Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC, 49863-49868 [2016-17766]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
§ 800.117
services.
Who shall perform original
(e)(2)(iv), and revise paragraph (h)(1)(i)
to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Written agreement. If the assigned
official agency agrees in writing with
the adjacent official agency to waive the
current geographic area restriction at the
request of the applicant for service, the
adjacent official agency may provide
service at a particular location upon
providing written notice to the Service,
and the Service determines that the
written agreement conforms to the
provisions in the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. In § 800.175, revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 800.175
Termination of licenses.
(a) Term of license. Each license shall
terminate in accordance with the
termination date shown on the license
and as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section. The termination date for a
license shall be no less than 5 years or
more than 6 years after the issuance date
for the initial license; thereafter, every 5
years. Upon request of a licensee and for
good cause shown, the termination date
may be advanced or delayed by the
Administrator for a period not to exceed
60 days.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. In § 800.195, add paragraphs (f)(11)
and (g)(4) to read as follows:
§ 800.195
Delegations.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(11) Notification to Secretary. A
delegated State shall notify the
Secretary of its intention to temporarily
discontinue official inspection and/or
weighing services for any reason, except
in the case of a major disaster. The
delegated State must provide written
notification to the Service no less than
72 hours in advance of the
discontinuation date.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(4) Review. At least once every 5
years, a delegated State shall submit to
a review of its delegation by the Service
in accordance with the criteria and
procedures for delegation prescribed in
section 7(e) of the Act, this section of
the regulations, and the instructions.
The Administrator may revoke the
delegation of a State according to this
subsection if the State fails to meet or
comply with any of the criteria for
delegation set forth in the Act,
regulations, and instructions.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. In § 800.196, revise paragraphs
(e)(2)(ii) and (iii), add paragraph
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Jul 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
49863
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
§ 800.196
10 CFR Parts 20, 26, 32, 40, 50, 53, 73,
74, and 150
Designations.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The applicant meets the
conditions and criteria specified in the
Act and regulations;
(iii) The applicant is better able than
any other applicant to provide official
services; and
(iv) The applicant addresses concerns
identified during consultations that the
Service conducts with applicants for
service to the satisfaction of the Service.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Termination and renewal—(1)
Every 5 years—(i) Termination. A
designation shall terminate at a time
specified by the Administrator, but not
later than 5 years after the effective date
of the designation. A notice of
termination shall be issued by the
Service to a designated agency at least
120 calendar days in advance of the
termination date. The notice shall
provide instructions for requesting
renewal of the designation. Failure to
receive a notice from the Service shall
not exempt a designated agency from
the responsibility of having its
designation renewed on or before the
specified termination date.
*
*
*
*
*
11. In § 800.216, revise paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
■
§ 800.216 Activities that shall be
monitored.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Grain handling activities. Grain
handling activities subject to monitoring
for compliance with the Act include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Shipping export grain without
inspection or weighing;
(2) Violating any Federal law with
respect to the handling, weighing, or
inspection of grain;
(3) Deceptively loading, handling,
weighing, or sampling grain; and
(4) Exporting grain without a
certificate of registration.
*
*
*
*
*
Larry Mitchell,
Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016–17762 Filed 7–28–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[NRC–1999–0002, NRC–2001–0012, NRC–
2002–0013, NRC–2006–0008, NRC–2008–
0200, NRC–2009–0227, and NRC–2009–
0079]
RIN 3150–AH18; 3150–AG89; 3150–AG64;
3150–AH81; 3150–AI29; 3150–AI68; 3150–
AI50
Rulemaking Activities Being
Discontinued by the NRC
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Rulemaking activities;
discontinuation.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is discontinuing
eight rulemaking activities. The purpose
of this action is to inform members of
the public that these rulemaking
activities are being discontinued and to
provide a brief discussion of the NRC’s
decision to discontinue them. These
rulemaking activities will no longer be
reported in the NRC’s portion of the
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions (the Unified
Agenda).
SUMMARY:
Effective July 29, 2016, the
rulemaking activities discussed in this
document are discontinued.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket IDs
NRC–1999–0002, NRC–2001–0012,
NRC–2002–0013, NRC–2006–0008,
NRC–2008–0200, NRC–2009–0227, or
NRC–2009–0079 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this action. You
may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket IDs NRC–1999–0002, NRC–
2001–0012, NRC–2002–0013, NRC–
2006–0008, NRC–2008–0200, NRC–
2009–0227, or NRC–2009–0079.
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.
• 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
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
49864
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leslie Terry, Office of Administration,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–1167; email: Leslie.Terry@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking
Activities
III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid
Materials (RIN 3150–AH18; NRC–1999–
0002)
IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors
(RIN 3150–AG89; NRC–2001–0012)
V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by
Specific Licensees (RIN 3150–AG64;
NRC–2002–0013)
VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, PerformanceBased Requirements for Nuclear Power
Reactors (RIN 3150–AH81; NRC–2006–
0008)
VII. Expansion of the National Source
Tracking System (RIN 3150–AI29; NRC–
2008–0200)
VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or
Designated Material (RIN 3150–AI68;
NRC–2009–0227)
IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear
Facilities (No RIN or NRC Docket ID)
X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials—
Amendments and Integrated Safety
Analysis (RIN 3150–AI50; NRC–2009–
0079)
XI. Conclusion
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
Each year the NRC staff develops the
NRC’s Common Prioritization of
Rulemaking report, which is used to
develop rulemaking program budget
estimates and to determine the relative
priority of rulemaking activities. During
the most recent review of ongoing and
potential rulemaking activities, the NRC
staff identified seven rulemaking
activities in various stages of
development, which the Commission
approved to be discontinued. For
transparency, the NRC staff is including
in this action an additional eighth
activity that the Commission has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Jul 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
already provided initial direction to
discontinue.
A discussion of the NRC’s decision to
discontinue these eight rulemaking
activities is provided in Sections III
through X of this document.
II. Process for Discontinuing
Rulemaking Activities
When the NRC staff identifies a
rulemaking activity that can be
discontinued, they will request, through
a Commission paper, approval from the
Commission to discontinue it. The
Commission provides its decision in an
SRM. If the Commission approves
discontinuing the rulemaking activity,
the NRC will inform the public of the
decision to discontinue it.
A rulemaking activity may be
discontinued at any stage in the
rulemaking process. For a rulemaking
activity that has received public
comments, the NRC will consider those
comments before discontinuing the
rulemaking activity; however, the NRC
will not provide individual comment
responses.
After Commission approval to
discontinue the rulemaking activity, in
the next edition of the Unified Agenda,
the NRC will update the entry for the
rulemaking activity to indicate that it is
no longer being pursued. The
rulemaking activity will appear in the
completed section of that edition of the
Unified Agenda but will not appear in
future editions.
III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid
Materials (RIN 3150–AH18; NRC–1999–
0002)
The NRC began an enhanced
participatory process to evaluate
alternative courses of action for control
of solid materials at NRC-licensed
facilities that have very low amounts of,
or no amount of, radioactivity. As part
of this process, the NRC published an
Issues Paper in the Federal Register on
June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35090), requesting
public comment on various alternatives.
