Criteria To Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations, 24362-24364 [2021-09607]

Download as PDF 24362 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 86 Thursday, May 6, 2021 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. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 [Docket No. PRM–50–117; NRC–2019–0063] Criteria To Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated December 26, 2018, submitted by George Berka (petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on February 19, 2019, and was assigned Docket No. PRM–50–117. The petitioner requested that the NRC allow the owner or operator of a nuclear power reactor an opportunity to return a retired facility to full operational status, even if the operating license for the facility had previously been surrendered. The NRC is denying the petition because the issue does not involve a significant safety or security concern and the existing regulatory framework may be used to address the issue raised by the petitioner. In addition, the nuclear industry has not expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to operational status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new regulatory framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of resources. DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking PRM–50–117 is closed on May 6, 2021. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2019–0063 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2019–0063. Address questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:33 May 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individuals 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 ‘‘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, at 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. • Attention: The Public Document Room (PDR), where you may examine and order copies of public documents is currently closed. You may submit your request to the PDR via email at pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1–800– 397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Fields, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 630– 829–9570; email: Nicole.Fields@nrc.gov; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. The Petition II. Public Comments on the Petition III. Public Meeting on the Petition and Other Topics IV. Reasons for Denial V. Availability of Documents VI. Conclusion I. The Petition Section 2.802 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Petition for rulemaking—requirements for filing,’’ provides an opportunity for any interested person to petition the Commission to issue, amend, or rescind any regulation. On December 26, 2018, the NRC received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) from George Berka (petitioner). The petitioner requested that the NRC revise 10 CFR part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ to establish criteria that would allow retired nuclear PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 power reactors return to operation after their licenses no longer authorize operation. This circumstance could occur either after the NRC has docketed a licensee’s certifications that it has permanently ceased operations and permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel or when a final legally effective order to permanently cease operations has come into effect. The petitioner requested ‘‘a fair, reasonable, and unobstructed opportunity to return a retired facility to full operational status, even if the operating license for the facility had previously been surrendered.’’ The petitioner requested that facilities ‘‘only have to meet the safety standards that had been in place at the time the facility had last operated, and not the latest standards.’’ Specifically, the petitioner requested that a nuclear power reactor be allowed to return to operational status, if ‘‘the facility had been in an operational condition at the time of retirement, had last operated no more than twenty-one (21) calendar years prior to the retirement date,’’ the facility ‘‘remains intact,’’ and the facility passes a ‘‘general safety inspection.’’ Alternatively, the petitioner proposes, if the nuclear power reactor ‘‘had not been in an operational condition at the time of retirement, had last operated more than twenty-one (21) calendar years prior to the retirement date, is not intact, and/or has had significant decommissioning and/or dismantling activities commence,’’ then the nuclear power reactor must be repaired or rebuilt ‘‘to the safety standards that had been in place at the time the facility had last operated,’’ and pass a safety inspection ‘‘appropriate to the degree of repairs or reconstruction that had been performed,’’ which would be, ‘‘[a]t the very least . . . a general safety inspection.’’ The petitioner stated that this proposal would be ‘‘ ‘pennies on the dollar,’ compared to building new nuclear, or trying to replace the same capacity with wind or solar sources.’’ The petitioner also stated that through this proposal, ‘‘several gigawatts of ultra-clean, and very low-carbon, electrical generating capacity could be restored to the electrical grid, which would help to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.’’ The petitioner provided a calculation comparing the cost and time of the E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM 06MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS proposal to the cost and time required for replacing similar electrical generating capacity with renewables or new nuclear builds. The petitioner referenced the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., to support the petitioner’s statements regarding reducing carbon dioxide emissions. II. Public Comments on the Petition On July 26, 2019, the NRC published a notice of docketing of PRM–50–117 in the Federal Register in conjunction with a request for public comment on the PRM. The comment period closed on October 9, 2019; the NRC received 33 comment submissions on the PRM. A comment submission is a communication or document submitted to the NRC by an individual or entity, with one or more individual comments addressing a subject or issue. All of the comment submissions received on this petition are available at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC–2019–0063. Given the number of comment submissions and the similarities among a number of the comments, the NRC addressed those comments in a separate document, ‘‘NRC Response to Public Comments for PRM–50–117,’’ as listed in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of this document. This comment response document includes a table of comment submissions and ADAMS Accession Nos. for the comment submissions, a summary of each ‘‘bin’’ of similar comments, and the NRC’s response to the comments. A brief summary of the most common comments received and the general NRC response is included here. Of the 33 comment submissions received, 30 supported the PRM and 3 opposed it. The comment submissions supporting the petition provided reasons related to clean energy, environmental considerations, and climate change; the economic considerations and cost-effectiveness of restarting a decommissioning nuclear power plant; and plant closures that occurred solely due to economic factors. The NRC considers these comments to concern issues outside of NRC regulatory authority. Several comment submissions supporting the petition also stated that there is no practical process for returning decommissioning power plants to operations. The NRC agrees that there is no explicit process for returning a decommissioning power plant to operations but notes that power reactor licensees have expressed minimal interest in pursuing such an VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:33 May 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 option. Furthermore, the NRC may consider requests from licensees to resume operations under the existing regulatory framework. Comment submissions opposing the petition stated that plants should be required to meet the latest safety standards before resuming operations, rather than the safety standards in place at the time the facility last operated, as proposed by the petitioner. If the NRC receives a request from the licensee for a decommissioning reactor to resume operations, the NRC would review the request consistent with applicable regulatory requirements. This review would include consideration of relevant safety standards to assure adequate protection of public health and safety. The comments received do not present additional information supporting the petitioner’s proposal that the NRC amend its regulations. After considering the public comments, however, the NRC identified the need to further engage the public to understand the degree to which the nuclear industry would use a new regulatory process for reauthorizing operation of decommissioning power reactors. III. Public Meeting on the Petition and Other Topics On February 25, 2020, the NRC held a public meeting to collect public input on potential regulatory frameworks for power reactors, including the resumption of operation for decommissioning power reactors, deferred status for operating reactors, and reinstatement of terminated combined licenses. These topics are broader than but fully encompass the issue raised by the petitioner, and allow the NRC to evaluate it in a more holistic context. The public meeting had a total of 41 individuals in attendance. Seven participants asked questions or provided feedback; one of these participants represented a nuclear power plant licensee, one of these participants was the petitioner for this PRM, and five of these participants represented four public interest organizations. The meeting was transcribed, and the full detailed transcript as well as other documents related to the public meeting are listed in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of this document. The key insight from the public meeting, as it relates to this PRM, is that there was little support from the participants for the NRC undertaking a rulemaking creating a new regulatory process for the resumption of operations for decommissioning power reactors. Additionally, the nuclear industry PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 24363 representatives expressed minimal interest in using such a process. IV. Reasons for Denial The NRC is denying the petition because the issue raised by the petitioner does not involve a significant safety or security concern and the existing regulatory framework may be used to address the issue raised by the petitioner. In addition, the nuclear industry has not expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to operational status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new regulatory framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of resources. The following factors were considered by the NRC in making this determination. Current Regulatory Processes Under the current requirements in §§ 50.82, ‘‘Termination of license,’’ and 52.110, ‘‘Termination of license,’’ once a power reactor licensee has submitted written certifications to the NRC for both the permanent cessation of operations and the permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, and the NRC has docketed those certifications, the 10 CFR part 50 or part 52 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor. No nuclear power plant licensee to date has requested reauthorization of operation after filing both of these certifications. There have been instances in which a licensee submitted to the NRC—and then subsequently withdrew—a certification of an intent to cease operations under § 50.82(a)(1)(i). In those cases, the licensee had not submitted the certification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. While current regulations do not specify a particular mechanism for reauthorizing operation of a nuclear power plant after both certifications are submitted, there is no statute or regulation prohibiting such action. Thus, the NRC may address such requests under the existing regulatory framework. The NRC previously stated this position in an August 2016 letter responding to similar questions raised by Mr. David Kraft, Director, Nuclear Energy Information Service (see NRC response to Question 4). In