[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75959-75963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24872]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 30
[Docket No. PRM-30-66; NRC-2017-0159; NRC-2017-0031]
Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive
Materials
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in
its rulemaking process issues raised in a petition for rulemaking
submitted by Matthew McKinley on behalf of the Organization of
Agreement States (OAS, the petitioner. The petitioner requests that the
NRC amend its decommissioning financial assurance regulations for
sealed and unsealed byproduct material not listed in a table that sets
out radionuclide possession values for calculating these financial
assurance requirements. The NRC will also examine ways to make the
table's values and other NRC decommissioning funding requirements more
risk-informed.
DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-30-66, is closed
on November 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0031 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information related to the future
rulemaking. Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0159 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this petition closure.
You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by
any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on the petition Docket ID NRC-2017-
0159. Address questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone:
301-415-3407; 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 https://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, at 301-415-4737,
or by email to [email protected]. For the reader's convenience,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in Section VI, ``Availability of Documents.''
Attention: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request
to the PDR via email at [email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torre Taylor, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-7900, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Petition
II. Background
III. Discussion
IV. Public Comments on the Petition
V. Reasons for Consideration
VI. Availability of Documents
VII. Conclusion
I. Summary of the Petition
The NRC received a petition for rulemaking dated April 14, 2017,
filed by Matthew McKinley on behalf of the Organization of Agreement
States. On August 23, 2017, the NRC published a notification of
docketing and request for comment on the petition (82 FR 39971).
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its existing regulations
in appendix B, ``Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling,''
in part 30 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, ``Rules of
General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,'' to
add appropriate unlisted radionuclides and their corresponding values.
Section 30.35, ``Financial Assurance and Recordkeeping for
Decommissioning,'' uses multiples of the applicable quantities of
material listed in appendix B to determine the need for decommissioning
financial assurance for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials.
Licensees using radionuclides not specifically listed in this appendix
must use generic default values that the petitioner believes result in
overly burdensome requirements.
Without this rulemaking, the petitioner asserts, ``regulators are
forced to evaluate new products against these [default appendix B]
criteria and apply overly burdensome financial assurance obligations or
to evaluate case-by-case special exemptions . . . . Rather than issuing
exemptions on a case by case basis, the more appropriate way to address
the inconsistency in Appendix B['s treatment of listed and unlisted
radionuclides] is to amend it to add appropriate nuclides and their
corresponding activities, as determined by a rulemaking working
group.''
The petitioner also notes that the NRC did not update appendix B
when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 to give the NRC regulatory authority over discrete sources of
naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material
(NARM). A significant number of medical radionuclides are accelerator-
produced. Although the NRC did update schedule B of part 30, which
lists possession values of byproduct material exempt from the
requirements for a license, to add some NARM, it did not do the same
for appendix B, the petitioner points out, even though appendix B is
``the driver'' for decommissioning financial assurance.
The petition is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17173A063.
II. Background
To determine the amount of decommissioning financial assurance
required to possess a given radionuclide with a half-life greater than
120 days, a licensee must multiply the appendix B value for that
radionuclide by the applicable number in Sec. Sec. 30.35 or 70.25.
Sections 30.35(a) and 70.25(a) require a license-specific
decommissioning funding plan (DFP) to possess a quantity of
radionuclides greater than provided in the corresponding tables set
forth in Sec. Sec. 30.35(d) and 70.25(d). These tables require
specific amounts of funding for specified ranges in the quantity of the
radionuclide possessed. Both tables' funding amounts and quantity
ranges are identical, but Sec. 30.35 applies to byproduct material and
Sec. 70.25 applies to special nuclear material. Although the petition
addressed only byproduct material licensed under part 30, appendix B
has an identical use for special nuclear material licensed under part
70.
Section 30.35 sets a series of thresholds for decommissioning
funding for possession and use of byproduct material. If the license
authorizes
[[Page 75960]]
possession of an unsealed radionuclide in a quantity more than 1,000
times its appendix B value, the licensee must provide $225,000 in
financial assurance for decommissioning. If authorized to possess more
than 10,000 times the appendix B value of that radionuclide, the
licensee must provide $1,125,000. To possess more than 100,000 times
the appendix B value, the licensee must provide a DFP for an amount
based on the license's possession limit for the radionuclide. For
radionuclides in the form of plated foils or sealed sources, a licensee
must provide $113,000 in financial assurance for decommissioning to
possess more than 10 billion times the appendix B value for the
radionuclide, and a DFP to possess more than a trillion times the
appendix B value.