The NRC also held a series of public
meetings during the fall of 1999. The
Issues Paper described the following
process alternatives: (1) Continue the
current NRC practice of case-by-case
consideration of licensee requests for
release of solid material and consider
updating existing guidance; or (2)
conduct a rulemaking to establish
criteria for control of solid materials.
The Issues Paper indicated that a
rulemaking could have three technical
approaches: (1) Permit release of solid
materials for unrestricted use if the
potential dose to the public from this
use is less than a specified level
determined during the rulemaking
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
process; (2) restrict release of solid
materials to only certain authorized
uses; or (3) do not permit either
unrestricted or restricted release of solid
materials that have been in an area
where radioactive material has been
used or stored, and instead require all
these materials to go to a licensed lowlevel waste disposal facility.
The agency received over 900
comment letters containing around
2,379 individual comments on the
Issues Paper, in addition to those
summarized from the public meeting
transcripts. The comments were
summarized in NUREG/CR–6682,
‘‘Summary and Categorization of Public
Comments on Controlling the
Disposition of Solid Materials,’’
published in September 2000 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML040720691).
Comments were received from
essentially every stakeholder group,
including environmental and citizen’s
groups, members of the general public,
scrap and recycling companies, steel
and cement manufacturers, hazardous
and solid waste management facilities,
U.S. Department of Energy, State
agencies, Tribal governments, scientific
organizations, international
organizations, NRC licensees, and
licensee organizations. Most of the
comments focused on the specific
technical approach or criteria that
should be developed and reflected a
broad spectrum of viewpoints on the
issues related to control of solid
materials. The NRC staff considered all
the comments received.
The NRC staff submitted a draft
proposed rule to the Commission,
SECY–05–0054, ‘‘Proposed Rule:
Radiological Criteria for Controlling the
Disposition of Solid Materials,’’ dated
March 31, 2005 (ADAMS Package
Accession No. ML041550790). The NRC
staff proposed this rule to the
Commission because the NRC wanted to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the NRC regulatory process by
establishing criteria for the disposition
of solid materials in the regulations.
This proposed rule would have added
radiological criteria for controlling the
disposition of solid materials that have
no, or very small amounts of, residual
radioactivity resulting from licensed
operations, and which originate in
restricted or impacted areas of NRClicensed facilities. In the SRM for
SECY–05–0054, dated June 1, 2005
(ADAMS Accession No. ML051520185),
the Commission disapproved
publication of the proposed rule at that
time [emphasis added] because the NRC
was ‘‘faced with several high priority
and complex tasks, the current approach
to review specific cases on an
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
individual basis is fully protective of
public health and safety, and the
immediate need for this rule has
changed due to the shift in timing for
reactor decommissioning.’’
This rulemaking continued to be on
hold while the Commission was focused
on enhancing security and emergency
preparedness and response as well as
beginning preparations for new
authorizations under the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, including new nuclear
facility licensing and regulation.
The NRC has decided not to proceed
with this rulemaking activity because,
even though there has been a recent
increase in decommissioning, the
current regulatory framework provides
for case by case approval of alternate
disposal procedures under 10 CFR
20.2002. To date, the NRC has received
a limited number of licensee requests
per year. The NRC staff is conducting a
low-level waste programmatic
assessment. As part of this assessment,
the NRC staff will conduct a scoping
study of various low-level waste issues.
If the NRC staff determines a need to
pursue rulemaking as a result of this
study, then the NRC staff will request
Commission approval for the
rulemaking.
IV. Entombment Options for Power
Reactors (RIN 3150–AG89; NRC–2001–
0012)
The NRC published an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the
Federal Register (66 FR 52551; October
16, 2001) to request public comment on
the issues surrounding the feasibility of
entombment. The ANPR was published
because the NRC was considering an
amendment to its regulations that would
have clarified the use of entombment for
power reactors. The NRC had
determined that entombment of power
reactors was a technically viable
decommissioning alternative and could
be accomplished safely. The ANPR also
included dose criteria for license
termination. The dose criteria given in
the ANPR included a provision that
would have permitted license
termination under restricted and
unrestricted release conditions.
The agency received 19 comment
letters on the ANPR from States,
licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute,
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Conference of
Radiation Control Program Directors’ E–
24 Committee, the Southeast Compact
Commission, and a private individual.
There was no consensus on a preferred
option; some commenters supported the
entombment option while other
commenters did not. In general,
comments from the eight utilities and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Jul 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
the Nuclear Energy Institute stated that
they would like to have entombment
available as a decommissioning option;
however, none committed to using
entombment as a decommissioning
process.
The NRC has decided not to proceed
with this rulemaking activity because
the three decommissioning options,
which include entombment for power
reactors, are currently being considered
within the rulemaking for reactor
decommissioning. Specifically, in the
SRM for SECY–14–0118, ‘‘Request by
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for
Exemptions from Certain Emergency
Planning Requirements,’’ dated
December 30, 2014 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14364A111), the Commission
directed the NRC staff to proceed with
rulemaking on reactor
decommissioning.
V. Transfers of Certain Source
Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN
3150–AG64; NRC–2002–0013)
On August 28, 2002 (67 FR 55175),
the NRC published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register that would have
required prior NRC approval for
transfers of source material derived from
licensees’ specifically licensed material
to ensure that these transfers do not
pose a health and safety concern.
The NRC received 25 comments from
individuals, industrial groups,
environmental organizations, and State
and Federal government agencies. A
summary of comments and issues raised
by commenters includes the following:
(1) Proposed release limits were
inconsistent with part 20 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR); (2) better clarification was needed
regarding doses applied to non-disposal
transfers; (3) the only technical basis
discussed was based on an overly
conservative assessment; (4) the
proposed rule was inconsistent with the
existing exemption in 10 CFR 40.13(a);
(5) these transfers could impact public
health and safety; (6) the environmental
assessment was insufficient and the
NRC should develop an environmental
impact statement; (7) more information
was needed about implementation of
the rule; (8) the policy was inconsistent
with past documents issued by the
Commission on this subject; (9) the rule
should also apply to general licensees;
(10) there should be a minimum
quantity level below which approvals
for transfer would not be needed; (11)
the number of transfers were
underestimated; (12) the NRC
underestimated the impact to industry
because Agreement State licensees were
not included in the regulatory analysis;
and (13) differing commenter opinions
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49865
on whether to include the word
‘‘disposes’’ in the authorized activities
in 10 CFR 40.13(a). Several commenters
commented on the agency’s question on
whether the regulations should include
new requirements specifically
prohibiting intentional dilution. Several
commenters were against including new
regulations for dilution because they
believed that it would potentially lead
to additional, unnecessary burdens for
industry. Several commenters thought
that regulations should be added to
prevent intentional dilution for
purposes of waste treatment and
disposal. Some of these commenters
thought that ‘‘intentional dilution’’
needed to be better defined. The NRC
staff considered all the comments
received.
