[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65141-65144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30927]


 ========================================================================
 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. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 65141]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 54

[Docket No. PRM 54-1]


Union of Concerned Scientists; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 
for rulemaking submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS or 
the petitioner) (PRM 54-1). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend 
its regulations to address concerns about potential aging degradation 
of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste management systems. The bases 
for the denial are that the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste 
management systems are not involved in design and licensing basis 
events considered for license renewal and that the existing regulatory 
process is acceptable for maintaining the performance of the 
radioactive waste systems throughout the period of extended operation 
in order to keep exposures to radiation at the current levels below 
regulatory limits consistent with the conclusions made in the 
applicable regulations.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments 
received, and the NRC's letter of denial to the petitioner are 
available for public inspection or copying for a fee, at the NRC's 
Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. These documents are also available 
at the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen S. Koenick, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1239, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    By letter dated May 3, 2000, UCS submitted a petition for 
rulemaking (PRM) seeking to revise 10 CFR parts 54 and 51. The 
petitioner requested that the NRC regulations governing requirements 
for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants be amended 
to address concerns about potential aging degradation of liquid and 
gaseous radioactive waste systems. The petitioner believes the 
degradation from aging of piping and components of liquid and gaseous 
radioactive waste systems at nuclear power facilities may result in 
increased probability of and/or consequences from design and licensing 
bases events. In addition, the petitioner believes that the conclusions 
made in Appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, that public and 
occupational exposures to radiation will continue at the current levels 
below regulatory limits would only be valid if these systems are 
covered by aging management programs throughout the license renewal 
term.
    A notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal 
Register on July 10, 2000 (65 FR 42305). The comment period closed on 
September 25, 2000. The NRC received letters from 12 commenters. Eleven 
of the comment letters opposed the petition. Ten of those letters were 
from nuclear utilities and the 11th was from the Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI). The 12th commenter, a member of the public, supported 
the petition. A discussion of the comments is provided in this 
document.
    This rulemaking petition was included as part of a petition 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 in which the petitioner detailed concerns 
related to the review of the license renewal application submitted by 
the owner of the Hatch Nuclear Plant. Specifically, the petitioner was 
concerned that the license renewal application for the Hatch facility 
did not address deficiencies it believed existed in the aging 
management of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste systems. The 
petitioner concluded that the requirements pertaining to renewal of 
operating licenses for Hatch and other nuclear power plants do not 
adequately address degradation from aging of liquid and gaseous 
radioactive waste systems. The NRC issued an October 18, 2000, letter 
to UCS, ``Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.'' The Director's 
Decision disagreed with the petitioner's contentions and concluded that 
the Hatch Nuclear Plant was being operated consistent with its design 
and licensing bases because the material condition of piping, tanks, 
and other components of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste 
management systems was being properly inspected and maintained.

The Petition

    UCS requests the NRC revise 10 CFR part 54, and part 51 if 
appropriate, to specify that the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste 
management systems must be covered by aging management programs during 
the license renewal term. With respect to 10 CFR part 54, the 
petitioner states that potential aging degradation of the liquid and 
gaseous radioactive waste management systems at the Hatch Nuclear Plant 
identified in the accompanying 10 CFR 2.206 petition, may result in an 
increase in the probability of and/or consequences of design and 
licensing bases events. In addition, the petitioner states that the 
potential aging degradation may also apply to liquid and gaseous 
radioactive waste management systems at other plants in the United 
States. The petitioner cites 10 CFR 54.4 (a)(1)(iii) \1\ as the scoping 
criterion that has been interpreted in previous license renewal 
applications to exclude the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste 
management systems from aging management consideration under the rule. 
The petitioner also requests 10 CFR part 51 be revised, if appropriate, 
to clarify that the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste management 
systems must be covered by aging management programs during the license 
renewal term. The petitioner states that the conclusions made in 
Appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, that radiation exposures to 
the public and occupational exposures to workers during the license 
renewal term will continue at current levels below regulatory limits, 
were predicated on the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste management 
systems not experiencing greater failure rates throughout the

[[Page 65142]]

license renewal term. However, aging degradation of the radioactive 
waste management systems could lead to an increase in component failure 
rates, thereby, invalidating the conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of 
accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures 
comparable to those referred to in Sec. 50.34(a)(1), 
[Sec. 50.67(b)(2); sic], or Sec. 100.11 of this chapter, as 
applicable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments on the Petition

