Consideration of Rulemaking To Address Prompt Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operation, 43959-43961 [2016-15949]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43959-43961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15949]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 43959]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

[NRC-2011-0162]
RIN 3150-AJ17


Consideration of Rulemaking To Address Prompt Remediation of 
Residual Radioactivity During Operation

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public Webinar and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking 
additional input from the public, licensees, Agreement States, non-
Agreement States, and other stakeholders on the need for potential 
rulemaking to address prompt remediation of residual radioactivity 
during the operational phase at licensed material sites and nuclear 
reactors. The NRC has not initiated a rulemaking, but is gathering 
information and seeking stakeholder input on this subject for 
developing a recommendation to the Commission regarding the need for 
further rulemaking. To aid in this process, the NRC is requesting 
comments on the issues discussed in Section II, ``Specific Questions,'' 
in the Supplementary Information section of this document. 
Additionally, the NRC will hold a public Webinar and host a public 
meeting to facilitate the public's and other stakeholders' 
understanding of these issues and the submission of comments.

DATES: The public Webinar and meeting will be held in Rockville, 
Maryland on July 11, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT) to solicit 
public and stakeholder feedback. Submit comments on the issues 
discussed in this document by August 22, 2016. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comment 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-2011-0162. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlayna Vaaler, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3178; email: 
Marlayna.Vaaler@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The NRC published the Decommissioning Planning Rule (DPR) in 2011 
(76 FR 33512; June 17, 2011) with an effective date of December 17, 
2012. The DPR applies to the operational phase of a licensed facility, 
and requires licensees to operate in a way to minimize spills, leaks, 
and other unplanned releases of radioactive contaminants into the 
environment. It also requires licensees to check periodically for 
radiological contamination throughout the site, including subsurface 
soil and groundwater. The DPR does not have a mandatory requirement for 
licensees to conduct radiological remediation during operation. In the 
Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), SRM-SECY-07-0177--Proposed Rule: 
Decommissioning Planning (10 CFR parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72; RIN: 
3150-AH45) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Accession No. ML073440549) that approved the proposed DPR, the 
Commission directed the staff to ``make further improvements to the 
decommissioning planning process by addressing remediation of residual 
radioactivity during the operational phase with the objective of 
avoiding complex decommissioning challenges that can lead to legacy 
sites.'' To assist in this process, the NRC staff held a public Webinar 
on July 25, 2011, during which input on a draft regulatory basis and a 
set of defined questions concerning a potential rulemaking was obtained 
from members of the public, licensees, Agreement States, non-Agreement 
States, and other interested persons. Additionally, interested persons 
were afforded an opportunity to provide written comments on the same 
issues (see 76 FR 42074; July 18, 2011). Based upon this input, the NRC 
staff revised its Draft Regulatory Basis (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML13109A281).
    Subsequently, in SRM-SECY-12-0046--Options for Revising the 
Regulatory Approach to Groundwater Protection (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML121450704), the Commission directed the staff to continue the current 
regulatory approach for groundwater protection, including the recently 
imposed requirements contained in the DPR, and to solicit public 
comments on the technical basis for a proposed prompt remediation rule. 
The Commission also directed the staff to evaluate the pros and cons of 
moving forward with a proposed prompt remediation rulemaking, including 
the staff's initial analysis of whether the cost/benefit analysis 
satisfies the backfit requirements. The staff conducted an additional 
public meeting and Webinar on June 4, 2013 (see 78 FR 33008; June 3, 
2013), and subsequently evaluated stakeholder comments. From this 
information, the staff identified the following three options for 
potential rulemaking on prompt remediation during the operational phase 
of facility life: (1) Proceed with rulemaking; (2) do not proceed with 
rulemaking; or (3) collect 2 years of information from implementation 
of the DPR before making a staff recommendation for potential 
rulemaking.
    As a result of the ongoing discussions regarding the need for a 
prompt remediation regulation, SRM-SECY-13-0108--Staff Recommendations 
for Addressing Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13354B759), instructed the staff to ``collect 2 
years of

[[Page 43960]]

additional data from the implementation of the DPR. After collection 
and evaluation of the data and engaging stakeholders in a public 
meeting focused on operational experience from implementation of the 
Decommissioning Planning Rule, the staff should provide to the 
Commission a paper with the staff's recommendation for addressing 
remediation of residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during the 
operational phase of the facility.'' Now that the data collection 
period on the implementation of the DPR has come to a close, the NRC 
staff is collecting supplementary input from the public and other 
interested stakeholders to inform the staff's recommendation to the 
Commission regarding the need for additional rulemaking requiring 
prompt remediation during operation.