The NRC has decided not to proceed
with this rulemaking activity because
the concerns are being considered in
other regulatory processes. Specifically,
there is ongoing work related to SECY–
03–0068, ‘‘Interagency Jurisdictional
Working Group Evaluating the
Regulation of Low-Level Source
Material or Materials Containing Less
than 0.05 Percent by Weight
Concentration Uranium and/or
Thorium,’’ dated May 1, 2003 (ADAMS
Package Accession No. ML030920468),
and recent discussions with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency that
would allow certain low-level wastes to
be disposed of in Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (commonly known as
RCRA) sites. In addition, the NRC has
decided not to proceed with this
rulemaking activity because the NRC
has, on a case-by-case basis,
successfully dealt with the issues this
rulemaking activity would have
addressed.
VI. Approach to Risk-Informed,
Performance-Based Requirements for
Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150–
AH81; NRC–2006–0008)
On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267), the
NRC published an ANPR in the Federal
Register to request public comment on
an approach that would have
established a comprehensive set of riskinformed and performance-based
requirements applicable for all nuclear
power reactor technologies as an
alternative to current requirements. At
the time the ANPR was published, the
NRC already had an ongoing effort to
revise some specific regulations to make
them risk-informed and performancebased. The rulemaking would have used
operating experience, lessons learned
from the rulemaking activities, and
advances in the use of risk-informed
technology to focus NRC and industry
resources on the most risk-significant
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49866
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
aspects of plant operations to better
protect public health and safety. The set
of new alternative requirements would
have been intended primarily for new
nuclear power reactors, although they
would have been available to existing
reactor licensees.
The ANPR included 73 questions
about the proposed rulemaking scope
and plan. The NRC received 15
comment submittals from the regulated
industry, consensus standard
committees, private individuals, and a
foreign regulatory body. Many of the
public comments supported the concept
of a risk-informed, performance-based
regulatory framework and the
development of technology-neutral
regulations. Some public comments
recommended that it was too soon to
develop the proposed framework and
that the NRC and the industry needed
to pilot the licensing of advanced
reactor technology using the current 10
CFR parts 50 and 52 frameworks to
identify challenges. Some comments did
not support the framework as described
in the ANPR because it did not require
specific design standards and asserted
that it did not adequately employ
consensus standards that have been
demonstrated as adequate and safe for
existing reactors. The NRC staff
considered all the comments received.
In SECY–07–0101, ‘‘Staff
Recommendations Regarding a RiskInformed and Performance-Based
Revision to 10 CFR part 50,’’ dated June
14, 2007 (ADAMS Package Accession
No. ML070790253), the NRC staff
requested that the Commission defer the
rulemaking activity until after the
development of the licensing strategy
for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP) or receipt of an application for
design certification or a license for the
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. In the
SRM for SECY–07–0101, dated
September 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML072530501), the Commission
approved the NRC staff’s
recommendation to defer the
rulemaking activity. In the same SRM,
the Commission approved the NRC
staff’s proposal to provide a
recommendation on initiating a
rulemaking 6 months after the
development of the licensing strategy
for the NGNP was finalized. In 2011, the
U.S. Department of Energy decided not
to proceed with Phase 2 design
activities because of fiscal constraints,
competing priorities, projected cost of
the prototype, and inability to reach a
cost share agreement with the industry.
As a result, the NRC no longer has a
viable demonstration project to
reference. Therefore, the NRC has
decided not to proceed with this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Jul 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
rulemaking activity or continue to
expend resources tracking this
rulemaking, which is now 10 years old.
The NRC has several initiatives
underway that would further riskinform and performance-base the
regulatory framework. Discontinuing
this particular rulemaking would not
preclude other ongoing or future riskinformed, performance-based initiatives.
The NRC is open to new opportunities
to explore a risk-informed, performancebased licensing strategy. In the past 2
years, there has been renewed U.S.
industry and Executive Branch interest
in advanced non-light water reactors
(LWRs). The NRC is working to develop
a regulatory process to address the
unique aspects of these designs within
the current regulatory framework. A
new risk-informed, performance-based
framework has the potential to address
some of these unique aspects assuming
that the necessary supporting data is
available. Currently the advanced nonLWR designs have not reached a level
of maturity that would support
development of a regulatory basis for
rulemaking.
When supporting data is available, the
NRC staff would reevaluate the need for
rulemaking.
VII. Expansion of the National Source
Tracking System (RIN 3150–AI29;
NRC–2008–0200)
On April 11, 2008, the NRC published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
(73 FR 19749) that would have
expanded the current National Source
Tracking System (NSTS) to include
certain additional sealed sources. This
rule would have required licensees to
report certain transactions involving
these sealed sources to the NSTS; these
transactions included the manufacture,
transfer, receipt, disassembly, or
disposal of the nationally tracked
source. Each licensee would have had to
provide its initial inventory of
nationally tracked sources to the NSTS
and annually verify and reconcile the
information in the system with the
licensee’s actual inventory.
The NRC received 19 comment letters
from States, licensees, industry
organizations, and individuals. Almost
all of the comment letters were opposed
to expanding the NSTS as proposed for
the following reasons: (1) The rule is
premature and should be delayed to
allow time to refine the burden
estimates in the regulatory analysis
using actual experience from the current
NSTS; (2) the NSTS should be fully
operational and successfully tracking
currently required sources before the
NRC adds additional sources to NSTS;
and (3) there needs to be additional
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
justification of the security risks posed
by these sources before incurring the
additional regulatory burden. The NRC
staff considered all the comments
received.
Based on public comments, the NRC
staff requested the Commission to defer
completion of the NSTS final rule
(SECY–09–0011, ‘‘Deferral of
Rulemaking: Expansion of National
Source Tracking System (RIN 3150–
AI29),’’ dated January 15, 2009 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML083540566)).
On May 11, 2009, a copy of a draft
final rule was provided to the
Agreement States for review. The
Executive Boards of the Organization of
Agreement States and the Conference of
Radiation Control Program Directors
provided comments. The agency
received 26 comments from individual
states. All of the comments received
from the States, except one, opposed the
NSTS expansion final rule. Most of the
commenters cited a risk that
implementing the rule would shift
limited personnel resources away from
what they believe are more near-term
and tangible health and safety aspects of
radiation protection.
The Commission was unable to reach
a decision on the NRC staff’s
recommendation to defer the NSTS final
rule (SRM for SECY–09–0011, dated
May 28, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML091480775)). Instead, the
Commission directed the NRC staff to
conduct a data and system operations
and performance analysis of the NSTS
based on system operation with
Category 1 and 2 sources and report to
the Commission. The NRC staff
conducted these analyses and reported
to the Commission.
The NRC has decided not to proceed
with this rulemaking activity because
the existing regulatory basis, draft
proposed rule, and final proposed rule
are now out of date. This rulemaking
was developed and proposed as the
NSTS was being developed and
deployed in late 2008. Since 2009, the
NRC published 10 CFR part 37,
‘‘Physical Protection of Category 1 and
Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive
Material’’ (78 FR 16922; March 19,
2013); gained significant experience in
the management and operation of the
National Source Tracking System (see
https://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/
ismp/nsts.html); and deployed two online applications to support validation
of licenses, the Web-Based Licensing
System (see https://www.nrc.gov/
security/byproduct/ismp/wbl.html) and
the License Verification System (see
https://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/
ismp/lvs.html). The NRC staff is
conducting a program review of 10 CFR
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
part 37, which includes an assessment
of whether additional measures are
warranted for Category 3 materials.