addition, the NRC previously discussed this topic in a 2014 letter responding to Mr. Robert Abboud of RGA Labs, Inc., a member of the public, concerning relicensing Kewaunee Power Station. These letters are listed in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of this document. Safety and Security This petition does not raise a safety or security concern, nor does it offer any improvements to safety or security. The E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM 06MYP1 24364 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules current regulations and processes provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety for both operating and decommissioning power reactors. The lack of a safety or security concern would contribute to the low priority of this petition, were it to be considered in rulemaking. Resources Based on the complexity of the issue raised by the petitioner, a rulemaking on this issue would entail a significant expenditure of NRC resources. Any such rulemaking effort would likely address a wide variety of technical and regulatory topics including, but not limited to, decommissioning status, aging management, quality assurance, equipment maintenance, personnel, license expiration, hearing process, and appropriate licensing basis. As discussed in the ‘‘Public Meeting on the Petition and Other Topics’’ section of this document, power reactor licensees expressed minimal interest in a rulemaking establishing a new process for reauthorization of operation for decommissioning power reactors. Given this minimal interest from the nuclear industry, the NRC expects few, if any, requests for reauthorization. Thus, the benefits of any such rulemaking would not be expected to outweigh the costs. V. Availability of Documents The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated. ADAMS accession No./Federal Register citation Document PRM–50–117—Petition of George Berka to Revise the Criteria to Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations, December 26, 2018. Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Criteria to Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations,’’ July 26, 2019 .................... NRC Response to Public Comments for PRM–50–117 ......................................................................................................... Public Meeting Notice: Potential Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors, February 25, 2020 ...................................... Public Meeting Materials: Potential Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors, February 25, 2020 ................................. Public Meeting Transcript: Category 3 Public Meeting Transcript RE: Potential Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors, February 25, 2020. Public Meeting Summary: Category 3 Public Meeting Summary RE: Potential Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors, March 25, 2020. NRC Letter to Mr. David A. Kraft of Nuclear Energy Information Service, August 4, 2016 ................................................... Letter from Mr. David A. Kraft of Nuclear Energy Information Service, June 16, 2016 ......................................................... NRC Letter to RGA Labs, Inc., October 21, 2014 .................................................................................................................. Regulatory Analysis for Regulatory Basis for Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning, January 2018. VI. Conclusion For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying PRM– 50–117. The NRC’s existing regulatory framework may be used to address the issue raised by the petitioner, who does not raise a significant safety or security concern, and current requirements continue to provide for the adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security. In addition, the nuclear industry has not expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to operational status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new regulatory framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of resources. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Dated May 3, 2021. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–09607 Filed 5–5–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:33 May 05, 2021 Jkt 253001 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 240 [Release No. 34–91603; IC–34246; File No. S7–24–16] RIN 3235–AL84 Reopening of Comment Period for Universal Proxy Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. AGENCY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is reopening the comment period for its proposal to require the use of universal proxy cards in all non-exempt solicitations in connection with contested elections of directors (‘‘Proposed Rules’’). The Proposed Rules were set forth in a release published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2016 (Release No. 34–79164) (‘‘2016 Release’’), and the related comment period ended on January 9, 2017. The reopening of this comment period is intended to allow interested persons further opportunity to analyze and comment upon the Proposed Rules in light of developments since the SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ML19050A507 84 FR 36036 ML20205L311 ML20043F003 ML20049A021 ML20072H393 ML20072H288 ML16218A266 ML16175A449 ML14288A407 ML17332A075 publication of the Proposed Rules, including developments in corporate governance matters affecting funds. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 10, 2016 (81 FR 79122), is reopened. Comments should be received on or before June 7, 2021. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/submitcomments.htm). Paper Comments • Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7–24–16. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/ proposed.shtml). Comments are also available for website viewing and printing in the Commission’s Public E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM 06MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 86 (Thursday, May 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24362-24364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09607]


