[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58509-58510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25273]


 ========================================================================
 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. 83, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 20, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 58509]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-116; NRC-2018-0201]


Elimination of Immediate Notification Requirements for Non-
Emergency Events

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 from Bill Pitesa, of the Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI), dated August 2, 2018, requesting that the NRC amend 
its regulations regarding the immediate notification requirements for 
operating nuclear power reactors. The petition was docketed by the NRC 
on September 4, 2018, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-116. The 
NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-50-116 to determine whether 
they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public 
comment on this petition.

DATES: Submit comments by February 4, 2019. 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 Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0201. 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: Daniel Doyle, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3748; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0201 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 Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0201.
     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 ``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 incoming petition for rulemaking 
is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18247A204.
     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-2018-0201 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 
https://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 Petitioner

    The petition was submitted by Bill Pitesa on behalf of NEI members. 
Members of NEI include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear 
power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major 
architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear 
materials licensees, and other organizations and entities involved in 
the nuclear energy industry.

III. The Petition

    The petitioner is requesting that the NRC revise part 50 of title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to remove non-emergency 
notification requirements from the current regulations. The petitioner 
contends that the elimination of non-emergency notification 
requirements would eliminate duplicative notifications to the NRC and 
reduce unnecessary burden to licensees without presenting any 
incremental risk to public health and safety.

IV. Discussion of the Petition

    The petitioner requests that the NRC revise its regulations in 10 
CFR part 50 to remove the current requirement for licensees to 
immediately report non-emergency events that occur at operating nuclear 
power reactors. The petitioner believes the regulations should be 
revised because licensees currently have procedures for responding to 
non-emergency events

[[Page 58510]]

and ensuring that NRC resident inspectors are notified of non-emergency 
events independent of the requirements in Sec.  50.72. The petitioner 
states that ``duplicative notifications under 10 CFR 50.72 serve no 
safety function and are not needed to prevent or minimize possible 
injury to the public or to allow the NRC to take necessary action.''
    The petitioner suggests that in lieu of the currently required 
notifications, the NRC should establish guidance for the resident 
inspectors that provides consistent and standard expectations for using 
the existing communication protocols that have proven effective from 
the site to the resident inspectors and, from there, on to NRC 
management.
    The petitioner discusses the NRC's stated purpose in promulgating 
the non-emergency event notification requirements in Sec.  50.72 by 
referring to final rules published in the Federal Register. The basis 
and purpose of the current requirements are primarily discussed in 
final rules published in the Federal Register on February 29, 1980 (45 
FR 13434); August 29, 1983 (48 FR 39039); September 10, 1992 (57 FR 
41378); and October 25, 2000 (65 FR 63769).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These final rules are publicly available in the Federal 
Register section of the U.S. Government Publishing Office's govinfo 
website: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Request for Comment

    The NRC staff is requesting the public to consider the following 
specific questions when commenting on this petition:
    1. The NRC publishes the event notifications it receives from 
licensees on the NRC's public website every weekday. Do you or does 
your organization regularly review these event notifications? If so, 
please describe your use of this information and explain how the 
elimination of all non-emergency event notification requirements would 
affect you or your organization.
    2. If all non-emergency event notification requirements were 
removed from Sec.  50.72, the NRC would still receive licensee event 
reports within 60 days of discovery of the event as required by Sec.  
50.73 unless there is no corresponding Sec.  50.73 report. These 
reports typically contain a more detailed account of the event and are 
released to the public in ADAMS after receipt. There is no 
corresponding Sec.  50.73 report for Sec.  50.72(b)(2)(xi) for a news 
release or notification to other government agencies, Sec.  
50.72(b)(3)(xii) for transportation of a radioactively contaminated 
person, and Sec.  50.72(b)(3)(xiii) for major loss of emergency 
assessment capability. Would the public release of licensee event 
reports alone meet your needs? Please explain why or why not.
    3. The petitioner asserts that the non-emergency notifications 
under Sec.  50.72 ``create unnecessary burdens for both the licensee 
and the NRC staff, and should be eliminated.'' What specific provisions 
in Sec.  50.72, if any, do you consider to be especially burdensome 
(e.g., the timing requirements for submittal of event notifications, 
certain types of event notifications)? Please provide a supporting 
justification, as appropriate.
    4. The petitioner asserts that Sec.  50.72 non-emergency 
notifications are contrary to the best interests of the public and are 
contrary to the stated purpose of the regulation. Do you agree with 
this assertion? Please explain why or why not.
    5. Are there alternatives to the petitioner's proposed changes that 
would address the concerns raised in the petition while still providing 
timely event information to the NRC and the public? Please provide a 
detailed discussion of any suggested alternatives.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of November, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-25273 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P