[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49863-49868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17766]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 20, 26, 32, 40, 50, 53, 73, 74, and 150
[NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-
0200, NRC-2009-0227, and NRC-2009-0079]
RIN 3150-AH18; 3150-AG89; 3150-AG64; 3150-AH81; 3150-AI29; 3150-AI68;
3150-AI50
Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Rulemaking activities; discontinuation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing
eight rulemaking activities. The purpose of this action is to inform
members of the public that these rulemaking activities are being
discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision to
discontinue them. These rulemaking activities will no longer be
reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).
DATES: Effective July 29, 2016, the rulemaking activities discussed in
this document are discontinued.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012,
NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or NRC-
2009-0079 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information
regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information
related to this document using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-
0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or
NRC-2009-0079. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher;
telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then
[[Page 49864]]
select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time
that a document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Terry, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1167; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities
III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18;
NRC-1999-0002)
IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-
0012)
V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN
3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013)
VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for
Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008)
VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-
AI29; NRC-2008-0200)
VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material
(RIN 3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227)
IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC
Docket ID)
X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials--Amendments and Integrated
Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079)
XI. Conclusion
I. Background
Each year the NRC staff develops the NRC's Common Prioritization of
Rulemaking report, which is used to develop rulemaking program budget
estimates and to determine the relative priority of rulemaking
activities. During the most recent review of ongoing and potential
rulemaking activities, the NRC staff identified seven rulemaking
activities in various stages of development, which the Commission
approved to be discontinued. For transparency, the NRC staff is
including in this action an additional eighth activity that the
Commission has already provided initial direction to discontinue.
A discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue these eight
rulemaking activities is provided in Sections III through X of this
document.
II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities
When the NRC staff identifies a rulemaking activity that can be
discontinued, they will request, through a Commission paper, approval
from the Commission to discontinue it. The Commission provides its
decision in an SRM. If the Commission approves discontinuing the
rulemaking activity, the NRC will inform the public of the decision to
discontinue it.
A rulemaking activity may be discontinued at any stage in the
rulemaking process. For a rulemaking activity that has received public
comments, the NRC will consider those comments before discontinuing the
rulemaking activity; however, the NRC will not provide individual
comment responses.
After Commission approval to discontinue the rulemaking activity,
in the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the
entry for the rulemaking activity to indicate that it is no longer
being pursued. The rulemaking activity will appear in the completed
section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in
future editions.
III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18;
NRC-1999-0002)
The NRC began an enhanced participatory process to evaluate
alternative courses of action for control of solid materials at NRC-
licensed facilities that have very low amounts of, or no amount of,
radioactivity. As part of this process, the NRC published an Issues
Paper in the Federal Register on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35090),
requesting public comment on various alternatives. The NRC also held a
series of public meetings during the fall of 1999. The Issues Paper
described the following process alternatives: (1) Continue the current
NRC practice of case-by-case consideration of licensee requests for
release of solid material and consider updating existing guidance; or
(2) conduct a rulemaking to establish criteria for control of solid
materials. The Issues Paper indicated that a rulemaking could have
three technical approaches: (1) Permit release of solid materials for
unrestricted use if the potential dose to the public from this use is
less than a specified level determined during the rulemaking process;
(2) restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized
uses; or (3) do not permit either unrestricted or restricted release of
solid materials that have been in an area where radioactive material
has been used or stored, and instead require all these materials to go
to a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.
The agency received over 900 comment letters containing around
2,379 individual comments on the Issues Paper, in addition to those
summarized from the public meeting transcripts. The comments were
summarized in NUREG/CR-6682, ``Summary and Categorization of Public
Comments on Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials,'' published
in September 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040720691). Comments were
received from essentially every stakeholder group, including
environmental and citizen's groups, members of the general public,
scrap and recycling companies, steel and cement manufacturers,
hazardous and solid waste management facilities, U.S. Department of
Energy, State agencies, Tribal governments, scientific organizations,
international organizations, NRC licensees, and licensee organizations.