Following completion of the 10 CFR
part 37 assessment, if the NRC staff
determines that the NSTS should be
expanded, then the NRC staff will
request Commission approval for the
rulemaking. The NRC staff will be
reporting to the Commission and the
Congress on this review in 2016.
VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities,
Fuel, or Designated Material (RIN
3150–AI68; NRC–2009–0227)
In SECY–12–0066, ‘‘Criminal
Penalties for the Unauthorized
Introduction of Weapons into Facilities
Designated by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and for
Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,’’
dated April 26, 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML120200150), the NRC
staff recommended, in part, that the
Commission defer a decision on
whether to proceed with a rulemaking
to revise 10 CFR 73.81, ‘‘Criminal
penalties,’’ to add certain radioactive
material or other property to the scope
of criminal penalties for sabotage
authorized under in Section 236,
‘‘Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,’’
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (AEA).
In SECY–12–0066, the NRC staff
noted that the NRC had not previously
issued regulations to implement the
authority of Section 236 of the AEA.
Instead, the NRC has viewed the
language of this statute as plain enough
to enable the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) to initiate prosecutions for
criminal acts, particularly involving the
most significant facilities that the NRC
regulates, including nuclear power
reactors and fuel cycle facilities. This
rulemaking would have allowed the
NRC to identify certain radioactive
material or other property for inclusion
within the scope of Section 236.a(7) of
the AEA if the Commission determined
that this material or other property was
significant to public health and safety or
common defense and security. The NRC
staff evaluated whether further
rulemaking was needed to expand
nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or
nuclear fuel covered under the scope of
Section 236 of the AEA. The NRC staff
evaluated (1) materials in 10 CFR part
73, appendix I, ‘‘Category 1 and 2
Radioactive Materials’’ (material list in
appendix A to 10 CFR part 37); (2)
production reactor spent nuclear fuel
and naval reactor spent nuclear fuel,
and (3) source material in the physical
form of uranium hexafluoride.
In SECY–12–0066, the NRC staff
discussed why these materials were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Jul 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
chosen for evaluation and the
application of Section 236.a(3) of the
AEA. The NRC staff stated that
‘‘Including certain radioactive material
or other property within the scope of the
criminal penalties in Section 236 of the
AEA may provide DOJ with additional
tools for combating terrorists and other
malevolent actors.’’ However, the NRC
staff noted that a determination of the
list of radionuclides and quantities to
use in a subsequent rulemaking would
need to be coordinated with NRC
activities to implement
Recommendation 2 of the 2010
Radiation Source Protection and
Security Task Force Report [task force
recommendations appear in SECY–11–
0169, ‘‘U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Implementation Plan for
the Radiation Source Protection and
Security Task Force Report’’ (ADAMS
Package Accession No. ML113070551)],
as well as consideration of ongoing
actions related to chemical security. The
NRC staff indicated that it could not
develop the required regulatory basis for
a rulemaking to expand the scope of
Section 236 of the AEA to include these
materials until these activities are
completed. The Commission approved
the NRC staff’s recommendation in the
SRM for SECY–12–0066, dated June 18,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML121700765).
The NRC staff completed the
additional activities discussed in SECY–
12–0066 and informed the Commission
that there was no compelling reason to
revise 10 CFR 73.81 to implement the
scope authority provided by Section 236
of the AEA to provide criminal
sanctions for sabotage of nuclear
facilities, nuclear waste, and nuclear
fuel or other property.
The NRC has decided not to proceed
with this rulemaking activity because
the NRC staff has concluded that a
rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 73.81 to
implement the new authority of Section
236 of the AEA would not serve as an
effective deterrent for individuals intent
on committing sabotage of nuclear
facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear fuel
or other property and is not warranted
at this time.
IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear
Facilities (No RIN or NRC Docket ID)
In COMSECY–04–0037, ‘‘Fitness-forDuty Orders to Address Fatigue of
Nuclear Facility Security Force
Personnel,’’ dated June 21, 2004
(ADAMS Accession No. ML040790094),
the NRC staff requested Commission
approval to issue security orders
concerning fitness-for-duty
enhancements to address fatigue
concerns for security force personnel at
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49867
five classes of NRC-licensed facilities:
(1) Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installations, (2) Decommissioning
Reactors, (3) Category I Fuel Cycle
Facilities, (4) Gaseous Diffusion Plants,
and (5) the Natural Uranium Conversion
Facility. In the SRM for COMSECY–04–
0037, dated September 1, 2004 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML042450533), the
Commission directed the NRC staff to
pursue the rulemaking process rather
than issuing security orders for those
materials facilities and personnel for
whom the NRC staff believes fatigue
related requirements are necessary.
On June 18, 2014 (FR 79 34641), the
NRC published a draft regulatory basis
for public comment in the Federal
Register to support the potential
amendments to revise a number of
existing security-related regulations
relating to physical protection of special
nuclear material at NRC-licensed
facilities and in transit, as well as the
fitness for duty programs for security
officers at Category I fuel cycle facilities.
The draft regulatory basis encompassed
three separate rulemaking efforts: (1)
Enhanced Security at Fuel Cycle
Facilities, (2) Special Nuclear Material
Transportation Security, and (3)
Security-Force Fatigue at Category I
Fuel Cycle Facilities.
During the public comment period the
two Category I fuel cycle licensees
proposed an alternative to the SecurityForce Fatigue rulemaking. Specifically,
the affected licensees proposed adding a
fatigue management program for
security officers into their security
plans. On April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22434),
the NRC published the final regulatory
basis that explained that the NRC had
decided to separate the regulatory basis
activities for the Security-Force Fatigue
at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities to
allow staff time to explore the
alternative to rulemaking proposal.
The NRC has decided not to proceed
with the Security-Force Fatigue
rulemaking activity because, after
reviewing the two licensees’ proposed
changes to their security plans to
manage security officer fatigue, NRC
licensing staff considers the proposal a
viable option because it will establish
fatigue requirements that can be readily
inspected and enforced for the two
Category I fuel cycle licensees within
their security plans.
X. Domestic Licensing of Source
Materials—Amendments and
Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150–
AI50; NRC–2009–0079)
On May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28336), the
NRC published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register, proposing to amend
its regulations by adding additional
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49868
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 146 / Friday, July 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirements for source material
licensees who possess significant
quantities of uranium hexafluoride
(UF6). The proposed amendments
would require these licensees to
conduct integrated safety analyses
(ISAs) similar to the ISAs performed by
10 CFR part 70 licensees; set possession
limits for UF6 for determining licensing
authority (NRC or Agreement States);
add defined terms; add an additional
evaluation criterion for applicants who
submit an evaluation in lieu of an
emergency plan; require the NRC to
perform a backfit analysis under
specified circumstances; and make
administrative changes to the structure
of the regulations. The NRC held a
public meeting on February 22, 2008, to
discuss the scope of the proposed
rulemaking and to seek public input on
the proposed threshold quantities for
determining when a facility will be
regulated by the NRC or an Agreement
State.
