Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend 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 (ECCS) during loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs). In addition, the proposed rule would establish procedures and criteria for requesting changes in plant design and procedures based upon the results of the new analyses of ECCS performance during LOCAs.

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.

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.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to conform with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The revised regulations include Congress's prescribed increase in the amount of the required annual financial contributions required from commercial reactors in the event of a nuclear accident to pay for third party liability under the Price-Anderson Act. Another revision provides Congress's accommodation for modular reactors, which permits a defined combination of these reactors to be considered a single reactor for the determination of financial obligations under the Price-Anderson Act. Additional revisions, essentially deletions, result from Congress's terminating NRC's authority and responsibility to conduct antitrust reviews of future applications to construct or operate a nuclear reactor.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will conduct the 5th International MACCS Users' Group (IMUG) Meeting, on March 10, 2006, at a location near the NRC's Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will be open to public observation.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue a generic letter (GL) to: (1) Request addressees to review their fire protection program to confirm compliance with existing applicable regulatory requirements regarding their assumptions of the phrase ``one-at-a-time'' in light of the information provided in this GL and, if appropriate, take additional actions to return to compliance. Specifically, although some licensees have performed their post-fire, safe-shutdown circuit analyses based on an assumption of only a single spurious actuation per fire event or that spurious actuations will occur ``one-at-a-time,'' recent industry cable fire test results demonstrated that these assumptions are not valid. (2) Require addressees to submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.54(f) (10 CFR 50.54(f)). This Federal Register notice is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML051650017.

This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal Register on October 4, 2005 (70 FR 57899), that incorrectly referred to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. This action is necessary to correct the erroneous information.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a revision to its Enforcement Policy (Policy), Supplement VII, to change the criteria considered when determining the Severity Level of violations of the NRC's employee protection regulations.