Most of the comments focused on the specific technical approach or
criteria that should be developed and reflected a broad spectrum of
viewpoints on the issues related to control of solid materials. The NRC
staff considered all the comments received.
The NRC staff submitted a draft proposed rule to the Commission,
SECY-05-0054, ``Proposed Rule: Radiological Criteria for Controlling
the Disposition of Solid Materials,'' dated March 31, 2005 (ADAMS
Package Accession No. ML041550790). The NRC staff proposed this rule to
the Commission because the NRC wanted to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the NRC regulatory process by establishing criteria
for the disposition of solid materials in the regulations. This
proposed rule would have added radiological criteria for controlling
the disposition of solid materials that have no, or very small amounts
of, residual radioactivity resulting from licensed operations, and
which originate in restricted or impacted areas of NRC-licensed
facilities. In the SRM for SECY-05-0054, dated June 1, 2005 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML051520185), the Commission disapproved publication of
the proposed rule at that time [emphasis added] because the NRC was
``faced with several high priority and complex tasks, the current
approach to review specific cases on an
[[Page 49865]]
individual basis is fully protective of public health and safety, and
the immediate need for this rule has changed due to the shift in timing
for reactor decommissioning.''
This rulemaking continued to be on hold while the Commission was
focused on enhancing security and emergency preparedness and response
as well as beginning preparations for new authorizations under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, including new nuclear facility licensing and
regulation.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because, even though there has been a recent increase in
decommissioning, the current regulatory framework provides for case by
case approval of alternate disposal procedures under 10 CFR 20.2002. To
date, the NRC has received a limited number of licensee requests per
year. The NRC staff is conducting a low-level waste programmatic
assessment. As part of this assessment, the NRC staff will conduct a
scoping study of various low-level waste issues. If the NRC staff
determines a need to pursue rulemaking as a result of this study, then
the NRC staff will request Commission approval for the rulemaking.
IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-
0012)
The NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
in the Federal Register (66 FR 52551; October 16, 2001) to request
public comment on the issues surrounding the feasibility of entombment.
The ANPR was published because the NRC was considering an amendment to
its regulations that would have clarified the use of entombment for
power reactors. The NRC had determined that entombment of power
reactors was a technically viable decommissioning alternative and could
be accomplished safely. The ANPR also included dose criteria for
license termination. The dose criteria given in the ANPR included a
provision that would have permitted license termination under
restricted and unrestricted release conditions.
The agency received 19 comment letters on the ANPR from States,
licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors' E-24 Committee, the Southeast Compact Commission, and a
private individual. There was no consensus on a preferred option; some
commenters supported the entombment option while other commenters did
not. In general, comments from the eight utilities and the Nuclear
Energy Institute stated that they would like to have entombment
available as a decommissioning option; however, none committed to using
entombment as a decommissioning process.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the three decommissioning options, which include entombment for
power reactors, are currently being considered within the rulemaking
for reactor decommissioning. Specifically, in the SRM for SECY-14-0118,
``Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain
Emergency Planning Requirements,'' dated December 30, 2014 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14364A111), the Commission directed the NRC staff to
proceed with rulemaking on reactor decommissioning.
V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN
3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013)
On August 28, 2002 (67 FR 55175), the NRC published a proposed rule
in the Federal Register that would have required prior NRC approval for
transfers of source material derived from licensees' specifically
licensed material to ensure that these transfers do not pose a health
and safety concern.
The NRC received 25 comments from individuals, industrial groups,
environmental organizations, and State and Federal government agencies.