========================================================================
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. 86, No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 24362]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50 and 52

[Docket No. PRM-50-117; NRC-2019-0063]


Criteria To Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a 
petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated December 26, 2018, submitted by 
George Berka (petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on 
February 19, 2019, and was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-117. The 
petitioner requested that the NRC allow the owner or operator of a 
nuclear power reactor an opportunity to return a retired facility to 
full operational status, even if the operating license for the facility 
had previously been surrendered. The NRC is denying the petition 
because the issue does not involve a significant safety or security 
concern and the existing regulatory framework may be used to address 
the issue raised by the petitioner. In addition, the nuclear industry 
has not expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to 
operational status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new 
regulatory framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of 
resources.

DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking PRM-50-117 is closed 
on May 6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0063 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may 
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of 
the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0063. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301-415-3407; 
email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the 
individuals 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 ``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, at 301-415-4737, 
or by email to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader, 
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are 
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
     Attention: The Public Document Room (PDR), where you may 
examine and order copies of public documents is currently closed. You 
may submit your request to the PDR via email at [email protected] or 
call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Fields, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 630-829-9570; email: 
[email protected]; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. The Petition
II. Public Comments on the Petition
III. Public Meeting on the Petition and Other Topics
IV. Reasons for Denial
V. Availability of Documents
VI. Conclusion

I. The Petition

    Section 2.802 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR), ``Petition for rulemaking--requirements for filing,'' provides an 
opportunity for any interested person to petition the Commission to 
issue, amend, or rescind any regulation. On December 26, 2018, the NRC 
received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) from George Berka 
(petitioner). The petitioner requested that the NRC revise 10 CFR part 
52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' to establish criteria that would allow retired nuclear power 
reactors return to operation after their licenses no longer authorize 
operation. This circumstance could occur either after the NRC has 
docketed a licensee's certifications that it has permanently ceased 
operations and permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel or when 
a final legally effective order to permanently cease operations has 
come into effect.
    The petitioner requested ``a fair, reasonable, and unobstructed 
opportunity to return a retired facility to full operational status, 
even if the operating license for the facility had previously been 
surrendered.'' The petitioner requested that facilities ``only have to 
meet the safety standards that had been in place at the time the 
facility had last operated, and not the latest standards.'' 
Specifically, the petitioner requested that a nuclear power reactor be 
allowed to return to operational status, if ``the facility had been in 
an operational condition at the time of retirement, had last operated 
no more than twenty-one (21) calendar years prior to the retirement 
date,'' the facility ``remains intact,'' and the facility passes a 
``general safety inspection.'' Alternatively, the petitioner proposes, 
if the nuclear power reactor ``had not been in an operational condition 
at the time of retirement, had last operated more than twenty-one (21) 
calendar years prior to the retirement date, is not intact, and/or has 
had significant decommissioning and/or dismantling activities 
commence,'' then the nuclear power reactor must be repaired or rebuilt 
``to the safety standards that had been in place at the time the 
facility had last operated,'' and pass a safety inspection 
``appropriate to the degree of repairs or reconstruction that had been 
performed,'' which would be, ``[a]t the very least . . . a general 
safety inspection.''
    The petitioner stated that this proposal would be `` `pennies on 
the dollar,' compared to building new nuclear, or trying to replace the 
same capacity with wind or solar sources.'' The petitioner also stated 
that through this proposal, ``several gigawatts of ultra-clean, and 
very low-carbon, electrical generating capacity could be restored to 
the electrical grid, which would help to reduce carbon dioxide levels 
in the atmosphere.'' The petitioner provided a calculation comparing 
the cost and time of the

[[Page 24363]]

proposal to the cost and time required for replacing similar electrical 
generating capacity with renewables or new nuclear builds. The 
petitioner referenced the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and 
the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., to 
support the petitioner's statements regarding reducing carbon dioxide 
emissions.