The agency received nine comment
letters addressing multiple issues.
Comments on the proposed rule were
submitted on behalf of several affected
States, by industry representatives, NRC
licensees, and an individual. The
comments and responses were grouped
into eight areas: General, procedural,
definitions, performance requirements,
jurisdiction/authority, backfitting,
reporting, and corrections. Most of the
comments were generally opposed to
the proposed changes to the regulations.
Several comments questioned the cost
amounts used in the regulatory analysis.
All the commenters opposed the
probabilistic risk assessment. The NRC
staff considered all the comments
received.
The NRC staff submitted a draft final
rule to the Commission in SECY–12–
0071, ‘‘Final Rule: Domestic Licensing
of Source Material—Amendments/
Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150–
A150),’’ dated May 7, 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12094A344). The
draft final rule was revised from the
proposed rule based on comments from
Agreement States and the public. In the
SRM for SECY–12–0071, dated May 3,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13123A127), the Commission
disapproved publication of the draft
final rule. The Commission directed the
NRC staff to revise the rule and
associated guidance to address issues
given in the SRM and to resubmit the
rule for Commission consideration.
In COMSECY–15–0002, ‘‘Termination
of Rulemaking to Revise Title 10 of The
Code of Federal Regulations Part 40,
‘Domestic Licensing of Source Material’
and Staff Plans to Address Other Items
in Staff Requirements Memorandum for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Jul 28, 2016
Jkt 238001
SECY–12–0071 (RIN 3150–A150)’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13331A559),
the NRC staff proposed termination of
this rulemaking. The NRC staff based
this recommendation on: (1)
Honeywell’s existing uranium
conversion facility, and the licensed but
as yet un-built uranium deconversion
facility to be operated by International
Isotopes; both already have newly
approved ISAs as required by their
licenses, (2) the NRC does not anticipate
new applications for 10 CFR part 40
uranium conversion or deconversion
facilities in the foreseeable future, (3)
the hazards at Honeywell’s uranium
conversion facility and the hazards at
International Isotopes planned uranium
deconversion facility are facilityspecific and sufficiently controlled, (4)
the NRC staff’s reanalysis of the rule has
reduced the priority of the rulemaking,
and (5) consideration of the cumulative
effects of regulation. The agency plans
to develop Interim Staff Guidance
related to 10 CFR part 70 facilities. The
Commission approved termination of
this rulemaking in the SRM for
COMSECY–15–0002, dated April 17,
2015 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15107A488).
The NRC staff is including discussion
of this decision in this document to
inform members of the public.
XI. Conclusion
The NRC is no longer pursuing the
eight rulemaking activities for the
reasons discussed in this document. In
the next edition of the Unified Agenda,
the NRC will update the entry for these
rulemaking activities with reference to
this document to indicate that they are
no longer being pursued. These
rulemaking activities will appear in the
completed section of that edition of the
Unified Agenda but will not appear in
future editions. Should the NRC
determine to pursue anything in these
areas in the future, it will inform the
public through a new rulemaking entry
in the Unified Agenda.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day
of July, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–17766 Filed 7–28–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0029 and
EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072]
RIN 1904–AD44, 1904–AC66, and 1904–
AC51
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Final Coverage
Determination; Test Procedures for
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products;
Correction
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
On July 18, 2016, the U.S.
Department of Energy published a final
rule establishing a final coverage
determination and test procedures for
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
This correction addresses technical
errors in the preamble and regulatory
text. Neither the errors nor the
corrections in this document affects the
substance of the rulemaking or any of
the conclusions reached in support of
the final rule.
DATES: Effective date: August 17, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–4549. Email:
Joseph.Hagerman@ee.doe.gov.
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) published
a final rule in the Federal Register on
July 18, 2016 (‘‘the July 18 final rule’’),
that established a final coverage
determination and test procedures for
miscellaneous refrigeration products. 81
FR 46767. In that rulemaking, DOE
made drafting errors in the preamble
and regulatory text. Specifically, DOE
inadvertently amended 10 CFR 430.23
to add paragraph (dd) to coolers and
combination cooler refrigeration
products. That paragraph, however, is
already assigned to portable air
conditioners. Accordingly, references to
paragraph (dd) must be corrected to
refer to paragraph (ff). In order to
remedy this error, DOE is correcting the
preamble on page 46783, section 2.,
second paragraph where DOE references
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49863-49868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17766]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 20, 26, 32, 40, 50, 53, 73, 74, and 150
[NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-
0200, NRC-2009-0227, and NRC-2009-0079]
RIN 3150-AH18; 3150-AG89; 3150-AG64; 3150-AH81; 3150-AI29; 3150-AI68;
3150-AI50
Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Rulemaking activities; discontinuation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing
eight rulemaking activities. The purpose of this action is to inform
members of the public that these rulemaking activities are being
discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision to
discontinue them. These rulemaking activities will no longer be
reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).
DATES: Effective July 29, 2016, the rulemaking activities discussed in
this document are discontinued.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012,
NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or NRC-
2009-0079 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information
regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information
related to this document using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-
0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or
NRC-2009-0079. 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.
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 ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then
[[Page 49864]]
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Terry, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1167; email: Leslie.Terry@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities
III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18;
NRC-1999-0002)
IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-
0012)
V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN
3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013)
VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for
Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008)
VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-
AI29; NRC-2008-0200)
VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material
(RIN 3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227)
IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC
Docket ID)
X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials--Amendments and Integrated
Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079)
XI. Conclusion
I. Background
Each year the NRC staff develops the NRC's Common Prioritization of
Rulemaking report, which is used to develop rulemaking program budget
estimates and to determine the relative priority of rulemaking
activities. During the most recent review of ongoing and potential
rulemaking activities, the NRC staff identified seven rulemaking
activities in various stages of development, which the Commission
approved to be discontinued. For transparency, the NRC staff is
including in this action an additional eighth activity that the
Commission has already provided initial direction to discontinue.
A discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue these eight
rulemaking activities is provided in Sections III through X of this
document.
II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities
When the NRC staff identifies a rulemaking activity that can be
discontinued, they will request, through a Commission paper, approval
from the Commission to discontinue it. The Commission provides its
decision in an SRM. If the Commission approves discontinuing the
rulemaking activity, the NRC will inform the public of the decision to
discontinue it.
A rulemaking activity may be discontinued at any stage in the
rulemaking process. For a rulemaking activity that has received public
comments, the NRC will consider those comments before discontinuing the
rulemaking activity; however, the NRC will not provide individual
comment responses.
After Commission approval to discontinue the rulemaking activity,
in the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the
entry for the rulemaking activity to indicate that it is no longer
being pursued. The rulemaking activity will appear in the completed
section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in
future editions.