Appendix B also includes possession values for radionuclides not
specifically listed. Known as the ``default'' possession values, these
are equal to the lowest values listed in Appendix B for specific alpha-
emitting and non-alpha-emitting radionuclides, respectively, and
restrict the quantity a licensee may possess without having to meet the
applicable financial assurance requirements. For unlisted radionuclides
that are in unsealed form and do not emit alpha radiation, the default
possession value is 0.1 microcuries ([mu]Ci, one millionth of a curie),
and for unsealed unlisted alpha-emitters, the default value is 0.01
[mu]Ci. Thus, using the table in Sec. 30.35(d), a licensee would need
to provide financial assurance for decommissioning funding of $225,000
to possess more than 0.1 millicurie (mCi, one thousandth of a curie) of
an unsealed non-alpha-emitting radionuclide not listed in appendix B.
To possess more than 1 mCi of such a radionuclide, the licensee would
need to have financial assurance for decommissioning of $1,125,000. A
DFP is required to possess more than 10 mCi. For unsealed alpha-
emitting radionuclides not listed in appendix B, the corresponding
threshold quantities are 0.01 mCi for $225,000 in financial assurance,
0.1 mCi for $1,125,000, and 1 mCi for a DFP.
These default values for unlisted radionuclides did not originate
with a decommissioning funding purpose in mind. The default values,
like the other values now in appendix B, were originally established to
conform possession thresholds for the labeling of radioactive materials
with the thresholds requiring a license, so that a label would only be
required to possess an isotope in a quantity that required a license.
The labeling values, issued in 1970 in appendix C to part 20 (35 FR
6425; April 22, 1970), were redesignated in 1993 for decommissioning
funding purposes as appendix B to part 30 (58 FR 67659; December 22,
1993).
Appendix B values were not based on an explicit consideration of
risk, which involves an evaluation of the probability as well as the
consequence of a postulated event. Appendix B values were based on a
deterministic approach to regulation, which was widely used to develop
early radiation protection requirements (60 FR 42622; August 16, 1995).
Under this deterministic approach, the function of a safety limit is to
ensure that the consequences of a postulated credible event would be
acceptably small. Although the determination that an event is credible
involves some consideration of probability, safety limits set
deterministically are, by definition, not considered risk-informed,
because the probability of the event is not required to be fully
considered. Despite their derivation from values established
deterministically for labeling purposes, however, the NRC's experience
with appendix B's possession values over more than 30 years has shown
that they are generally adequate to determine the level of funding
assurance required for decommissioning.
The DFP requirements in Sec. 30.35(e) were also established with a
different purpose in mind. Originally set forth in the 1988
decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018, 24035, 24043; June 27, 1988), DFPs
were intended for major facilities possessing large quantities of
radioactive material, not for facilities possessing the quantities of
radionuclides typically used by medical licensees. Licensees of these
major facilities are required to submit a DFP with a cost estimate
specific to their facilities. Although medical and industrial licensees
possessing smaller quantities of radioactive material may also develop
facility-specific decommissioning cost estimates, it is not necessary
to ensure adequate decommissioning funding, and not cost effective for
many such licensees. When the rule was issued, it was estimated that
very few such licensees possessing such smaller quantities would need
DFPs.
These DFPs are subject to detailed requirements for their original
content and ongoing maintenance. Under Sec. 30.35(e), DFPs must
contain, among other things, a detailed cost estimate for an
independent contractor to decommission the site for release for
unrestricted use, and a certification that financial assurance in the
amount of the cost estimate has been provided. The licensee must
resubmit the DFP every 3 years with adjustments as necessary to account
for changes in costs and the extent of contamination. Even if a
licensee possesses only one radionuclide in a quantity requiring a DFP,
that DFP must also cover all other radionuclides at the site, whether
or not the aggregated total quantity of these other radionuclides would
have required a DFP.
The NRC staff has determined that DFPs are not likely to be
necessary for licensees that possess small quantities of certain
unlisted radionuclides, particularly if it is returned in its container
to the manufacturer/distributor (M&D) after use. This has been the case
for germanium-68 (Ge-68) generators of the medical radionuclide
gallium-68 (Ga-68).