    The NRC received letters from 12 commenters. Eleven of the comment 
letters opposed the petition. Ten of those letters were from nuclear 
utilities and the 11th was from NEI. The comments opposed to the 
petition were similar in nature and will be discussed together. The 
12th comment was from a member of the public who supported the 
petition. Summaries of the comments and NRC's responses follow.
    Comments opposed to the petition: The NEI comments were endorsed by 
each of the utilities providing comments. NEI recommended that the NRC 
deny the petition on the following basis: ``The design and licensing 
basis of the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems are sufficiently 
conservative such that the required analyses demonstrate that the 
assumed catastrophic failure of components in the systems will result 
in doses substantially below 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and consistent 
with 10 CFR part 20 guidelines [emphasis added]. In other words, the 
radiological inventory in these systems is controlled and limited, and 
a postulated event or malfunction will not adversely impact public 
health or safety. Thus, there is no safety benefit to including these 
systems within the scope of license renewal for either aging management 
reviews (part 54) or environmental impacts (part 51).''
    Response: The NRC agrees in principle with the comments opposing 
the petition because the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste 
management systems are conservatively designed to ensure that the 
consequences of catastrophic failures of components will be well below 
the scoping threshold for license renewal. However, the commenters 
provide a limited basis for denying the petition and do not address the 
petitioner's assertion about the conclusions made in appendix B to 10 
CFR part 51, subpart A. However, as set forth below in the ``Reasons 
for Denial,'' the NRC staff has concluded that the current regulatory 
process is adequate to manage the performance of these systems without 
additional aging management consideration, so that radiation exposures 
to members of the public and occupational exposures will remain at 
current levels below regulatory limits throughout the license renewal 
term.
    Comment supporting the petition: The commenter generally supported 
the petition and was also concerned about coatings in general, their 
application, and their degradation. In addition, the commenter 
discussed the application of coatings to dry casks for storing spent 
nuclear fuel and the hydrogen gas ignition event at Point Beach Nuclear 
Plant on May 28, 1996.
    Response: The commenter did not provide any additional information 
on coatings as they apply to radioactive waste management systems. The 
commenter's discussion on coatings, in general, and the application to 
dry casks for storing spent nuclear fuel are not relevant to the issue 
of radioactive waste management system functionality. Therefore, they 
do not support the petition. However, for information on use of 
coatings under nuclear plant operating licenses, the NRC issued Generic 
Letter 98-04, ``Potential for Degradation of the Emergency Core Cooling 
System and the Containment Spray System After a Loss-of-Coolant-
Accident Because of Construction and Protective Coating Deficiencies 
and Foreign Material in Containment,'' dated July 14, 1998, and 
Regulatory Guide 1.54, Revision 1, ``Service Level I, II, and III 
Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Plants,'' dated July 2000. Both 
of these regulatory documents are relevant to coatings under nuclear 
plant operating licenses.
    With respect to coatings for dry cask storage, specifically, the 
hydrogen gas ignition event at Point Beach Nuclear Plant related to dry 
cask storage, the NRC issued NRC Bulletin 96-04, ``Chemical, Galvanic, 
or Other Reactions in Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Casks,'' 
dated July 5, 1996. The information requested in the bulletin and the 
subsequent safety evaluations of the requested information are relevant 
to the commenter's concerns.

Reasons for Denial

1. Potential Aging Degradation of the Radioactive Waste Management 
Systems May Increase the Probability of and/or Consequences of Design 
and Licensing Bases Events

    The petitioner argues that radioactive waste management systems 
should be covered by aging management because potential aging 
degradation may increase the probability of and/or consequences from 
design and licensing bases events.
    The NRC does not agree that aging degradation of these systems 
would increase the probability of and/or consequences of design basis 
events that would necessitate consideration within the scope of the 
license renewal. The scope of license renewal was based on the NRC's 
determination that with the possible exception of certain plant 
systems, structures, and components, the regulatory process is adequate 
to ensure that the licensing bases of all currently operating plants 
provide and maintain an acceptable level of safety. Also, the plant-
specific licensing basis must be maintained during the renewal term in 
the same manner and to the same extent as during the original licensing 
term. Based on this determination, the scope of the rule focuses on 
systems, structures, and components that are of principal importance to 
the safety of the plant.\2\ As the petitioner concedes, the liquid and 
gaseous radioactive waste management systems have no intended functions 
which are considered by the Commission to be of principal importance to 
the safety of the plant (that is why these systems do not fall within 
the scope of systems, structures, and components for which aging 
management must be considered for license renewal). Furthermore, the 
consequences of any failure of a radioactive waste component were 
analyzed during the initial license review and are bounded by the 0.5 
rem acceptance criterion, which is a small fraction of the 10 CFR part 
100 limits used in the scoping criteria of license renewal cited by the 
petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Statements of Consideration,'' for 10 CFR part 54 [60 FR 
22464; May 8, 1995].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the related 10 CFR 2.206 petition on the Hatch Nuclear Plant, 
the petitioner did not identify any new failure mechanisms or 
consequences associated with operations of the liquid or gaseous 
radioactive waste management systems or any intended functions that 
prevent or mitigate consequences of design basis accidents that would 
cause the NRC to reconsider its determination not to specifically 
include radioactive waste management systems within the scope of 
license renewal pursuant 10 CFR part 54. In the absence of such new 
information, the NRC continues to believe that the current regulatory 
process is acceptable to manage the performance of these systems 
throughout the license renewal term without the need for additional 
aging management considerations. Therefore, part 54 adequately 
maintains public health and safety as issued and does not need to be 
revised to include radioactive waste management systems.