III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18;
NRC-1999-0002)
The NRC began an enhanced participatory process to evaluate
alternative courses of action for control of solid materials at NRC-
licensed facilities that have very low amounts of, or no amount of,
radioactivity. As part of this process, the NRC published an Issues
Paper in the Federal Register on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35090),
requesting public comment on various alternatives. The NRC also held a
series of public meetings during the fall of 1999. The Issues Paper
described the following process alternatives: (1) Continue the current
NRC practice of case-by-case consideration of licensee requests for
release of solid material and consider updating existing guidance; or
(2) conduct a rulemaking to establish criteria for control of solid
materials. The Issues Paper indicated that a rulemaking could have
three technical approaches: (1) Permit release of solid materials for
unrestricted use if the potential dose to the public from this use is
less than a specified level determined during the rulemaking process;
(2) restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized
uses; or (3) do not permit either unrestricted or restricted release of
solid materials that have been in an area where radioactive material
has been used or stored, and instead require all these materials to go
to a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.
The agency received over 900 comment letters containing around
2,379 individual comments on the Issues Paper, in addition to those
summarized from the public meeting transcripts. The comments were
summarized in NUREG/CR-6682, ``Summary and Categorization of Public
Comments on Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials,'' published
in September 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040720691). Comments were
received from essentially every stakeholder group, including
environmental and citizen's groups, members of the general public,
scrap and recycling companies, steel and cement manufacturers,
hazardous and solid waste management facilities, U.S. Department of
Energy, State agencies, Tribal governments, scientific organizations,
international organizations, NRC licensees, and licensee organizations.
Most of the comments focused on the specific technical approach or
criteria that should be developed and reflected a broad spectrum of
viewpoints on the issues related to control of solid materials. The NRC
staff considered all the comments received.
The NRC staff submitted a draft proposed rule to the Commission,
SECY-05-0054, ``Proposed Rule: Radiological Criteria for Controlling
the Disposition of Solid Materials,'' dated March 31, 2005 (ADAMS
Package Accession No. ML041550790). The NRC staff proposed this rule to
the Commission because the NRC wanted to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the NRC regulatory process by establishing criteria
for the disposition of solid materials in the regulations. This
proposed rule would have added radiological criteria for controlling
the disposition of solid materials that have no, or very small amounts
of, residual radioactivity resulting from licensed operations, and
which originate in restricted or impacted areas of NRC-licensed
facilities. In the SRM for SECY-05-0054, dated June 1, 2005 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML051520185), the Commission disapproved publication of
the proposed rule at that time [emphasis added] because the NRC was
``faced with several high priority and complex tasks, the current
approach to review specific cases on an
[[Page 49865]]
individual basis is fully protective of public health and safety, and
the immediate need for this rule has changed due to the shift in timing
for reactor decommissioning.''
This rulemaking continued to be on hold while the Commission was
focused on enhancing security and emergency preparedness and response
as well as beginning preparations for new authorizations under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, including new nuclear facility licensing and
regulation.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because, even though there has been a recent increase in
decommissioning, the current regulatory framework provides for case by
case approval of alternate disposal procedures under 10 CFR 20.2002. To
date, the NRC has received a limited number of licensee requests per
year. The NRC staff is conducting a low-level waste programmatic
assessment. As part of this assessment, the NRC staff will conduct a
scoping study of various low-level waste issues. If the NRC staff
determines a need to pursue rulemaking as a result of this study, then
the NRC staff will request Commission approval for the rulemaking.
IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-
0012)
The NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
in the Federal Register (66 FR 52551; October 16, 2001) to request
public comment on the issues surrounding the feasibility of entombment.
The ANPR was published because the NRC was considering an amendment to
its regulations that would have clarified the use of entombment for
power reactors. The NRC had determined that entombment of power
reactors was a technically viable decommissioning alternative and could
be accomplished safely. The ANPR also included dose criteria for
license termination. The dose criteria given in the ANPR included a
provision that would have permitted license termination under
restricted and unrestricted release conditions.
The agency received 19 comment letters on the ANPR from States,
licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors' E-24 Committee, the Southeast Compact Commission, and a
private individual. There was no consensus on a preferred option; some
commenters supported the entombment option while other commenters did
not. In general, comments from the eight utilities and the Nuclear
Energy Institute stated that they would like to have entombment
available as a decommissioning option; however, none committed to using
entombment as a decommissioning process.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the three decommissioning options, which include entombment for
power reactors, are currently being considered within the rulemaking
for reactor decommissioning. Specifically, in the SRM for SECY-14-0118,
``Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain
Emergency Planning Requirements,'' dated December 30, 2014 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14364A111), the Commission directed the NRC staff to
proceed with rulemaking on reactor decommissioning.
V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN
3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013)
On August 28, 2002 (67 FR 55175), the NRC published a proposed rule
in the Federal Register that would have required prior NRC approval for
transfers of source material derived from licensees' specifically
licensed material to ensure that these transfers do not pose a health
and safety concern.
The NRC received 25 comments from individuals, industrial groups,
environmental organizations, and State and Federal government agencies.
A summary of comments and issues raised by commenters includes the
following: (1) Proposed release limits were inconsistent with part 20
of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR); (2) better
clarification was needed regarding doses applied to non-disposal
transfers; (3) the only technical basis discussed was based on an
overly conservative assessment; (4) the proposed rule was inconsistent
with the existing exemption in 10 CFR 40.13(a); (5) these transfers
could impact public health and safety; (6) the environmental assessment
was insufficient and the NRC should develop an environmental impact
statement; (7) more information was needed about implementation of the
rule; (8) the policy was inconsistent with past documents issued by the
Commission on this subject; (9) the rule should also apply to general
licensees; (10) there should be a minimum quantity level below which
approvals for transfer would not be needed; (11) the number of
transfers were underestimated; (12) the NRC underestimated the impact
to industry because Agreement State licensees were not included in the
regulatory analysis; and (13) differing commenter opinions on whether
to include the word ``disposes'' in the authorized activities in 10 CFR
40.13(a). Several commenters commented on the agency's question on
whether the regulations should include new requirements specifically
prohibiting intentional dilution. Several commenters were against
including new regulations for dilution because they believed that it
would potentially lead to additional, unnecessary burdens for industry.
Several commenters thought that regulations should be added to prevent
intentional dilution for purposes of waste treatment and disposal. Some
of these commenters thought that ``intentional dilution'' needed to be
better defined. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the concerns are being considered in other regulatory
processes. Specifically, there is ongoing work related to SECY-03-0068,
``Interagency Jurisdictional Working Group Evaluating the Regulation of
Low-Level Source Material or Materials Containing Less than 0.05
Percent by Weight Concentration Uranium and/or Thorium,'' dated May 1,
2003 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML030920468), and recent discussions
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would allow certain
low-level wastes to be disposed of in Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (commonly known as RCRA) sites. In addition, the NRC has
decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the NRC
has, on a case-by-case basis, successfully dealt with the issues this
rulemaking activity would have addressed.
VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for
Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008)
On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267), the NRC published an ANPR in the
Federal Register to request public comment on an approach that would
have established a comprehensive set of risk-informed and performance-
based requirements applicable for all nuclear power reactor
technologies as an alternative to current requirements. At the time the
ANPR was published, the NRC already had an ongoing effort to revise
some specific regulations to make them risk-informed and performance-
based. The rulemaking would have used operating experience, lessons
learned from the rulemaking activities, and advances in the use of
risk-informed technology to focus NRC and industry resources on the
most risk-significant
[[Page 49866]]
aspects of plant operations to better protect public health and safety.
