, generic
communications, advisories, and other
regulatory actions on licensees and their
ability to focus effectively on items of
greatest safety importance.’’
With regard to this generic letter, the
NRC requests that licensees comment
about any CER challenges they may
face. Specifically, the NRC requests
comment on the following questions:
a. In light of any current or projected
cumulative effects, does this generic
letter request provide sufficient time for
licensees to respond with the
information requested, including any
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
46474
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
need to develop this information
through supporting engineering
calculation or analyses?
b. If a current or projected cumulative
effect poses a significant challenge,
what should be done to address it? For
example, if more time is required to
develop and provide the information,
what period of time is sufficient? Are
there equally effective alternatives to
providing the requested information to
the NRC that reduce the cumulative
effects?
c. Do other (NRC or other regulatory
agency) regulatory actions (e.g., Orders,
rules, generic letter, bulletins, 50.54(f)
requests) influence licensee responses to
this draft generic letter? If so what are
they and do you have a suggested
approach to reduce the cumulative
effects in light of these other regulatory
actions?
d. Are there other projects that
licensees are undertaking, plan to
undertake, or should be undertaking
that provide greater safety benefit, that
might be displaced or delayed as a
result of the expenditure of effort and
resources to respond to this generic
letter?
e. Are there unintended consequences
associated with responding to this
generic letter at this time?
f. Please comment on the NRC’s
supporting justification for this generic
letter.
IV. Public Meeting
The NRC is requesting public
comments on the draft generic letter.
The NRC plans to hold a public meeting
approximately 45 days into the
comment period to discuss draft Generic
Letter 2013 XX–XX: ‘‘Treatment of
Natural Phenomena Hazards In Fuel
Cycle Facilities’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13157A158), to engage industry
stakeholders and members of the public
in a discussion of this issue. This
meeting is scheduled during the
comment period to allow industry
stakeholders and members of the public
time to submit comments on the
proposed generic communication before
the comment period closes. All
comments that are to receive
consideration in the final generic letter
must still be submitted electronically or
in writing as indicated in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
Additional details regarding the
meeting will be posted at least 10 days
prior to the public meeting on the NRC’s
Public Meeting Schedule Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/index.cfm. Information
regarding topics to be discussed,
changes to the agenda, whether the
meeting has been cancelled or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Aug 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
rescheduled, and the time allotted for
public comments can be obtained from
the Public Meeting Schedule Web site.
Dated at North Bethesda, Maryland, this
1st day of August 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marissa Bailey,
Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and
Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2014–18818 Filed 8–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–72751; File No. SR–Phlx–
2014–23]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Related to the
Priority Afforded to In-Crowd
Participants Respecting Crossing,
Facilitation, and Solicited Orders in
Open Outcry Trading
August 4, 2014.
I. Introduction
On April 23, 2014, NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Phlx’’) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule
change to revise the priority afforded to
in-crowd participants respecting
crossing, facilitation, and solicited
orders in open outcry trading
(‘‘Proposal’’). The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 13, 2014.3 On
June 23, 2014, the Commission
extended the time period in which to
either approve the Proposal, disapprove
the Proposal, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or
disapprove the Proposal to August 11,
2014.4 The Commission received two
comment letters from one commenter
regarding the Proposal 5 and one
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72119
(May 7, 2014), 79 FR 27351 (‘‘Notice’’).
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72447
(June 23, 2014), 79 FR 36569 (June 27, 2014).
5 See Letter from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and
General Counsel, International Securities Exchange,
LLC, dated June 3, 2014 (‘‘ISE Letter I’’); Letter from
Michael J. Simon, Secretary and General Counsel,
International Securities Exchange, LLC, dated July
8, 2014 (‘‘ISE Letter II’’).
2 17
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
response letter from Phlx.6 On July 30,
2014, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the Proposal.7 The Commission
is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comments on the Proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, from
interested persons and to institute
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Act 8 to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the Proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.
II. Description of the Proposal
The Exchange proposes to amend
Phlx Rule 1014, Commentary .05(c)(ii),
to afford priority in open outcry trading
to in-crowd participants over out-ofcrowd Streaming Quote Traders
(‘‘SQTs’’) 9, Remote Specialists 10, and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(‘‘RSQTs’’ )11 and over out-of-crowd
6 See Letter from Carla Behnfeldt, Associate
General Counsel, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.,
dated June 20, 2014 (‘‘Phlx Response Letter’’).