A summary of comments and issues raised by commenters includes the
following: (1) Proposed release limits were inconsistent with part 20
of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR); (2) better
clarification was needed regarding doses applied to non-disposal
transfers; (3) the only technical basis discussed was based on an
overly conservative assessment; (4) the proposed rule was inconsistent
with the existing exemption in 10 CFR 40.13(a); (5) these transfers
could impact public health and safety; (6) the environmental assessment
was insufficient and the NRC should develop an environmental impact
statement; (7) more information was needed about implementation of the
rule; (8) the policy was inconsistent with past documents issued by the
Commission on this subject; (9) the rule should also apply to general
licensees; (10) there should be a minimum quantity level below which
approvals for transfer would not be needed; (11) the number of
transfers were underestimated; (12) the NRC underestimated the impact
to industry because Agreement State licensees were not included in the
regulatory analysis; and (13) differing commenter opinions on whether
to include the word ``disposes'' in the authorized activities in 10 CFR
40.13(a). Several commenters commented on the agency's question on
whether the regulations should include new requirements specifically
prohibiting intentional dilution. Several commenters were against
including new regulations for dilution because they believed that it
would potentially lead to additional, unnecessary burdens for industry.
Several commenters thought that regulations should be added to prevent
intentional dilution for purposes of waste treatment and disposal. Some
of these commenters thought that ``intentional dilution'' needed to be
better defined. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the concerns are being considered in other regulatory
processes. Specifically, there is ongoing work related to SECY-03-0068,
``Interagency Jurisdictional Working Group Evaluating the Regulation of
Low-Level Source Material or Materials Containing Less than 0.05
Percent by Weight Concentration Uranium and/or Thorium,'' dated May 1,
2003 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML030920468), and recent discussions
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would allow certain
low-level wastes to be disposed of in Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (commonly known as RCRA) sites. In addition, the NRC has
decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the NRC
has, on a case-by-case basis, successfully dealt with the issues this
rulemaking activity would have addressed.
VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for
Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008)
On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267), the NRC published an ANPR in the
Federal Register to request public comment on an approach that would
have established a comprehensive set of risk-informed and performance-
based requirements applicable for all nuclear power reactor
technologies as an alternative to current requirements. At the time the
ANPR was published, the NRC already had an ongoing effort to revise
some specific regulations to make them risk-informed and performance-
based. The rulemaking would have used operating experience, lessons
learned from the rulemaking activities, and advances in the use of
risk-informed technology to focus NRC and industry resources on the
most risk-significant
[[Page 49866]]
aspects of plant operations to better protect public health and safety.
The set of new alternative requirements would have been intended
primarily for new nuclear power reactors, although they would have been
available to existing reactor licensees.
The ANPR included 73 questions about the proposed rulemaking scope
and plan. The NRC received 15 comment submittals from the regulated
industry, consensus standard committees, private individuals, and a
foreign regulatory body. Many of the public comments supported the
concept of a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework and
the development of technology-neutral regulations. Some public comments
recommended that it was too soon to develop the proposed framework and
that the NRC and the industry needed to pilot the licensing of advanced
reactor technology using the current 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 frameworks
to identify challenges. Some comments did not support the framework as
described in the ANPR because it did not require specific design
standards and asserted that it did not adequately employ consensus
standards that have been demonstrated as adequate and safe for existing
reactors. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
In SECY-07-0101, ``Staff Recommendations Regarding a Risk-Informed
and Performance-Based Revision to 10 CFR part 50,'' dated June 14, 2007
(ADAMS Package Accession No. ML070790253), the NRC staff requested that
the Commission defer the rulemaking activity until after the
development of the licensing strategy for the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant (NGNP) or receipt of an application for design certification or a
license for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. In the SRM for SECY-07-
0101, dated September 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072530501), the
Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to defer the
rulemaking activity. In the same SRM, the Commission approved the NRC
staff's proposal to provide a recommendation on initiating a rulemaking
6 months after the development of the licensing strategy for the NGNP
was finalized. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy decided not to
proceed with Phase 2 design activities because of fiscal constraints,
competing priorities, projected cost of the prototype, and inability to
reach a cost share agreement with the industry. As a result, the NRC no
longer has a viable demonstration project to reference. Therefore, the
NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity or
continue to expend resources tracking this rulemaking, which is now 10
years old. The NRC has several initiatives underway that would further
risk-inform and performance-base the regulatory framework.
Discontinuing this particular rulemaking would not preclude other
ongoing or future risk-informed, performance-based initiatives.
