[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56344-56346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8270]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 70
RIN 3150-AH96
Facility Change Process Involving Items Relied on for Safety
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to clarify a requirement pertaining to items relied on for
safety (IROFS). This rulemaking corrects an inconsistency in the
regulations pertaining to IROFS.
DATES: The final rule is effective on December 11, 2006, unless
significant adverse comments are received by October 27, 2006. As
detailed in the Procedural Background section, a significant adverse
comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be
inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or
approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. If
the NRC receives any significant adverse comments, the NRC will publish
a document that withdraws the direct final rule and addresses the
comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion
proposed rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH96) in the subject line
of your comments. Comments on rulemakings 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 personal
information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your
submission.
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 website 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 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 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 rulemaking may be
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), 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 NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anthony N. Tse, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6233, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 70 govern the domestic licensing
of special nuclear material (SNM), including the licensing of uranium
enrichment facilities. On September 18, 2000 (65 FR 56211), the NRC
added subpart H requirements (Sec. Sec. 70.60 to 70.76) to 10 CFR part
70. Subpart H applies to licensees possessing greater than a critical
mass of SNM, such as those engaged in enriched uranium processing,
fabrication of uranium fuel or fuel assemblies, enriched uranium
hexafluoride conversion, plutonium processing, fabrication of mixed-
oxide fuel or fuel assemblies, and the scrap recovery of SNM. Section
70.61 sets forth performance requirements, and requires that the
controls needed to meet the performance requirements be designated as
IROFS. Section 70.62 requires the establishment of a safety program
based on an integrated safety analysis (ISA). Under Sec. 70.65, a
summary of the ISA must be submitted to the NRC for approval, and the
summary must contain the IROFS upon which the licensee relies in order
to meet the performance requirements. In Sec. 70.4, the definition of
IROFS specifies that, in addition to the IROFS needed to meet the
performance requirements in Sec. 70.61 (i.e., the minimum set), a
licensee may designate additional IROFS (i.e., beyond those in the
minimum set necessary for compliance with the performance
requirements).
The only revision to the subpart H requirements now being made is
to 10 CFR 70.72(c)(2), as discussed further in this document.
Discussion
Section 70.72 contains requirements which control changes licensees
(subject to subpart H) make to their facilities, and specifies criteria
for determining if these changes require the NRC staff's review and
approval before they are made. Section 70.72(c)(2) specifies that a
licensee may remove an IROFS that is listed in the ISA summary, without
prior NRC approval, if the licensee replaces the IROFS with an
equivalent replacement of the safety function. Unlike other subpart H
provisions (i.e., Sec. 70.72(c)(3) and paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of
Appendix A to Part 70), which distinguish between the minimum set of
IROFS needed to meet the performance requirements and the larger set of
IROFS a licensee may choose to identify, Sec. 70.72(c)(2) does not
make this distinction in stating as follows:
(c) The licensee may make changes to the site, structures,
processes, systems, equipment, components, computer programs, and
activities of personnel, without prior Commission approval, if the
change * * *
(2) Does not remove, without at least an equivalent replacement
of the safety function, an item relied on for safety that is listed
in the integrated safety analysis summary.
Questions have arisen about whether changes involving licensee-
identified IROFS that are not needed to meet the
[[Page 56345]]
performance requirements in Sec. 70.61 require an equivalent
replacement of the safety function.
The staff is thus adding the phrase ``and is necessary for
compliance with the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61'' to the
end of Sec. 70.72(c)(2).
This revision clarifies that if an IROFS is not needed to meet the
Sec. 70.61 performance requirements, a licensee may remove or replace
the IROFS without NRC staff's approval and without showing equivalent
replacement of the safety function. This change does not affect IROFS
needed to meet performance requirements. If a licensee intends to
remove or replace an IROFS needed to meet performance requirements,
then the licensee must obtain NRC staff's pre-approval before making
the change, unless the licensee has demonstrated with on-site
documentation that the replacement or removal of the IROFS could be
done with equivalent replacement of the safety function of the IROFS.
Procedural Background
This rulemaking will become effective on December 11, 2006.
However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by October
27, 2006, the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct
final rule and addresses the comments received in a final rule as a
response to the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the
proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a
second comment period on this action.
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter
explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to
the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or
unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient
to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For
example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider)
its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously
addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable
without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the staff to make a change (other than
editorial) to the rule.
Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement State Programs'' approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997,
and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR
46517), this portion of regulations is designated Category ``NRC'' and
therefore is not a matter of Compatibility.
Plain Language
The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' directed that the Government's writing
be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final
rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the
language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the
heading ADDRESSES above.
Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113)
requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the
use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC is amending its
regulations to clarify that the requirement in Sec. 70.72(c)(2)
applies only to the set of IROFS that are necessary to meet the Sec.
70.61 performance requirements (i.e., the minimum set), and does not
apply to IROFS beyond those in the minimum set. This action does not
constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally
applicable requirements.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that this direct final rule is the type of
action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been prepared for this direct final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This direct final rule decreases the burden on licensees to update
the on-site documentation when a change covered by Sec. 70.72 is made.
The annual public burden reduction for this information collection is
estimated to average 10 hours for each 8 licensees. Because the burden
for this information collection is insignificant, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required. Existing requirements were
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-
0009.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
Regulatory Analysis
A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this direct final
rule because this rule is considered a minor non-substantive amendment;
it has insignificant economic impact on NRC licensees and the public.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule merely makes minor changes to the facility change process
involving items relied on for safety. Additionally, the 10 CFR part 70
subpart H licensees affected by this rule are large organizations that
do not fall within the definition of a small business as defined in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of the NRC's regulations (10 CFR 2.810).
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (Sec. Sec. 50.109,
70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) does not apply to this direct final rule
because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would
impose backfits as defined in the backfit rule. Therefore, a backfit
analysis is not required.
Congressional Review Act
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC
has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified
this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 70
Hazardous materials transportation, Nuclear materials, Packaging
and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the
[[Page 56346]]
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the
following amendments to 10 CFR part 70.
PART 70--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
0
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948,
953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended,
202, 204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846). Sec. 193, 104 Stat. 2835 as amended
by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243); sec.
1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note).
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141,
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122,
68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec.
57d, Pub. L. 93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36
and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.81 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.82 also issued under
sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
0
2. In Sec. 70.72, paragraph (c)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 70.72 Facility changes and change process.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Does not remove, without at least an equivalent replacement of
the safety function, an item relied on for safety that is listed in the
integrated safety analysis summary and is necessary for compliance with
the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61;
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of September 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 06-8270 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P