In an August 2015 report on the effect of the DFP requirement on
Ge-68 generators, the NRC's Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of
Isotopes (ACMUI) concluded that ``current Part 30 regulations are
preventing and/or deterring the use of promising . . . Ga-68 diagnostic
imaging agents for patients due to the decommissioning funding plan
burden for its parent Ge-68'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML15231A047).
After analysis, the NRC staff agreed that the DFP requirement could
impede or limit patient access to the radiopharmaceuticals developed
from these generators and that a DFP is not necessary to ensure the
safe decommissioning of facilities that use them. Pending rulemaking,
the NRC staff developed guidance on the issuance of exemptions from the
DFP requirement for licensees that have entered into written agreements
binding them to return the generators to an M&D and binding the
affected M&D to accept them.
Beyond the impact on Ge-68 generator licensees, a decision to
forego rulemaking would also be likely to elicit requests for
exemptions from existing decommissioning funding requirements by users
of other unlisted radionuclides. As noted in Section IV. below,
commenters have identified several radionuclides with actual or
potential medical applications that are or could be negatively affected
because these radionuclides are not currently listed in appendix B.
III. Discussion
The petitioner advances three main reasons for amending appendix B
to part 30. First, although Congress gave the NRC regulatory authority
over discrete sources of NARM in 2005, the NRC has not updated appendix
B to add
[[Page 75961]]
possession values for any NARM, which accounts for an increasing number
of medical uses.
Second, the petitioner argues that the default possession values
for radionuclides not listed in appendix B force regulators either to
``apply overly burdensome financial assurance obligations'' or
``evaluate case by case special exemptions.''
The petitioner's third reason for rulemaking cites the time and
cost impacts of needing to request and process exemptions from these
requirements on a case-by-case basis. Because of the need for
exemptions, ``[t]he OAS believes that patient health and safety is
being compromised due to licensing delays of important diagnostic and
therapeutic products that utilize radionuclides not listed in the 10
CFR 30 appendix B table. . . . Further, development of new products
could be discouraged due to these obstacles, diminishing the
possibility of new innovative and beneficial options in both medical
and industrial applications.''
IV. Public Comments on the Petition
Overview of Public Comments
The original comment period on PRM-30-66 closed on November 6,
2017. To allow a larger number of stakeholders to comment, the NRC
published a Federal Register notification extending the comment period
to December 6, 2017. The NRC received 20 comment submissions containing
137 discrete comments. Comments came from industry, government and non-
government organizations, and members of the public. The name of the
commenter, the commenter's affiliation (if any), and the ADAMS
accession number for each comment submission are provided in the
following table, listed alphabetically by affiliation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession
Commenter Affiliation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Diamantopoulos.......... Advanced Accelerator ML17307A292
Applications.
David Walter................. Alabama Office of ML17276A099
Radiation Control.
Melissa Martin............... American Association ML17321A166
of Physicists in
Medicine.
James Brink.................. American College of ML17321A167
Radiology.
Michael Baxter............... American Pharmacists ML17307A461
Association.
Anonymous.................... Anonymous............ ML17345A861
Angela Minden................ Arkansas Department ML17311A614
of Health Radiation
Control Section.
Glenn Sullivan............... Cardinal Health...... ML17311A618
Conference of Radiation Conference of ML17345A862
Control Program Directors' Radiation Control
Committee on Nuclear Program Directors.
Medicine.
Michael Guastella............ Council for ML17311A616
Radionuclides and
Radiopharmaceuticals.
Kimberly Steves.............. Kansas Department of ML17325B724
Health and
Environment.
Glenn Sturchio............... Mayo Clinic.......... ML17338A830
B. J. Smith.................. Mississippi ML17279B157
Department of Health.
Catherine Ribaudo............ National Institutes ML17311A612
of Health.
Diane D'Arrigo, Hugh Nuclear Information ML17341A057
MacMillan, and Terry Lodge. and Resource
Service, Food &
Water Watch, and the
Toledo Coalition for
Safe Energy.
Hendrik Engelbrecht and PharmaLogic Holdings ML17345A859
Richard Van Sant. Corp. and
subsidiaries.