The NRC is open to new opportunities to explore a risk-informed,
performance-based licensing strategy. In the past 2 years, there has
been renewed U.S. industry and Executive Branch interest in advanced
non-light water reactors (LWRs). The NRC is working to develop a
regulatory process to address the unique aspects of these designs
within the current regulatory framework. A new risk-informed,
performance-based framework has the potential to address some of these
unique aspects assuming that the necessary supporting data is
available. Currently the advanced non-LWR designs have not reached a
level of maturity that would support development of a regulatory basis
for rulemaking.
When supporting data is available, the NRC staff would reevaluate
the need for rulemaking.
VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-AI29;
NRC-2008-0200)
On April 11, 2008, the NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (73 FR 19749) that would have expanded the current National
Source Tracking System (NSTS) to include certain additional sealed
sources. This rule would have required licensees to report certain
transactions involving these sealed sources to the NSTS; these
transactions included the manufacture, transfer, receipt, disassembly,
or disposal of the nationally tracked source. Each licensee would have
had to provide its initial inventory of nationally tracked sources to
the NSTS and annually verify and reconcile the information in the
system with the licensee's actual inventory.
The NRC received 19 comment letters from States, licensees,
industry organizations, and individuals. Almost all of the comment
letters were opposed to expanding the NSTS as proposed for the
following reasons: (1) The rule is premature and should be delayed to
allow time to refine the burden estimates in the regulatory analysis
using actual experience from the current NSTS; (2) the NSTS should be
fully operational and successfully tracking currently required sources
before the NRC adds additional sources to NSTS; and (3) there needs to
be additional justification of the security risks posed by these
sources before incurring the additional regulatory burden. The NRC
staff considered all the comments received.
Based on public comments, the NRC staff requested the Commission to
defer completion of the NSTS final rule (SECY-09-0011, ``Deferral of
Rulemaking: Expansion of National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-
AI29),'' dated January 15, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083540566)).
On May 11, 2009, a copy of a draft final rule was provided to the
Agreement States for review. The Executive Boards of the Organization
of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors provided comments. The agency received 26 comments from
individual states. All of the comments received from the States, except
one, opposed the NSTS expansion final rule. Most of the commenters
cited a risk that implementing the rule would shift limited personnel
resources away from what they believe are more near-term and tangible
health and safety aspects of radiation protection.
The Commission was unable to reach a decision on the NRC staff's
recommendation to defer the NSTS final rule (SRM for SECY-09-0011,
dated May 28, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091480775)). Instead, the
Commission directed the NRC staff to conduct a data and system
operations and performance analysis of the NSTS based on system
operation with Category 1 and 2 sources and report to the Commission.
The NRC staff conducted these analyses and reported to the Commission.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the existing regulatory basis, draft proposed rule, and final
proposed rule are now out of date. This rulemaking was developed and
proposed as the NSTS was being developed and deployed in late 2008.
Since 2009, the NRC published 10 CFR part 37, ``Physical Protection of
Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material'' (78 FR
16922; March 19, 2013); gained significant experience in the management
and operation of the National Source Tracking System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/nsts.html); and deployed two on-
line applications to support validation of licenses, the Web-Based
Licensing System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/wbl.html) and the License Verification System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/lvs.html). The NRC staff is conducting a
program review of 10 CFR
[[Page 49867]]
part 37, which includes an assessment of whether additional measures
are warranted for Category 3 materials. Following completion of the 10
CFR part 37 assessment, if the NRC staff determines that the NSTS
should be expanded, then the NRC staff will request Commission approval
for the rulemaking. The NRC staff will be reporting to the Commission
and the Congress on this review in 2016.
VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material (RIN
3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227)
In SECY-12-0066, ``Criminal Penalties for the Unauthorized
Introduction of Weapons into Facilities Designated by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and for Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,''
dated April 26, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML120200150), the NRC staff
recommended, in part, that the Commission defer a decision on whether
to proceed with a rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 73.81, ``Criminal
penalties,'' to add certain radioactive material or other property to
the scope of criminal penalties for sabotage authorized under in
Section 236, ``Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,'' of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).