[[Page 65143]]

2. Aging Degradation of the Radioactive Waste Management Systems Could 
Lead to an Increase in Component Failure Rates; thereby, Invalidating 
the Conclusions Made in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A

    The petitioner claims that the conclusions made in Appendix B to 10 
CFR part 51, subpart A are predicated on the assumption that components 
of the liquid and gaseous waste management systems do not experience 
greater failure rates throughout the license renewal term.
    In addressing environmental effects in Appendix B to 10 CFR part 
51, the Commission determined that the impact of radiological exposures 
to the pubic and occupational exposures would be ``small.'' In the 
context of assessing radiological impacts, this ``small'' significance 
determination was defined in Footnote 3 of Table B-1 of Appendix B to 
10 CFR part 51, Subpart A as impacts that do not exceed permissible 
levels in the Commission's regulations. The data supporting Appendix B 
were contained in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (hereinafter the GEIS).
    Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the conclusions in the GEIS 
relied on the current regulatory process which manages the performance 
of the radioactive waste management systems to control radioactivity in 
effluents to below permissible levels, irrespective of any system 
degradation. For radiation exposures to the public, the GEIS states, 
``Radiation doses to members of the public from current operation of 
nuclear power plants have been examined from a variety of perspectives 
and the impacts were found to be well within design objectives and 
regulations in each instance. No effect of aging that would 
significantly affect the radioactive effluents has been identified.'' 
The GEIS concludes, ``No mitigation measures beyond those implemented 
during the current term license would be warranted because current 
mitigation practices have resulted in declining public radiation doses 
and are expected to continue to do so.'' For occupational exposures, 
the GEIS concludes, ``the average dose increase of 5 to 8 percent to 
the typical plant worker would still maintain doses well below 
regulatory limits. Therefore, occupational radiation exposure during 
the term of the renewed license meets the standard of small 
significance. No mitigation measures beyond those implemented during 
the current term license would be warranted because the ALARA process 
continues to be effective in reducing radiation doses [emphasis 
added].'' These GEIS findings were therefore based upon the existence 
of and successful implementation of radiation control and mitigation 
practices by licensees to comply with the NRC regulatory requirements 
with respect to radiation exposures, irrespective of the cause.
    For general protection against ionizing radiation, licensees must 
comply with 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against 
Radiation.'' The regulations contain requirements for radiation 
protection programs and specify both occupational and public exposure 
limits. The underlying requirement governing radiation protection is to 
maintain occupational doses and doses to members of the public as low 
as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). In addition to complying with NRC 
standards, licensees must comply with the Environmental Protection 
Agency's environmental radiation standards contained in 40 CFR part 
190, ``Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power 
Operations.''
    Early industry experience demonstrated that licensees generally 
maintained exposures to radiation and releases of radioactivity in 
effluents at levels well below 10 CFR part 20 limits. To enhance the 
regulatory framework for 10 CFR part 20 for assuring that releases of 
radioactivity in effluents are ALARA, the NRC issued 10 CFR 50.34a, 10 
CFR 50.36a,\3\ and Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.\4\ To comply with 
these regulations, licensees must identify design objectives, and the 
means to be employed, for keeping levels of radioactive material in 
effluents to unrestricted areas ALARA during normal operations, 
including expected operational occurrences. The licensees' Technical 
Specifications require that operating procedures for the control of 
effluents be established and followed; that equipment installed in the 
radioactive waste system is maintained and used; and that effluent 
releases are reported. To implement the Technical Specifications, the 
licensees are required to establish a surveillance and monitoring 
program to detect and measure radioactivity levels in effluents. If 
there is an increase of radioactivity in effluents beyond Technical 
Specifications, irrespective of the cause, then a licensee must 
identify the cause, take corrective actions, and return the 
radioactivity levels in effluents to within Appendix I to 10 CFR part 
50 design objectives. Subsequent to the Technical Specifications being 
exceeded, the licensee must submit a report to the NRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 10 CFR 50.34a, ``Design Objectives for Equipment to Control 
Releases of Radioactive Material in Effluents--Nuclear Power 
Reactors,'' and Sec. 50.36a, ``Technical Specifications on Effluents 
From Nuclear Power Reactors'' [35 FR 18385; December 3, 1970].
    \4\ Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, ``Numerical Guides for Design 
Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation To Meet the 
Criterion ``As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable'' for Radioactive 
Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents' [40 
FR 19442; May 5, 1975].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For occupational radiation exposures, 10 CFR part 20 contain both 
occupational exposure limits and the ALARA requirement. To meet these 
requirements, licensees have radiation protection programs which 
routinely monitor plant workers for radiation exposure when working in 
radiation areas, including areas that contain the radioactive gaseous 
and liquid waste management systems. Operational experience has 
demonstrated that the licensees have been effective in maintaining 
occupational doses ALARA. There is nothing to suggest--and the 
petitioner cites no new information in support of a supposition--that 
licensees are unable or unwilling to address ALARA taking into account 
any possible failures of radioactive waste management systems resulting 
from aging degradation.
    Aside from the licensees practices and programs for ALARA and 
Technical Specifications compliance, the NRC has an inspection program 
that includes the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste management 
systems. Although these systems have historically been considered to 
have a low risk significance because of the nuclear industry's 
compliance with the ALARA design objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR 
part 50, routine, periodic inspections are required in order to 
maintain confidence that the systems are actually maintaining doses 
from radioactive effluents ALARA. Thus, the liquid and gaseous 
radioactive waste management systems are explicitly identified in NRC 
Inspection Procedure 71122, ``Public Radiation Safety.'' The objective 
of the inspection is to verify that the licensee is providing adequate 
protection of public health and safety from exposure to radioactive 
material released into the public domain as a result of the routine 
operation of nuclear power plants. The inspections focus on both the 
gaseous and liquid effluent treatment systems and the radiological 
environmental monitoring programs. There is also a corresponding 
inspection procedure for occupational radiation safety. The primary 
objective of NRC Inspection Procedure 71121, ``Occupational Radiation 
Safety,'' is to

