Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulation for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0021. 3. How often the collection is required: On occasion. Upon submittal of an application for a construction permit, operating license, operating license renewals, early site review, design certification review, decommissioning or termination review, manufacturing licensing, materials license, or upon submittal of a petition for rulemaking. 4. Who is required or asked to report: Licensees and applicants requesting approvals for actions proposed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 50, 52, 54, 60, 61, 70, and 72. 5. The number of annual respondents: 29. 6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 113,596. 7. Abstract: 10 CFR part 51 specifies information to be provided by applicants and licensees so that the NRC can make determinations necessary to adhere to the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States, which are to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Submit, by April 3, 2006, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC Worldwide Web site: https:// www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to infocollects@nrc.gov.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has issued Section 12.5, Draft Revision 3, ``Operational Radiation Protection Program,'' of NUREG- 0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition'' for public comment.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a closed teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on February 13, 2006. The topic of discussion will be ``License Request for a Physician Seeking Authorized User Status for the Use of Y-90 Microspheres.'' NRC staff is seeking the ACMUI's recommendations on this issue.

The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment as its evaluation of a request by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) for a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal power at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) from 1593 megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 1912 MWt. This represents a power increase of approximately 20 percent for VYNPS. As stated in the NRC staff's position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Program, the NRC staff will prepare an environmental impact statement if it believes a power uprate will have a significant impact on the human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU application for VYNPS or the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental review in an environmental assessment. The final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact is being published in the Federal Register. The NRC published a draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on the proposed action for public comment in the Federal Register on November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68106). Two sets of comments were received as discussed below. The licensee provided three comments in a letter dated December 8, 2005 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML053500122). The first comment clarified operation of the three modes of operation of the circulating water system. Based on this comment, the NRC revised the description of the system in the ``Plant Site and Environs'' and ``Water Use Impacts'' sections of the final environmental assessment. The second comment clarified that transmission lines are owned and operated by different transmission operators, rather than Entergy as was indicated in the draft environmental assessment. Based on this comment, the NRC revised the ``Transmission Facility Impacts'' section of the final environmental assessment. The third comment provided information regarding replacement of 21 of the 22 cooling tower fan motors with higher horsepower motors. Since Entergy indicated that the conclusions in the draft environmental assessment regarding cooling tower operation (including noise) were correctly stated, no changes were made based on this comment. Mr. David L. Deen of the Connecticut River Watershed Council (CRWC) provided three comments in an e-mail dated December 9, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053500124). The first comment raised concerns that the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for VYNPS places no upper bound on the temperature of the river at which the licensee must stop adding waste heat through its cooling tower discharge and that a draft amendment to this permit fails to address this shortcoming. The CRWC proposed that Entergy should not raise the ambient water temperature beyond 85 [deg]F at any point within the Connecticut River. This comment exceeds the scope of the NRC's review of the proposed EPU amendment. The purpose of the NRC's environmental assessment is to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action (i.e., the change due to the proposed EPU). As discussed in the NRC's draft environmental assessment, Entergy has requested that the State of Vermont issue an amendment to the current NPDES permit which would allow a one-degree increase in the thermal discharge limits, for certain river water temperature ranges. Entergy stated that the NPDES permit amendment is not necessary for the proposed EPU and the licensee will comply with the current NPDES permit thermal discharge limits if the permit amendment is not granted. The current NPDES permit represents the upper bound on the current impact on the river water temperatures in the vicinity of the discharge. The NRC's draft environmental assessment found that any discharge impacts for the proposed action will be the same as the current impacts from plant operation and, as such, the NRC concluded that there will be no significant impact on the Connecticut River from VYNPS discharge due to the EPU. The CRWC comment pertains to concerns regarding lack of an upper bound temperature limit in the NPDES permit. The ``upper bound'' referenced in the NRC's draft environmental assessment refers to an upper bound on the impact of the proposed EPU. Since the CRWC comment focuses on issues regarding the NPDES permit and does not provide any information regarding the impact of the proposed EPU, no changes were made to the final environmental assessment based on this comment. The second comment from the CRWC stated that if the NPDES permit thermal discharge limits are increased, there would be harm to specific aquatic species (i.e., American shad, Atlantic salmon, spottail shiner, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, walleye, largemouth bass, fallfish, white sucker, and white perch). Similar to the first comment, since the CRWC comment focuses on issues regarding the proposed amendment to the NPDES permit and does not provide any information regarding the impact of the proposed EPU, no changes were made to the final environmental assessment based on this comment. The third comment from the CRWC questioned the NRC's draft environmental assessment statement that there are no threatened and endangered aquatic species in the Connecticut River. The CRWC stated that the dwarf wedge mussel was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, and that in 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a recovery plan to attempt to reestablish populations of the dwarf wedge mussel throughout its historical range including the Connecticut River. The CRWC stated that reestablishing the population in or near VYNPS would require the presence of one of its host species, the tessellated darter. The CRWC stated that although the nearest population of the wedge mussel is relatively far north of VYNPS, since the species is endangered and depends on the tessellated darter for its survival, the tessellated darter should be included in the threatened and endangered species review for the proposed EPU. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1993 recovery plan, the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is an endangered species located in the Connecticut River system. To assess the impact of the proposed action, the aquatic species evaluated in the draft environmental assessment were those in the vicinity of the VYNPS intake and discharge structures. The dwarf wedge mussel is not located in Windham County, Vermont and, therefore, was not included in the draft environmental assessment. The dwarf wedge mussel larvae attach to a host species for survival. One host species for the dwarf wedge mussel is the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), which is also found in the Connecticut River system. The tessellated darter is not threatened or endangered and, therefore, was not included in the draft environmental assessment for the VYNPS EPU. As noted above, the proposed EPU does not require an increase in discharge temperature limits. Further, following implementation of the EPU, the flow rate of water being withdrawn from the Connecticut River through the intake structure would not increase, and there would not be a configuration change to the intake structure to support the EPU. Therefore, the EPU would not change existing impacts on the tessellated darter. In addition, according to Ecological Studies of the Connecticut RiverVernon, VermontReport 32, dated May 2003, the quantity of tessellated darters impinged on the VYNPS traveling screens is small compared to other impinged species. Impingement from the VYNPS intake does not significantly impact the tessellated darter population. The inter-governmental Environmental Advisory Committee (comprised of certain Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and federal agencies) established limits for impingement of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), and because VYNPS has not approached the impingement limits set for these species, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) concluded that the impingement of other species at VYNPS meets applicable laws. Entrainment of all aquatic species was monitored for over a decade beginning in 1972 and determined to be insignificant by the Environmental Advisory Committee. Entrainment was subsequently removed from the VYNPS NPDES permit. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no significant impact from impingement or entrainment to the tessellated darter or the dwarf wedge mussel associated with the proposed action.