In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff noted that the NRC had not
previously issued regulations to implement the authority of Section 236
of the AEA. Instead, the NRC has viewed the language of this statute as
plain enough to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate
prosecutions for criminal acts, particularly involving the most
significant facilities that the NRC regulates, including nuclear power
reactors and fuel cycle facilities. This rulemaking would have allowed
the NRC to identify certain radioactive material or other property for
inclusion within the scope of Section 236.a(7) of the AEA if the
Commission determined that this material or other property was
significant to public health and safety or common defense and security.
The NRC staff evaluated whether further rulemaking was needed to expand
nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear fuel covered under the
scope of Section 236 of the AEA. The NRC staff evaluated (1) materials
in 10 CFR part 73, appendix I, ``Category 1 and 2 Radioactive
Materials'' (material list in appendix A to 10 CFR part 37); (2)
production reactor spent nuclear fuel and naval reactor spent nuclear
fuel, and (3) source material in the physical form of uranium
hexafluoride.
In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff discussed why these materials were
chosen for evaluation and the application of Section 236.a(3) of the
AEA. The NRC staff stated that ``Including certain radioactive material
or other property within the scope of the criminal penalties in Section
236 of the AEA may provide DOJ with additional tools for combating
terrorists and other malevolent actors.'' However, the NRC staff noted
that a determination of the list of radionuclides and quantities to use
in a subsequent rulemaking would need to be coordinated with NRC
activities to implement Recommendation 2 of the 2010 Radiation Source
Protection and Security Task Force Report [task force recommendations
appear in SECY-11-0169, ``U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Implementation Plan for the Radiation Source Protection and Security
Task Force Report'' (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML113070551)], as well
as consideration of ongoing actions related to chemical security. The
NRC staff indicated that it could not develop the required regulatory
basis for a rulemaking to expand the scope of Section 236 of the AEA to
include these materials until these activities are completed. The
Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation in the SRM for SECY-
12-0066, dated June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121700765).
The NRC staff completed the additional activities discussed in
SECY-12-0066 and informed the Commission that there was no compelling
reason to revise 10 CFR 73.81 to implement the scope authority provided
by Section 236 of the AEA to provide criminal sanctions for sabotage of
nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, and nuclear fuel or other property.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity
because the NRC staff has concluded that a rulemaking to modify 10 CFR
73.81 to implement the new authority of Section 236 of the AEA would
not serve as an effective deterrent for individuals intent on
committing sabotage of nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear
fuel or other property and is not warranted at this time.
IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC Docket
ID)
In COMSECY-04-0037, ``Fitness-for-Duty Orders to Address Fatigue of
Nuclear Facility Security Force Personnel,'' dated June 21, 2004 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML040790094), the NRC staff requested Commission approval
to issue security orders concerning fitness-for-duty enhancements to
address fatigue concerns for security force personnel at five classes
of NRC-licensed facilities: (1) Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installations, (2) Decommissioning Reactors, (3) Category I Fuel Cycle
Facilities, (4) Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and (5) the Natural Uranium
Conversion Facility. In the SRM for COMSECY-04-0037, dated September 1,
2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042450533), the Commission directed the NRC
staff to pursue the rulemaking process rather than issuing security
orders for those materials facilities and personnel for whom the NRC
staff believes fatigue related requirements are necessary.
On June 18, 2014 (FR 79 34641), the NRC published a draft
regulatory basis for public comment in the Federal Register to support
the potential amendments to revise a number of existing security-
related regulations relating to physical protection of special nuclear
material at NRC-licensed facilities and in transit, as well as the
fitness for duty programs for security officers at Category I fuel
cycle facilities. The draft regulatory basis encompassed three separate
rulemaking efforts: (1) Enhanced Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities, (2)
Special Nuclear Material Transportation Security, and (3) Security-
Force Fatigue at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities.
During the public comment period the two Category I fuel cycle
licensees proposed an alternative to the Security-Force Fatigue
rulemaking. Specifically, the affected licensees proposed adding a
fatigue management program for security officers into their security
plans. On April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22434), the NRC published the final
regulatory basis that explained that the NRC had decided to separate
the regulatory basis activities for the Security-Force Fatigue at
Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities to allow staff time to explore the
alternative to rulemaking proposal.
