[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54310-54311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18192]
========================================================================
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. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54310]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 54
[Docket No. PRM-54-03]
Joseph Scarpelli, Mayor of Brick Township, NJ; Receipt of
Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for
public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated
July 20, 2005, which was filed with the Commission by Michele R.
Donato, Esquire, on behalf of Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of Brick Township.
The petition was docketed by the NRC on July 25, 2005, and has been
assigned Docket No. PRM-54-03. The petitioner requests that the NRC
amend its regulations to provide that a renewed license will be issued
only if the plant operator demonstrates that the plant meets all
criteria and requirements that would be applicable if the plant was
being proposed de novo for initial construction.
DATES: Submit comments by November 28, 2005. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include PRM-54-03 in the subject line of your comments. Comments
on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made
available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail
[email protected]. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone (301)
415-1966.)
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301) 415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments,
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web
site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by
e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitioner
The petitioner is the Mayor of Brick Township, New Jersey. Brick
Township is situated in the northern part of Ocean County, directly on
the border of Monmouth County, New Jersey. Brick Township is located
approximately 18 miles north of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station. The petitioner states that Brick Township experienced great
growth over the past four decades. Today, Brick Township is home to
over 77,000 residents. In 1970, Brick Township had 35,057 residents.
The petitioner states that Ocean County is located on the Jersey
Shore, approximately 50 miles south of New York City and 50 miles east
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ocean County encompasses nearly 640
square miles. The petitioner states that its location on the Atlantic
Ocean makes Ocean County one of the premier tourist destinations in the
United States.
The petitioner states that Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,
which is located in Lacey Township, became operational in 1969. In
1970, one year after Oyster Creek began producing electricity, Ocean
County, New Jersey had 208,470 residents. The petitioner also states
that according to the 2000 Census, Ocean County today has 510,916
residents, a growth of over 245 percent.
Background
The petitioner submitted two letters dated July 7, 2005, and July
13, 2005, respectively. These letters are being treated as one
petition. The petitioner also included letters from the New Jersey
Chapter of the Sierra Club and the New Jersey Environmental Federation
in support of the petition.
The petitioner states that there have been numerous incidents that
have occurred since Oyster Creek began operating that have raised
concerns among many people about using nuclear power to generate
energy, particularly in densely populated areas. The petitioner states
that the near catastrophe at Three Mile Island, the realized
catastrophe at Chernobyl, the controversy about Yucca Mountain and the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have raised concerns about the
safety and security of nuclear power plants.
The petitioner believes that the evacuation of the communities
[[Page 54311]]
surrounding Oyster Creek is of particular concern and requires
extensive review and consideration. The petitioner states that traffic
congestion is a growing concern in Ocean County as the infrastructure
has not kept up with the population growth. Any large scale evacuation
would likely be fraught with difficulties that would endanger lives.
The Proposed Amendment
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to
provide that a renewed license will be issued only if the plant
operator demonstrates that the plant meets all criteria and
requirements that would be applicable if the plant was being proposed
de novo for initial construction. The petitioner also requests that
Sec. 54.29 be amended to provide that a renewed license may be issued
by the Commission if the Commission finds that, upon a de novo review,
the plant would be entitled to an initial operating license in
accordance with all criteria applicable to initial operating licenses,
as set out in the Commission's regulations, including 10 CFR parts 2,
19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 71, 100, and the appendices to
these regulations. The petitioner requests that corresponding
amendments be made to Sec. Sec. 54.4, 54.19, 54.21, and 54.23, and
that Sec. 54.30 be rescinded. The petitioner states that the criteria
to be examined as part of a renewal application should include such
factors as demographics, siting, emergency evacuation, site security,
etc. The petitioner believes that this analysis should be performed in
a manner that focuses the NRC's attention on the critical plant-
specific factors and conditions that have the greatest potential to
affect public safety.
Problems With the Current Process
The petitioner believes that the process and criteria currently
established in part 54 is seriously flawed. The petitioner states that
the process for license renewal appears to be based on the theory that
if the plant was originally licensed at the site, it is satisfactory to
renew the license, barring any significant issues having to do with
passive systems, structures, and components (SSCs). The petitioner
states that the regulations for license renewal should be broadened and
sufficiently comprehensive to cover all of the facets (including
consideration of a worst-case scenario) that were considered for
initial construction. Alternatively, the petitioner states that the
license renewal process should examine all issues related to the plant
and its original license, and then concentrate on any issues that are
new to that plant or have changed since the original license was issued
or that deviate from the original licensing basis.
Key Renewal Issues
The petitioner states that as Oyster Creek approaches the end of
its 40 year operating license, it is necessary to answer important
questions about the plant. The petitioner states that these questions
are specific to the Oyster Creek plant and those who live near the
plant deserve to have these questions reviewed. These questions include
the following:
Could a new plant, designed and built to current
standards, be licensed on the same site today? With the growth of Ocean
County, which continues today, it is not certain that a nuclear plant
would be permitted there today.
The design of Oyster Creek's reactor has been prohibited
for nearly four decades. Does that reactor conform to today's
standards? Would Oyster Creek receive a license today with that
reactor?
In light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
would Oyster Creek's storage system, which is located close to Route 9,
be acceptable today?
Is the evacuation plan realistic in today's Ocean County?
Would the tremendous growth of Ocean County over the past four decades,
and the failure of Ocean County's infrastructure to keep pace with this
growth, inhibit Oyster Creek's likelihood of receiving an operating
license?
Would a license be permitted in light of the public
opposition to the plant? To date, 21 municipalities in Ocean County, as
well as Congressmen Smith, Saxton and Pallone, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley, and the Ocean County
Board of Chosen Freeholders, have expressed either their concern for a
thorough review and/or their opposition to the re-licensing.
In recent weeks, two studies released by the National
Academy of Sciences have raised serious concerns about nuclear plant
security and the health effects of low-level radiation upon people who
reside near nuclear plants. Should these two scientific studies and
other relevant scientific data regarding human health and anti-
terrorism be taken into account when considering Oyster Creek's license
renewal application?
Conclusion
The petitioner states that many key factors that affect nuclear
plant licensing evolve over time: Population grows, local/state Federal
regulations evolve, public awareness increases, technology improves,
and plant economic values change. The petitioner believes that all of
these factors should be examined and weighed in the formal 10 CFR part
54 relicensing process. Accordingly, the petitioner requests that the
NRC amend its regulations related to license renewal as described
previously in the section titled, ``The Proposed Amendment.''
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of September, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-18192 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P