II. Public Comments on the Petition

    On July 26, 2019, the NRC published a notice of docketing of PRM-
50-117 in the Federal Register in conjunction with a request for public 
comment on the PRM. The comment period closed on October 9, 2019; the 
NRC received 33 comment submissions on the PRM. A comment submission is 
a communication or document submitted to the NRC by an individual or 
entity, with one or more individual comments addressing a subject or 
issue. All of the comment submissions received on this petition are 
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2019-0063.
    Given the number of comment submissions and the similarities among 
a number of the comments, the NRC addressed those comments in a 
separate document, ``NRC Response to Public Comments for PRM-50-117,'' 
as listed in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this 
document. This comment response document includes a table of comment 
submissions and ADAMS Accession Nos. for the comment submissions, a 
summary of each ``bin'' of similar comments, and the NRC's response to 
the comments. A brief summary of the most common comments received and 
the general NRC response is included here.
    Of the 33 comment submissions received, 30 supported the PRM and 3 
opposed it. The comment submissions supporting the petition provided 
reasons related to clean energy, environmental considerations, and 
climate change; the economic considerations and cost-effectiveness of 
restarting a decommissioning nuclear power plant; and plant closures 
that occurred solely due to economic factors. The NRC considers these 
comments to concern issues outside of NRC regulatory authority.
    Several comment submissions supporting the petition also stated 
that there is no practical process for returning decommissioning power 
plants to operations. The NRC agrees that there is no explicit process 
for returning a decommissioning power plant to operations but notes 
that power reactor licensees have expressed minimal interest in 
pursuing such an option. Furthermore, the NRC may consider requests 
from licensees to resume operations under the existing regulatory 
framework.
    Comment submissions opposing the petition stated that plants should 
be required to meet the latest safety standards before resuming 
operations, rather than the safety standards in place at the time the 
facility last operated, as proposed by the petitioner. If the NRC 
receives a request from the licensee for a decommissioning reactor to 
resume operations, the NRC would review the request consistent with 
applicable regulatory requirements. This review would include 
consideration of relevant safety standards to assure adequate 
protection of public health and safety.
    The comments received do not present additional information 
supporting the petitioner's proposal that the NRC amend its 
regulations. After considering the public comments, however, the NRC 
identified the need to further engage the public to understand the 
degree to which the nuclear industry would use a new regulatory process 
for reauthorizing operation of decommissioning power reactors.

III. Public Meeting on the Petition and Other Topics

    On February 25, 2020, the NRC held a public meeting to collect 
public input on potential regulatory frameworks for power reactors, 
including the resumption of operation for decommissioning power 
reactors, deferred status for operating reactors, and reinstatement of 
terminated combined licenses. These topics are broader than but fully 
encompass the issue raised by the petitioner, and allow the NRC to 
evaluate it in a more holistic context.
    The public meeting had a total of 41 individuals in attendance. 
Seven participants asked questions or provided feedback; one of these 
participants represented a nuclear power plant licensee, one of these 
participants was the petitioner for this PRM, and five of these 
participants represented four public interest organizations. The 
meeting was transcribed, and the full detailed transcript as well as 
other documents related to the public meeting are listed in the 
``Availability of Documents'' section of this document.
    The key insight from the public meeting, as it relates to this PRM, 
is that there was little support from the participants for the NRC 
undertaking a rulemaking creating a new regulatory process for the 
resumption of operations for decommissioning power reactors. 
Additionally, the nuclear industry representatives expressed minimal 
interest in using such a process.

IV. Reasons for Denial

    The NRC is denying the petition because the issue raised by the 
petitioner does not involve a significant safety or security concern 
and the existing regulatory framework may be used to address the issue 
raised by the petitioner. In addition, the nuclear industry has not 
expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to operational 
status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new regulatory 
framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of resources. The 
following factors were considered by the NRC in making this 
determination.