7 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarifies a
reference to a previous Phlx filing and an example.
Amendment No. 1 has been placed in the public
comment file for SR-Phlx-2014–23 at https://www.
sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2014-23/
phlx201423.shtml (see letter from Carla Behnfeldt,
Associate General Counsel, The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated July
30, 2014) and also is available on the Exchange’s
Web site at https://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.
com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/pdf/phlx-filings/2014/
SR-Phlx-2014-23_Amendment_1.pdf.
8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
9 An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A) as a Registered Options Trader
(‘‘ROT’’) who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically in options to which such SQT is
assigned. Types of ROTs include SQTs, RSQTs and
non-SQTs, which by definition are neither SQTs
nor RSQTs. A Registered Options Trader is defined
in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(i) as a regular member of
the Exchange located on the trading floor who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in
options for his own account. See Phlx Rules
1014(b)(i) and (ii).
10 A Remote Specialist is a qualified RSQT
approved by the Exchange to function as a
specialist in one or more options if the Exchange
determines that it cannot allocate such options to
a floor based specialist. A Remote Specialist has all
the rights and obligations of a specialist, unless
Exchange rules provide otherwise. See Phlx Rules
501 and 1020.
11 A RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member affiliated
with a Remote Streaming Quote Trader
Organization (‘‘RSQTO’’) with no physical trading
floor presence who has received permission from
the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such
RSQT has been assigned. A qualified RSQT may
function as a Remote Specialist upon Exchange
approval. An RSQT may only submit such
quotations electronically from off the floor of the
Exchange. An RSQT may not submit option
quotations in eligible options to which such RSQT
is assigned to the extent that the RSQT is also
approved as a Remote Specialist in the same
options. An RSQT may only trade in a market
making capacity in classes of options in which he
is assigned or approved as a Remote Specialist. An
RSQTO is a member organization in good standing
that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in
Phlx Rule 507(a)(i).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46472-46474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18818]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0187]
Treatment of Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel Cycle Facilities
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Draft generic letter; public meeting and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public
comment on a draft generic letter to request information from licensees
to address the treatment of natural phenomena hazards in fuel cycle
facilities. The NRC has determined that facility-specific information
is necessary to confirm that fuel cycle facilities are in compliance
with appropriate regulatory requirements. The NRC will use information
submitted by licensees in response to the generic letter if additional
regulatory action is warranted.
DATES: Submit comments by November 6, 2014. 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: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0187. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Marcano, Office of Nuclear
Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9063, email:
Jonathan.Marcano@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0187 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0187.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select
[[Page 46473]]
``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document (if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0187 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment
submissions into ADAMS, and the NRC does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
The NRC is issuing draft Generic Letter 2013 XX-XX: ``Treatment of
Natural Phenomena Hazards In Fuel Cycle Facilities'' (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13157A158), to request information from addressees to demonstrate
if compliance is being maintained with the regulatory requirements and
applicable license conditions regarding the treatment of natural
phenomena events in the facilities' safety assessments; and to
determine if additional NRC regulatory action is necessary to ensure
that licensees are in compliance with their current licensing basis and
existing NRC regulations.
On March 11, 2011, the Tohoku-Taiheiyou-Oki earthquake occurred
near the east coast of Honshu, Japan. This magnitude 9.0 earthquake and
the subsequent tsunami caused significant damage to at least four of
the six units of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station and, as a
result, there was a loss of offsite and onsite electrical power
systems.
On March 23, 2011, the Chairman of the NRC, via Tasking
Memorandum--COMGBJ-11-0002, ``NRC Actions Following the Events in
Japan,'' directed the NRC's Executive Director for Operations to
establish the NRC Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) to evaluate available
technical and operational information from the events in Japan
following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami at the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power station. The NTTF was tasked to consider lessons
learned from the event and to develop recommendations to improve the
regulatory systems for reactors in the United States and their
applicability to licensed facilities other than power reactors.
On July 12, 2011, in light of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-
ichi nuclear power plant, the NTTF presented a set of recommendations
as a result of a systematic and methodical review of NRC processes and
regulations applicable to nuclear power reactors in the United States
(ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807). The NTTF recommendations are
intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for
protection against natural disasters, mitigation and emergency
preparedness of nuclear power reactors in the United States.