II. Specific Questions

    Currently, there are no NRC regulations that require licensees to 
promptly remediate radiological contamination. To enhance stakeholder 
engagement in making a recommendation to the Commission regarding 
whether additional rulemaking in this area is warranted, the staff is 
holding a Webinar, hosting a public meeting, and requesting feedback on 
the following questions to facilitate discussion with, and solicit 
input from, interested stakeholders.
    The NRC has asked many of the following questions before, and 
received some public input. Several commenters stated that an 
additional rule for prompt remediation is not necessary; and that 
issues can be addressed either by existing rules or by site-specific 
action. Others stated the proposed thresholds are not appropriate and 
that interim remediation is not cost effective. Those who supported an 
additional rule pointed to cases where there is significant 
contamination, and drew parallels to other regulations that require 
early cleanup, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 
NRC is now seeking further stakeholder input on these questions given 
the approximately 3 years that have passed since implementation of the 
DPR:
    1. Given the information on site radiological contamination gained 
as a result of the implementation of the Decommissioning Planning Rule, 
should the NRC proceed with additional rulemaking to address 
remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase? Why 
or why not?
    2. Based on the information on site contamination obtained from 
facilities that have entered decommissioning, should the NRC proceed 
with additional rulemaking to address remediation of residual 
radioactivity during the operational phase? Why or why not?
    3. If the NRC does implement a rule that requires prompt 
remediation of radioactive spills and leaks, what concentration, dose 
limits, or other threshold limits should trigger prompt remediation? 
Should the thresholds differ for soil versus groundwater contamination?
    4. Should the NRC allow licensees to justify delaying remediation 
under certain conditions when the contaminant level exceeds the 
threshold limit? If yes, then what conditions should be used to justify 
a delayed remediation?
    5. Should factors such as safety, operational impact, and cost be a 
basis for delaying remediation?
    6. If the NRC implements a rule that allows licensees to analyze 
residual radioactivity to justify delaying remediation, then what 
should the licensee's analysis cover? For example, what kind of dose 
assessment, risk-assessments, and/or cost-benefit analyses should be 
performed to justify delayed remediation? What other types of analyses 
are relevant to this process?
    7. If the NRC implements a rule that allows licensees to analyze 
residual radioactivity to justify delaying remediation, what role 
should the cost of prompt remediation versus remediation at the time of 
decommissioning play in the analysis? What are the overall costs and 
benefits of prompt remediation of residual radioactivity?
    8. If the NRC implements a rule that allows licensees to analyze 
residual radioactivity to justify delaying remediation, what standards 
or criteria should a licensee use to demonstrate to the NRC that a 
sufficient justification to delay remediation has been met?
    9. Are there any other alternatives beyond those discussed in the 
Draft Regulatory Basis document that the NRC should have considered to 
address prompt remediation?
    10. What other issues should the NRC staff consider in developing a 
technical basis for a potential rulemaking to address prompt 
remediation of residual radioactivity during site operation?

III. Public Webinar

    To facilitate the understanding of the public and other 
stakeholders of these issues and the submission of comments, the NRC 
staff has scheduled a public Webinar for July 11, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. 
to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). Webinar participants will be able to view the 
presentation slides prepared by the NRC and electronically submit 
comments over the Internet. Participants must register to participate 
in the Webinar. Registration information may be found in the meeting 
notice (ADAMS Accession No. ML16179A220). The meeting notice can also 
be accessed through the NRC's public Web site under the heading for 
Public Meetings; see Web page https://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg. Those 
who are unable to participate via Webinar may also participate via 
teleconference. For details on how to participate via teleconference, 
please contact Marlayna Vaaler; telephone: 301-415-3178; email: 
Marlayna.Vaaler@nrc.gov.

IV. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0162 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly available, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0162.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``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-2011-0162 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http:/
/

[[Page 43961]]

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. 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 submissions into ADAMS.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of June, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Andrea L. Kock,
Deputy Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and 
Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016-15949 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P