Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 4, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Elimination of Typical License Condition Requiring Reporting of Violations of Section 2.C of Operating License Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process
Document Number: E5-6119
Type: Notice
Date: 2005-11-04
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model application related to the elimination of the license condition that requires reporting of violations of other requirements (typically in License Condition 2.C) in the operating license of some commercial nuclear power plants. The purpose of this model is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to delete the reporting requirement from operating licenses. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the model applies may request amendments using the model application.
Implementation of a Dose Standard After 10,000 Years; Extension of Comment Period
Document Number: 05-22121
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2005-11-04
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Agencies and Commissions
On September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53313), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment a proposed rule that would amend its regulations governing the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The proposed rule would implement the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed standards for doses that could occur after 10,000 years but within the period of geologic stability. The comment period for EPA's proposed standards currently expires on November 21, 2005 (extended 30 days from October 21, 2005); the comment period for NRC's proposed rule currently expires on November 7, 2005. A letter was received from U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign from the State of Nevada requesting that the comment period for NRC's proposed rule be extended to a total of 180 days, or at least past the date of EPA's 30-day extension. Another letter representing several citizen and environmental groups requested that the deadline for comments be extended to 180 days. In addition, a letter from the Agency for Nuclear Projects, on behalf of the State of Nevada, requested that NRC extend its comment period for an additional 30 days, consistent with EPA's 30-day extension of its comment period. Given the interrelationship between these two proposed rules, and for consistency with the ongoing EPA rulemaking process, NRC has decided to extend the comment period for its rulemaking an additional 30 days to December 7, 2005, for a total comment period of 90 days. In vacating the compliance period in NRC's rule at 10 CFR part 63, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has made clear that it is ``NRC's obligation under the [Energy Policy Act of 1992] to maintain licensing criteria that are consistent with the public health and safety standards promulgated by EPA.'' See Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Thus NRC's proposed rule, for the most part, simply implements EPA's proposed standards for doses that could occur after 10,000 years but within the period of geologic stability, and its final rule will need to implement any changes EPA may make with respect to its standards. NRC's proposed rule provides further detail for implementing the EPA standard in only two specific areas: A value to represent climate change after 10,000 years; and a requirement that calculations of radiation doses for workers use the same weighting factors that EPA is proposing for calculating individual doses to members of the public. A lengthy period of time should not be needed by potential commenters to address these issues. Hence the NRC's 30-day extension is believed to be appropriate.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.