The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 7, ``Application for NRC Export/Import License, Amendment, or Renewal,'' formerly, ``Application for License to Export Nuclear Equipment and Material.'' 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0027. 3. How often the collection is required: On occasion; for each separate export, import, amendment, or renewal license application, and for exports of incidental radioactive material using existing general licenses. 4. Who is required or asked to report: Any person in the U.S. who wishes to export or import (a) nuclear material and equipment subject to the requirements of a specific license; (b) amend a license; (c) renew a license, and (d) for notification of incidental radioactive material exports that are contaminants of shipments of more than 100 kilograms of non-waste material using existing NRC general licenses. 5. The number of annual respondents: 319. 6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 788 hours (2.4 hours per response). 7. Abstract: Persons in the U.S. wishing to export or import nuclear material and equipment requiring a specific authorization, amend or renew a license, or wishing to use existing NRC general licenses for the export of incidental radioactive material over 100 kilograms must file an NRC Form 7 application. The NRC Form 7 application will be reviewed by the NRC and by the Executive Branch, and if applicable statutory, regulatory, and policy considerations are satisfied, the NRC will issue an export, import, amendment or renewal license. Submit, by March 27, 2006 comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 0-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site https://www.nrc.gov/public- involve/doc-comment/omb/. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda J. Shelton, (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.

On November 7, 2005 (70 FR 67598), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment a proposed rule amending its regulations to permit current power reactor licensees to implement a voluntary, risk-informed alternative to the current requirements for analyzing the performance of emergency core cooling systems during loss-of-coolant accidents. On December 6, 2005, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested a 30 day extension to the comment period for the proposed rule. On December 20, 2005, the Westinghouse Owners Group submitted a letter endorsing the NEI extension request. The extension requests were based on the occurrence of two major holidays during the comment period which limited the time available to coordinate industry comments from owners groups, vendors, and licensees. The NRC is extending the comment period on the proposed rule by an additional 30 days from the original February 6, 2006 deadline until March 8, 2006. This comment period extension also applies to related public comments submitted on the NRC report on Seismic Considerations for the Transition Break Size (70 FR 75501).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations governing the use of byproduct material to revise requirements for reporting transfers to persons exempt from licensing, simplify the licensing of smoke detector distribution, remove obsolete provisions, and clarify certain regulatory provisions. These actions are intended to better ensure the protection of public health and safety in the future, make the licensing of distribution to exempt persons more effective and efficient, and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden to certain general licensees. These changes would affect licensees who distribute byproduct material to exempt persons, users of some generally licensed devices, and some exempt persons.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has crafted a Web page for the rulemaking titled ``Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material,'' also known as the ``NARM rulemaking.'' The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the NRC to establish a regulatory framework for the expanded definition of byproduct material to include certain naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material through rulemaking. Documents in support of this rulemaking will be posted on the Web page via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at https:// ruleforum.llnl.gov as they become publicly available.