For fuel cycle facilities, in light of the lessons learned from the
accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, the staff
performed a systematic evaluation and inspection of selected fuel cycle
facilities to confirm that licensees were in compliance with regulatory
requirements and license conditions; and to evaluate their readiness
under natural phenomena hazards (NPH) events and other licensing bases
events related to NPH. The staff's assessment considered the NTTF
recommendations to determine whether additional regulatory actions by
the NRC are warranted.
The staff completed inspections at selected fuel facilities and the
results were used to perform a systematic evaluation of the processes
and regulations applicable to fuel facilities. The results of the
evaluation allow the staff to conclude that the current regulatory
approach and requirements of these licensees continues to serve as a
basis for reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health
and safety. However, the staff identified generic issues regarding
compliance with the current regulatory framework with regards to the
treatment of certain natural phenomena events in the facilities
(uranium conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication) safety
assessments. The NRC is issuing this draft generic letter to request
information from licensees to verify that compliance is being
maintained with regulatory requirements and license conditions
regarding the treatment of natural phenomena events.
III. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
The NRC is considering the cumulative effects of regulation (CER)
as they relate to this Generic Letter. The CER considers the challenges
licensees face in addressing the implementation of new regulatory
positions, programs, and requirements (e.g., rulemaking, guidance,
backfits, inspections). The CER initiative stems from the total burden
imposed on licensees by the NRC from simultaneous or consecutive
regulatory actions that can adversely affect the licensee's capability
to implement those requirements while continuing to operate or
construct its facility in a safe and secure manner. The NRC proposed
several rulemaking process enhancements to address CER in SECY-11-0032,
``Consideration of the Cumulative Effects of Regulation in the
Rulemaking Process,'' dated October 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML112840466). In SECY-12-0137, ``Implementation of the Cumulative
Effects of Regulation Process Changes,'' dated October 5, 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12223A162) built upon the recommendations in SECY-11-
0032. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-12-0137 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13071A635), the Commission directed the staff to, among
other items, ``continue to develop and implement outreach tools that
will allow NRC to consider more completely the overall impacts of
multiple rules, orders, generic communications, advisories, and other
regulatory actions on licensees and their ability to focus effectively
on items of greatest safety importance.''
With regard to this generic letter, the NRC requests that licensees
comment about any CER challenges they may face. Specifically, the NRC
requests comment on the following questions:
a. In light of any current or projected cumulative effects, does
this generic letter request provide sufficient time for licensees to
respond with the information requested, including any
[[Page 46474]]
need to develop this information through supporting engineering
calculation or analyses?
b. If a current or projected cumulative effect poses a significant
challenge, what should be done to address it? For example, if more time
is required to develop and provide the information, what period of time
is sufficient? Are there equally effective alternatives to providing
the requested information to the NRC that reduce the cumulative
effects?
c. Do other (NRC or other regulatory agency) regulatory actions
(e.g., Orders, rules, generic letter, bulletins, 50.54(f) requests)
influence licensee responses to this draft generic letter? If so what
are they and do you have a suggested approach to reduce the cumulative
effects in light of these other regulatory actions?
d. Are there other projects that licensees are undertaking, plan to
undertake, or should be undertaking that provide greater safety
benefit, that might be displaced or delayed as a result of the
expenditure of effort and resources to respond to this generic letter?
e. Are there unintended consequences associated with responding to
this generic letter at this time?
f. Please comment on the NRC's supporting justification for this
generic letter.
IV. Public Meeting
The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft generic letter.
The NRC plans to hold a public meeting approximately 45 days into the
comment period to discuss draft Generic Letter 2013 XX-XX: ``Treatment
of Natural Phenomena Hazards In Fuel Cycle Facilities'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13157A158), to engage industry stakeholders and members
of the public in a discussion of this issue. This meeting is scheduled
during the comment period to allow industry stakeholders and members of
the public time to submit comments on the proposed generic
communication before the comment period closes. All comments that are
to receive consideration in the final generic letter must still be
submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
Additional details regarding the meeting will be posted at least 10
days prior to the public meeting on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the
agenda, whether the meeting has been cancelled or rescheduled, and the
time allotted for public comments can be obtained from the Public
Meeting Schedule Web site.
Dated at North Bethesda, Maryland, this 1st day of August 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marissa Bailey,
Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2014-18818 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P