The set of new alternative requirements would have been intended
primarily for new nuclear power reactors, although they would have been
available to existing reactor licensees.
The ANPR included 73 questions about the proposed rulemaking scope
and plan. The NRC received 15 comment submittals from the regulated
industry, consensus standard committees, private individuals, and a
foreign regulatory body. Many of the public comments supported the
concept of a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework and
the development of technology-neutral regulations. Some public comments
recommended that it was too soon to develop the proposed framework and
that the NRC and the industry needed to pilot the licensing of advanced
reactor technology using the current 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 frameworks
to identify challenges. Some comments did not support the framework as
described in the ANPR because it did not require specific design
standards and asserted that it did not adequately employ consensus
standards that have been demonstrated as adequate and safe for existing
reactors. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
In SECY-07-0101, ``Staff Recommendations Regarding a Risk-Informed
and Performance-Based Revision to 10 CFR part 50,'' dated June 14, 2007
(ADAMS Package Accession No. ML070790253), the NRC staff requested that
the Commission defer the rulemaking activity until after the
development of the licensing strategy for the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant (NGNP) or receipt of an application for design certification or a
license for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. In the SRM for SECY-07-
0101, dated September 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072530501), the
Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to defer the
rulemaking activity. In the same SRM, the Commission approved the NRC
staff's proposal to provide a recommendation on initiating a rulemaking
6 months after the development of the licensing strategy for the NGNP
was finalized. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy decided not to
proceed with Phase 2 design activities because of fiscal constraints,
competing priorities, projected cost of the prototype, and inability to
reach a cost share agreement with the industry. As a result, the NRC no
longer has a viable demonstration project to reference. Therefore, the
NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity or
continue to expend resources tracking this rulemaking, which is now 10
years old. The NRC has several initiatives underway that would further
risk-inform and performance-base the regulatory framework.
Discontinuing this particular rulemaking would not preclude other
ongoing or future risk-informed, performance-based initiatives.
The NRC is open to new opportunities to explore a risk-informed,
performance-based licensing strategy. In the past 2 years, there has
been renewed U.S. industry and Executive Branch interest in advanced
non-light water reactors (LWRs). The NRC is working to develop a
regulatory process to address the unique aspects of these designs
within the current regulatory framework. A new risk-informed,
performance-based framework has the potential to address some of these
unique aspects assuming that the necessary supporting data is
available. Currently the advanced non-LWR designs have not reached a
level of maturity that would support development of a regulatory basis
for rulemaking.
When supporting data is available, the NRC staff would reevaluate
the need for rulemaking.
VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-AI29;
NRC-2008-0200)
On April 11, 2008, the NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (73 FR 19749) that would have expanded the current National
Source Tracking System (NSTS) to include certain additional sealed
sources. This rule would have required licensees to report certain
transactions involving these sealed sources to the NSTS; these
transactions included the manufacture, transfer, receipt, disassembly,
or disposal of the nationally tracked source. Each licensee would have
had to provide its initial inventory of nationally tracked sources to
the NSTS and annually verify and reconcile the information in the
system with the licensee's actual inventory.
The NRC received 19 comment letters from States, licensees,
industry organizations, and individuals. Almost all of the comment
letters were opposed to expanding the NSTS as proposed for the
following reasons: (1) The rule is premature and should be delayed to
allow time to refine the burden estimates in the regulatory analysis
using actual experience from the current NSTS; (2) the NSTS should be
fully operational and successfully tracking currently required sources
before the NRC adds additional sources to NSTS; and (3) there needs to
be additional justification of the security risks posed by these
sources before incurring the additional regulatory burden. The NRC
staff considered all the comments received.
Based on public comments, the NRC staff requested the Commission to
defer completion of the NSTS final rule (SECY-09-0011, ``Deferral of
Rulemaking: Expansion of National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-
AI29),'' dated January 15, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083540566)).
On May 11, 2009, a copy of a draft final rule was provided to the
Agreement States for review. The Executive Boards of the Organization
of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors provided comments. The agency received 26 comments from
individual states. All of the comments received from the States, except
one, opposed the NSTS expansion final rule. Most of the commenters
cited a risk that implementing the rule would shift limited personnel
resources away from what they believe are more near-term and tangible
health and safety aspects of radiation protection.
The Commission was unable to reach a decision on the NRC staff's
recommendation to defer the NSTS final rule (SRM for SECY-09-0011,
dated May 28, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091480775)). Instead, the
Commission directed the NRC staff to conduct a data and system
operations and performance analysis of the NSTS based on system
operation with Category 1 and 2 sources and report to the Commission.
The NRC staff conducted these analyses and reported to the Commission.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the existing regulatory basis, draft proposed rule, and final
proposed rule are now out of date. This rulemaking was developed and
proposed as the NSTS was being developed and deployed in late 2008.
Since 2009, the NRC published 10 CFR part 37, ``Physical Protection of
Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material'' (78 FR
16922; March 19, 2013); gained significant experience in the management
and operation of the National Source Tracking System (see https://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/nsts.html); and deployed two on-
line applications to support validation of licenses, the Web-Based
Licensing System (see https://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/wbl.html) and the License Verification System (see https://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/lvs.html). The NRC staff is conducting a
program review of 10 CFR
[[Page 49867]]
part 37, which includes an assessment of whether additional measures
are warranted for Category 3 materials. Following completion of the 10
CFR part 37 assessment, if the NRC staff determines that the NSTS
should be expanded, then the NRC staff will request Commission approval
for the rulemaking. The NRC staff will be reporting to the Commission
and the Congress on this review in 2016.
VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material (RIN
3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227)
In SECY-12-0066, ``Criminal Penalties for the Unauthorized
Introduction of Weapons into Facilities Designated by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and for Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,''
dated April 26, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML120200150), the NRC staff
recommended, in part, that the Commission defer a decision on whether
to proceed with a rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 73.81, ``Criminal
penalties,'' to add certain radioactive material or other property to
the scope of criminal penalties for sabotage authorized under in
Section 236, ``Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,'' of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).
In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff noted that the NRC had not
previously issued regulations to implement the authority of Section 236
of the AEA. Instead, the NRC has viewed the language of this statute as
plain enough to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate
prosecutions for criminal acts, particularly involving the most
significant facilities that the NRC regulates, including nuclear power
reactors and fuel cycle facilities. This rulemaking would have allowed
the NRC to identify certain radioactive material or other property for
inclusion within the scope of Section 236.a(7) of the AEA if the
Commission determined that this material or other property was
significant to public health and safety or common defense and security.
The NRC staff evaluated whether further rulemaking was needed to expand
nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear fuel covered under the
scope of Section 236 of the AEA. The NRC staff evaluated (1) materials
in 10 CFR part 73, appendix I, ``Category 1 and 2 Radioactive
Materials'' (material list in appendix A to 10 CFR part 37); (2)
production reactor spent nuclear fuel and naval reactor spent nuclear
fuel, and (3) source material in the physical form of uranium
hexafluoride.