The NRC has decided not to proceed with the Security-Force Fatigue
rulemaking activity because, after reviewing the two licensees'
proposed changes to their security plans to manage security officer
fatigue, NRC licensing staff considers the proposal a viable option
because it will establish fatigue requirements that can be readily
inspected and enforced for the two Category I fuel cycle licensees
within their security plans.
X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials--Amendments and Integrated
Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079)
On May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28336), the NRC published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register, proposing to amend its regulations by adding
additional
[[Page 49868]]
requirements for source material licensees who possess significant
quantities of uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The proposed amendments would
require these licensees to conduct integrated safety analyses (ISAs)
similar to the ISAs performed by 10 CFR part 70 licensees; set
possession limits for UF6 for determining licensing authority (NRC or
Agreement States); add defined terms; add an additional evaluation
criterion for applicants who submit an evaluation in lieu of an
emergency plan; require the NRC to perform a backfit analysis under
specified circumstances; and make administrative changes to the
structure of the regulations. The NRC held a public meeting on February
22, 2008, to discuss the scope of the proposed rulemaking and to seek
public input on the proposed threshold quantities for determining when
a facility will be regulated by the NRC or an Agreement State.
The agency received nine comment letters addressing multiple
issues. Comments on the proposed rule were submitted on behalf of
several affected States, by industry representatives, NRC licensees,
and an individual. The comments and responses were grouped into eight
areas: General, procedural, definitions, performance requirements,
jurisdiction/authority, backfitting, reporting, and corrections. Most
of the comments were generally opposed to the proposed changes to the
regulations. Several comments questioned the cost amounts used in the
regulatory analysis. All the commenters opposed the probabilistic risk
assessment. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
The NRC staff submitted a draft final rule to the Commission in
SECY-12-0071, ``Final Rule: Domestic Licensing of Source Material--
Amendments/Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-A150),'' dated May 7,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12094A344). The draft final rule was
revised from the proposed rule based on comments from Agreement States
and the public. In the SRM for SECY-12-0071, dated May 3, 2013 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13123A127), the Commission disapproved publication of
the draft final rule. The Commission directed the NRC staff to revise
the rule and associated guidance to address issues given in the SRM and
to resubmit the rule for Commission consideration.
In COMSECY-15-0002, ``Termination of Rulemaking to Revise Title 10
of The Code of Federal Regulations Part 40, `Domestic Licensing of
Source Material' and Staff Plans to Address Other Items in Staff
Requirements Memorandum for SECY-12-0071 (RIN 3150-A150)'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13331A559), the NRC staff proposed termination of this
rulemaking. The NRC staff based this recommendation on: (1) Honeywell's
existing uranium conversion facility, and the licensed but as yet un-
built uranium deconversion facility to be operated by International
Isotopes; both already have newly approved ISAs as required by their
licenses, (2) the NRC does not anticipate new applications for 10 CFR
part 40 uranium conversion or deconversion facilities in the
foreseeable future, (3) the hazards at Honeywell's uranium conversion
facility and the hazards at International Isotopes planned uranium
deconversion facility are facility-specific and sufficiently
controlled, (4) the NRC staff's reanalysis of the rule has reduced the
priority of the rulemaking, and (5) consideration of the cumulative
effects of regulation. The agency plans to develop Interim Staff
Guidance related to 10 CFR part 70 facilities. The Commission approved
termination of this rulemaking in the SRM for COMSECY-15-0002, dated
April 17, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15107A488).
The NRC staff is including discussion of this decision in this
document to inform members of the public.
XI. Conclusion
The NRC is no longer pursuing the eight rulemaking activities for
the reasons discussed in this document. In the next edition of the
Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for these rulemaking
activities with reference to this document to indicate that they are no
longer being pursued. These rulemaking activities will appear in the
completed section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not
appear in future editions. Should the NRC determine to pursue anything
in these areas in the future, it will inform the public through a new
rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-17766 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P