Susan Langhorst.............. Private Citizen...... ML17311A619
Caitlin Kubler and Bennett Society of Nuclear ML17321A165
Greenspan. Medicine and
Molecular Imaging.
Roger Macklin................ Tennessee Department ML17296A183
of Environment and
Conservation.
Lt. Col. Scott Nemmers....... U.S. Air Force, ML17312B336
Master Materials
License Management
Staff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Federal Register document announcing the docketing of the
petition, the NRC posed four questions related to the petition's scope.
The NRC analyzed the comments received in response, sorted them into 47
categories of common concerns, and traced each category to one of the
questions in the notification (See ``Categorization of Comments on NRC
Questions about PRM-30-66'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML18292A481.)) Below
are summaries of the principal categories of comments received in
response to each of the questions. The NRC evaluated each comment in
deciding whether to consider or deny the issues raised by the
petitioner. The NRC will also consider the comments further during the
development of the regulatory basis document for this rulemaking and
any methodology for setting more risk-informed appendix B values. These
documents will be made available for public comment.
Summaries of Responses to the NRC's Questions
Question 1: What products or technologies, other than the Ge-68
generators cited in the petition, are being or could be negatively
affected because the radioactive materials required for these products
or technologies are not currently listed on the table in appendix B?
Most of the commenters who responded to this question stated that
LUTATHERA[supreg] (lutetium-177 oxodotreotide), a radiopharmaceutical
used to treat gastro-entero-pancreatic neuro-endocrine tumors, could be
negatively affected because a contaminant in this radiopharmaceutical,
a metastable isomer of lutetium-177 (Lu-177m), is not listed in
appendix B to part 30.
Commenters also identified several other radionuclides whose use
could be unnecessarily restricted because they are not listed in
appendix B. Actinium-227, thorium-228, and titanium-44 are being
considered for potential radionuclide generators, commenters stated.
Silicon-32 has potential therapeutic applications, and sodium-22 and
aluminum-26 have potential diagnostic applications. One commenter noted
that rhenium-184m should be listed because it is an activation product
from certain cyclotron target windows used to produce other
radionuclides. Other commenters identified cobalt-57 because the use of
products based on or associated with it could be negatively affected.
Question 2: Please provide specific examples of how the current NRC
regulatory framework for decommissioning financial assurance has put an
undue hardship on potential
[[Page 75962]]
license applicants. Explain how this hardship has discouraged the
development of beneficial new products, or otherwise imposed
unnecessarily burdensome requirements on licensees or members of the
public (e.g., users of medical diagnostic or therapeutic technologies)
that depend on NARM.
Commenters provided several examples of undue hardship. Commenters
said that the DFP requirement is a hardship for medical licensees with
multiple locations of use, since a DFP is required for each site using
an unlisted radionuclide. Commenters also noted that the need to seek
case-by-case exemptions from appendix B's default requirements is an
administrative burden, and that the regulatory delays in obtaining
exemptions from the financial assurance hardships negatively affect
patient care.
Three commenters also said that the NRC should address inequities
in applying Sec. 30.35 in different States. One commenter said that
the increased financial assurance burden for those possessing
accelerator-produced radionuclides ``cascades to the Agreement States,
which look to NRC for guidance, and absent that guidance they either
move forward on their own or temporarily stop processing [license]
amendment requests [for exemptions].''
Question 3: Given the NRC's current regulatory authority over the
radiological safety and security of NARM, what factors should the NRC
take into account in establishing possession limits for any of these
materials that should be listed in appendix B?
Thirteen commenters provided a total of 38 recommendations on
factors the NRC should consider in setting any new possession limits.
Several of these recommendations shared common themes. One was that the
NRC should provide special regulatory consideration for
radiopharmaceuticals. Four commenters said, for example, that the NRC
should consider the unique purpose of radiopharmaceuticals, the
importance of patient access to these pharmaceuticals, and the fact
that they undergo extensive evaluation by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration before they are allowed to be manufactured and regulated
for their radiological properties.
A related theme was that generators using unlisted radionuclides to
produce these radiopharmaceuticals also deserve special consideration.
Five commenters said these generators should either be considered as
sealed sources or as a separate category qualifying for more risk-
informed regulatory treatment.