[[Page 65144]]

gather information to verify that a licensee is meeting the objective 
of ensuring adequate protection of worker health and safety from 
exposure to radiation from radioactive material during routine 
operation.
    In addition to performing these inspection procedures, NRC resident 
inspectors regularly tour the plant, including areas containing 
radioactive waste management systems. If a degraded condition is 
identified by the licensee or reported to the licensee by the NRC, the 
condition is evaluated and corrective action taken as appropriate in 
accordance with the plant's corrective action program. In addition, 
condition reports are trended by licensees. Further evaluation is done 
and appropriate corrective actions are taken if an adverse trend is 
identified. Periodic inspections of the corrective action program are 
conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71152, 
``Identification and Resolution of Problems,'' to verify that licensees 
are identifying and correcting plant problems. The regulatory oversight 
process increases public confidence and complements the performance-
based regulations that establish exposure limits and design objectives 
to not only meet those limits but to keep radiological dose levels 
ALARA.
    In summary, the NRC has regulatory requirements and licensees 
implement programs and practices that provide reasonable assurance that 
exposures to radiation will remain within permissible levels consistent 
with Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 design objectives for public 
exposures and within 10 CFR part 20 limits and ALARA for occupational 
exposures, irrespective of the cause. The Commission has determined 
that maintaining doses within these design objectives and dose limits 
represent ``small'' environmental consequences. The petitioner did not 
raise any information that would challenge the conclusions of the GEIS 
that the impacts of radiation doses to the public and occupational 
exposures will be ``small'' for the license renewal term.

Conclusion

    The NRC staff finds that the information presented in the petition 
does not support rulemaking to revise 10 CFR parts 51 and 54 to include 
aging management of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste management 
systems during the license renewal term. If new information in the 
future provides a basis that aging degradation of the liquid and 
gaseous radioactive waste management systems needs aging management 
consideration under 10 CFR parts 51 and 54, then the NRC may revisit 
the need for rulemaking.
    For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies the 
petition.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Travers,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 01-30927 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P