Current Regulatory Processes

    Under the current requirements in Sec. Sec.  50.82, ``Termination 
of license,'' and 52.110, ``Termination of license,'' once a power 
reactor licensee has submitted written certifications to the NRC for 
both the permanent cessation of operations and the permanent removal of 
fuel from the reactor vessel, and the NRC has docketed those 
certifications, the 10 CFR part 50 or part 52 license no longer 
authorizes operation of the reactor. No nuclear power plant licensee to 
date has requested reauthorization of operation after filing both of 
these certifications. There have been instances in which a licensee 
submitted to the NRC--and then subsequently withdrew--a certification 
of an intent to cease operations under Sec.  50.82(a)(1)(i). In those 
cases, the licensee had not submitted the certification of permanent 
removal of fuel from the reactor vessel.
    While current regulations do not specify a particular mechanism for 
reauthorizing operation of a nuclear power plant after both 
certifications are submitted, there is no statute or regulation 
prohibiting such action. Thus, the NRC may address such requests under 
the existing regulatory framework. The NRC previously stated this 
position in an August 2016 letter responding to similar questions 
raised by Mr. David Kraft, Director, Nuclear Energy Information Service 
(see NRC response to Question 4). In addition, the NRC previously 
discussed this topic in a 2014 letter responding to Mr. Robert Abboud 
of RGA Labs, Inc., a member of the public, concerning relicensing 
Kewaunee Power Station. These letters are listed in the ``Availability 
of Documents'' section of this document.

Safety and Security

    This petition does not raise a safety or security concern, nor does 
it offer any improvements to safety or security. The

[[Page 24364]]

current regulations and processes provide reasonable assurance of 
adequate protection of public health and safety for both operating and 
decommissioning power reactors. The lack of a safety or security 
concern would contribute to the low priority of this petition, were it 
to be considered in rulemaking.

Resources

    Based on the complexity of the issue raised by the petitioner, a 
rulemaking on this issue would entail a significant expenditure of NRC 
resources. Any such rulemaking effort would likely address a wide 
variety of technical and regulatory topics including, but not limited 
to, decommissioning status, aging management, quality assurance, 
equipment maintenance, personnel, license expiration, hearing process, 
and appropriate licensing basis.
    As discussed in the ``Public Meeting on the Petition and Other 
Topics'' section of this document, power reactor licensees expressed 
minimal interest in a rulemaking establishing a new process for 
reauthorization of operation for decommissioning power reactors. Given 
this minimal interest from the nuclear industry, the NRC expects few, 
if any, requests for reauthorization. Thus, the benefits of any such 
rulemaking would not be expected to outweigh the costs.

V. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to 
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as 
indicated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             ADAMS accession No./Federal
                 Document                         Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRM-50-117--Petition of George Berka to     ML19050A507
 Revise the Criteria to Return Retired
 Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations,
 December 26, 2018.
Federal Register Notice, ``Criteria to      84 FR 36036
 Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to
 Operations,'' July 26, 2019.
NRC Response to Public Comments for PRM-50- ML20205L311
 117.
Public Meeting Notice: Potential            ML20043F003
 Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors,
 February 25, 2020.
Public Meeting Materials: Potential         ML20049A021
 Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors,
 February 25, 2020.
Public Meeting Transcript: Category 3       ML20072H393
 Public Meeting Transcript RE: Potential
 Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors,
 February 25, 2020.
Public Meeting Summary: Category 3 Public   ML20072H288
 Meeting Summary RE: Potential Regulatory
 Frameworks for Power Reactors, March 25,
 2020.
NRC Letter to Mr. David A. Kraft of         ML16218A266
 Nuclear Energy Information Service,
 August 4, 2016.
Letter from Mr. David A. Kraft of Nuclear   ML16175A449
 Energy Information Service, June 16, 2016.
NRC Letter to RGA Labs, Inc., October 21,   ML14288A407
 2014.
Regulatory Analysis for Regulatory Basis    ML17332A075
 for Regulatory Improvements for Power
 Reactors Transitioning to
 Decommissioning, January 2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying PRM-50-
117. The NRC's existing regulatory framework may be used to address the 
issue raised by the petitioner, who does not raise a significant safety 
or security concern, and current requirements continue to provide for 
the adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the 
common defense and security. In addition, the nuclear industry has not 
expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to operational 
status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new regulatory 
framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of resources.

    Dated May 3, 2021.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-09607 Filed 5-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.