[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89011-89012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29484]
========================================================================
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. 81, No. 237 / Friday, December 9, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 89011]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[Docket No. PRM-50-114; NRC-2016-0204]
Power Reactors in Extended Shutdowns
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a
petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated September 1, 2016, from David
Lochbaum on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and two co-
petitioners (the petitioners). The petitioners request that the NRC
``promulgate regulations applicable to nuclear power reactors with
operating licenses issued by the NRC but in an extended outage.'' The
PRM was docketed by the NRC on September 14, 2016, and has been
assigned Docket No. PRM-50-114. The NRC is examining the issues raised
in PRM-50-114 to determine whether they should be considered in
rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comment on the petition.
DATES: Submit comments by February 22, 2017. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0204. 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.
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Tobin, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2328, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0204 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0204.
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 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
petition for rulemaking is available in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16258A486.
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.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0204 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. The Petitioners
The petition was filed by David Lochbaum on behalf of the Union of
Concerned Scientists and two co-petitioners: Jim Riccio for Greenpeace,
and Geoffrey H. Fettus for the Natural Defense Resource Council.
III. The Petition
The petitioners request that the NRC ``promulgate regulations
applicable to nuclear power reactors with operating licenses issued by
the NRC but in an extended outage. The petitioners note that the
existing regulations only address operating reactors and those
undergoing decommissioning. The petitioners recognize that ``[m]any
issues being addressed by the NRC's ongoing decommissioning rulemaking
would apply to reactors during extended shutdowns.'' However, the
petitioners further state that ``[t]he reactor in extended shutdown
scenario entails issues beyond those being addressed by the NRC's
decommissioning rulemaking.'' Specifically, ``[t]he petitioners request
that the NRC issue a final rule that defines a reactor extended
shutdown condition, establishes the requirements applicable during a
reactor extended
[[Page 89012]]
shutdown, and establishes the requirements that must be satisfied for a
reactor to restart from an extended shutdown.'' In addition, the
petitioners request NRC issue a final rule that explicitly states that
``a licensee providing the NRC with written certification under 10 CFR
[title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations] 50.82(a)(1)(i) of
permanent cessation of reactor operations cannot retract that
certification and opt to place the reactor into an extended shutdown en
route to resumption of reactor operations.''
The petitioners propose two criteria to define when a reactor is
placed into an extended shutdown. First, similar to how licensees
notify the NRC of their intentions to permanently cease reactor
operations under 10 CFR 50.4(b)(8) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i), a
licensee would ``notify the NRC of its intention to put a reactor into
an extended shutdown.'' Second, a reactor that has been shutdown for 2
years but is not actively pursuing restart under a formal NRC process
would fall under the petitioners' proposed new regulatory requirements
for a reactor in extended shutdown.
The petitioners propose the NRC issue a final rule requiring
licensees be required to submit a ``Reactor Extended Shutdown
Activities Report (RESAR)'' prior to a reactor entering extended
shutdown, similar to the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities
Report required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i). The petitioners listed seven
activities, at a minimum, which should be described in the RESAR. The
petitioners note that if the regulations ``do[es] not generically
address topics like emergency planning exercises, Design Basis Threats
and associated physical protection measures, and handling operating
experience (i.e., NRC bulletins and generic letters as well as vendor
advisories and manual updates), the RESAR should describe how these
topics will be handled.''
The petitioners state a new rule should contain requirements for a
reactor exiting extended shutdown by either of two pathways: Restart of
the reactor or enter decommissioning. For reactor restart, the
petitioners state that ``the final rule must establish how deferred and
suspended activities are resumed'' and ``for each activity deferred,
suspended, or reduced during the period of reactor extended shutdown,
the final rule and its associated regulatory guidance must clearly
establish how these activities are resumed or reinstated.'' The
petitioners state that the final rule must clearly establish when and
to what extent a power ascension startup program is required for
reactor re-operation.
The petitioners request the NRC issue a final rule that addresses
``whether decommissioning funds may be used for activities during a
reactor extended shutdown and, if so, the criteria and conditions
governing use of decommissioning funds.'' The petitioners assert that
the final rule ``must require licensees to submit a preliminary
decommissioning cost estimate to the NRC at five-year intervals
throughout the period of reactor extended shutdown.''
IV. Request for Comment
The NRC is seeking public comment on the following questions:
1. The petition outlines a scenario where a reactor is in an
extended shutdown condition due to economic or other reasons and would
at some unspecified later date return to operation. The petition uses
the Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant as an example, where the Tennessee
Valley Authority voluntarily shut down one unit from 1985 to 2007. Are
there any facilities or licensees who may be likely to use the
petitioners' extended shutdown scenario in the future? Please provide
technical, scientific, or other data or information demonstrating the
basis for your position.
2. The petitioners contend that the NRC's existing regulations were
promulgated for operating reactors, and that specific regulations are
needed to address non-operating reactors in an ``extended shutdown.''
Assuming the extended shutdown scenario is credible, in what specific
ways are the existing regulations identified in the PRM insufficient to
address the scenario described by the petitioners? Please provide
technical, scientific, or other data or information demonstrating the
basis for your position.
3. Assuming that the existing regulations identified in the PRM are
insufficient to address the extended shutdown scenario, what specific
changes to those regulations are needed to facilitate the requested
rulemaking? Please provide technical, scientific, or other data or
information demonstrating the basis for your position.
4. The petition describes a plant in an ``extended shutdown,'' and
proposes two criteria to enter into this non-operating state
(submission of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.4(b)(8)
notifications; and a shutdown period of 2 years). Should the term
``extended shutdown'' be defined in 10 CFR 50.2, ``Definitions,'' and
should the regulations specify the timeframe for this scenario? Please
provide technical, scientific, or other data or information
demonstrating the basis for your position.
5. Given the NRC's long-standing, well-understood Reactor Oversight
Program (ROP), what potential changes would need to be considered to
ensure adequate oversight of a reactor during an extended shutdown?
Please provide technical, scientific, or other data or information
demonstrating the basis for your position.
6. What additional reporting to the NRC should be required for a
reactor in an extended shutdown, and with what level of detail and
frequency (e.g., the potential changes to the submission of the
decommissioning trust fund reports)? Please provide technical,
scientific, or other data or information demonstrating the basis for
your position.
V. Conclusion
The NRC has determined that the petition generally meets the
threshold sufficiency requirements for docketing a PRM under 10 CFR
2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking--requirements for filing,'' and the
PRM has been docketed as PRM-50-114. The NRC will examine the issues
raised in PRM-50-114, to determine whether they should be considered in
the rulemaking process. The petitioners have requested a public meeting
with the NRC for the purpose of reaching a common understanding of the
problems to be resolved by the requested rulemaking. Unlike the public
meeting opportunity afforded in the NRC's Sec. 2.206 process mentioned
in the PRM, there is no public meeting opportunity required in the
petition for rulemaking process (Sec. 2.802). At this time, the NRC
does not intend to hold a public meeting on the PRM.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-29484 Filed 12-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P