In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff discussed why these materials were
chosen for evaluation and the application of Section 236.a(3) of the
AEA. The NRC staff stated that ``Including certain radioactive material
or other property within the scope of the criminal penalties in Section
236 of the AEA may provide DOJ with additional tools for combating
terrorists and other malevolent actors.'' However, the NRC staff noted
that a determination of the list of radionuclides and quantities to use
in a subsequent rulemaking would need to be coordinated with NRC
activities to implement Recommendation 2 of the 2010 Radiation Source
Protection and Security Task Force Report [task force recommendations
appear in SECY-11-0169, ``U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Implementation Plan for the Radiation Source Protection and Security
Task Force Report'' (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML113070551)], as well
as consideration of ongoing actions related to chemical security. The
NRC staff indicated that it could not develop the required regulatory
basis for a rulemaking to expand the scope of Section 236 of the AEA to
include these materials until these activities are completed. The
Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation in the SRM for SECY-
12-0066, dated June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121700765).
The NRC staff completed the additional activities discussed in
SECY-12-0066 and informed the Commission that there was no compelling
reason to revise 10 CFR 73.81 to implement the scope authority provided
by Section 236 of the AEA to provide criminal sanctions for sabotage of
nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, and nuclear fuel or other property.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the NRC staff has concluded that a rulemaking to modify 10 CFR
73.81 to implement the new authority of Section 236 of the AEA would
not serve as an effective deterrent for individuals intent on
committing sabotage of nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear
fuel or other property and is not warranted at this time.
IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC Docket
ID)
In COMSECY-04-0037, ``Fitness-for-Duty Orders to Address Fatigue of
Nuclear Facility Security Force Personnel,'' dated June 21, 2004 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML040790094), the NRC staff requested Commission approval
to issue security orders concerning fitness-for-duty enhancements to
address fatigue concerns for security force personnel at five classes
of NRC-licensed facilities: (1) Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installations, (2) Decommissioning Reactors, (3) Category I Fuel Cycle
Facilities, (4) Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and (5) the Natural Uranium
Conversion Facility. In the SRM for COMSECY-04-0037, dated September 1,
2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042450533), the Commission directed the NRC
staff to pursue the rulemaking process rather than issuing security
orders for those materials facilities and personnel for whom the NRC
staff believes fatigue related requirements are necessary.
On June 18, 2014 (FR 79 34641), the NRC published a draft
regulatory basis for public comment in the Federal Register to support
the potential amendments to revise a number of existing security-
related regulations relating to physical protection of special nuclear
material at NRC-licensed facilities and in transit, as well as the
fitness for duty programs for security officers at Category I fuel
cycle facilities. The draft regulatory basis encompassed three separate
rulemaking efforts: (1) Enhanced Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities, (2)
Special Nuclear Material Transportation Security, and (3) Security-
Force Fatigue at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities.
During the public comment period the two Category I fuel cycle
licensees proposed an alternative to the Security-Force Fatigue
rulemaking. Specifically, the affected licensees proposed adding a
fatigue management program for security officers into their security
plans. On April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22434), the NRC published the final
regulatory basis that explained that the NRC had decided to separate
the regulatory basis activities for the Security-Force Fatigue at
Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities to allow staff time to explore the
alternative to rulemaking proposal.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with the Security-Force Fatigue
rulemaking activity because, after reviewing the two licensees'
proposed changes to their security plans to manage security officer
fatigue, NRC licensing staff considers the proposal a viable option
because it will establish fatigue requirements that can be readily
inspected and enforced for the two Category I fuel cycle licensees
within their security plans.
X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials--Amendments and Integrated
Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079)
On May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28336), the NRC published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register, proposing to amend its regulations by adding
additional
[[Page 49868]]
requirements for source material licensees who possess significant
quantities of uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The proposed amendments would
require these licensees to conduct integrated safety analyses (ISAs)
similar to the ISAs performed by 10 CFR part 70 licensees; set
possession limits for UF6 for determining licensing authority (NRC or
Agreement States); add defined terms; add an additional evaluation
criterion for applicants who submit an evaluation in lieu of an
emergency plan; require the NRC to perform a backfit analysis under
specified circumstances; and make administrative changes to the
structure of the regulations. The NRC held a public meeting on February
22, 2008, to discuss the scope of the proposed rulemaking and to seek
public input on the proposed threshold quantities for determining when
a facility will be regulated by the NRC or an Agreement State.
The agency received nine comment letters addressing multiple
issues. Comments on the proposed rule were submitted on behalf of
several affected States, by industry representatives, NRC licensees,
and an individual. The comments and responses were grouped into eight
areas: General, procedural, definitions, performance requirements,
jurisdiction/authority, backfitting, reporting, and corrections. Most
of the comments were generally opposed to the proposed changes to the
regulations. Several comments questioned the cost amounts used in the
regulatory analysis. All the commenters opposed the probabilistic risk
assessment. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
The NRC staff submitted a draft final rule to the Commission in
SECY-12-0071, ``Final Rule: Domestic Licensing of Source Material--
Amendments/Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-A150),'' dated May 7,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12094A344). The draft final rule was
revised from the proposed rule based on comments from Agreement States
and the public. In the SRM for SECY-12-0071, dated May 3, 2013 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13123A127), the Commission disapproved publication of
the draft final rule. The Commission directed the NRC staff to revise
the rule and associated guidance to address issues given in the SRM and
to resubmit the rule for Commission consideration.
In COMSECY-15-0002, ``Termination of Rulemaking to Revise Title 10
of The Code of Federal Regulations Part 40, `Domestic Licensing of
Source Material' and Staff Plans to Address Other Items in Staff
Requirements Memorandum for SECY-12-0071 (RIN 3150-A150)'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13331A559), the NRC staff proposed termination of this
rulemaking. The NRC staff based this recommendation on: (1) Honeywell's
existing uranium conversion facility, and the licensed but as yet un-
built uranium deconversion facility to be operated by International
Isotopes; both already have newly approved ISAs as required by their
licenses, (2) the NRC does not anticipate new applications for 10 CFR
part 40 uranium conversion or deconversion facilities in the
foreseeable future, (3) the hazards at Honeywell's uranium conversion
facility and the hazards at International Isotopes planned uranium
deconversion facility are facility-specific and sufficiently
controlled, (4) the NRC staff's reanalysis of the rule has reduced the
priority of the rulemaking, and (5) consideration of the cumulative
effects of regulation. The agency plans to develop Interim Staff
Guidance related to 10 CFR part 70 facilities. The Commission approved
termination of this rulemaking in the SRM for COMSECY-15-0002, dated
April 17, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15107A488).
The NRC staff is including discussion of this decision in this
document to inform members of the public.
XI. Conclusion
The NRC is no longer pursuing the eight rulemaking activities for
the reasons discussed in this document. In the next edition of the
Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for these rulemaking
activities with reference to this document to indicate that they are no
longer being pursued. These rulemaking activities will appear in the
completed section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not
appear in future editions. Should the NRC determine to pursue anything
in these areas in the future, it will inform the public through a new
rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-17766 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