Another theme was that for appendix B to part 30, the NRC should
consider possession values already established in other NRC tables.
Five commenters said, for example, that the NRC should align the values
in appendix B to part 30 with those for the same radionuclides in
appendix C to part 20 on labeling.
Two commenters recommended similar sets of considerations with
respect to which other factors should be accounted for in setting new
appendix B possession values. These included the physical and chemical
form and half-life of the radionuclide and its progeny, and the
disposal pathway for these radionuclides at the time of facility
decommissioning.
Two commenters stated that in determining the amount of financial
assurance required for a DFP, only the area of use of the subject
radionuclide should be considered. These commenters noted that medical
licensees use different radionuclides in different areas of their
facilities, and that some of these radionuclides, such as technetium-99
and iodine-125, do not require any financial assurance for
decommissioning.
Four other commenters shared a concern that establishing new
possession limits in appendix B to part 30 could result in unsafe waste
disposal practices. Three commenters submitting a single set of
comments argued that possession values high enough to make
decommissioning financial assurance requirements more commensurate with
the radiological hazards of medical uses could also effectively exempt
some industrial and commercial licensees, including those engaged in
oil and gas fracking, from a requirement to dispose of their wastes in
licensed facilities. These commenters also said that the NRC must
prepare a ``programmatic'' (i.e., generic) environmental impact
statement for any rulemaking to amend appendix B.
Two commenters raised issues about the number of radionuclides with
half-lives greater than 120 days--the minimum, as noted at Sec. 30.35,
for decommissioning funding requirements--that should be added to
appendix B. One commenter said that the appendix should list all
radionuclides with such half-lives, ``since it is hard to predict where
the next medically useful radionuclide will come from in the future.''
The other commenter noted that appendix B to part 30 contains only 45
radionuclides (the staff counted 49) with half-lives greater than 120
days, while appendix C to part 20 lists 150.
One commenter on Question 3 suggested that, because the factors
that need to be considered in setting new appendix B possession limits
may change with time, the NRC should review part 30 decommissioning
funding requirements every 3 to 5 years.
Question 4: Does this petition raise other issues not addressed by
the questions above about labeling or decommissioning financial
assurance for radioactive materials? Must these issues be addressed by
a rulemaking, or are there other regulatory solutions that NRC should
consider?
On the question of whether the NRC should consider solutions other
than rulemaking, 15 of the 20 comment submissions explicitly supported
the need for rulemaking, and one requested that Sec. 30.35
requirements not apply to certain radiopharmaceuticals approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration--a change that can only be effected
by rule. No commenters opposed rulemaking, although three commenters
that submitted a single set of comments were concerned that setting new
possession limits for medical radionuclides could effectively exempt
from needed regulation industrial wastes containing those
radionuclides. Of those commenters that explicitly supported
rulemaking, seven also said it would be preferable to issuing
exemptions, and two said that a rulemaking would improve or minimize
negative impacts on research, medical licensees, and the availability
of new radiopharmaceuticals to patients.
On the question of whether the petition raised any issues not
addressed by the other three NRC questions, responding commenters
raised 16 additional issues. The majority of these are related to
Question 3 on factors to be considered in setting new appendix B
possession limits. Six commenters, for example, called on the NRC to
address the inconsistencies in possession values between appendix B to
part 30 and appendix C to part 20. Two of these commenters recommended
replacing appendix B values with appendix C values, and one recommended
that the NRC withdraw appendix B and reference appendix C instead.
Two other commenters recommended that the NRC describe the
methodology for deriving possession values in a footnote to appendix B
to part 30. Providing a formula instead of the current default values
for unlisted radionuclides, one commenter said, ``will alleviate the
need for subsequent amendments to appendix B and minimize [the]
negative impact (or potential impact) on medical licensees and patient
care.''
Four commenters raised a new issue unrelated to the issues
associated with
[[Page 75963]]
setting possession limits. These commenters noted that the title of
appendix B to part 30, ``Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring
Labeling,'' does not express the actual purpose of the appendix.
V. Reasons for Consideration
The NRC has reviewed the petition in accordance with Sec.
2.803(h). For several reasons, the NRC concludes that the issues raised
by the petitioner and commenters should be considered in the rulemaking
process. First, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the NRC regulatory
authority over discrete sources of NARM, and the NRC needs to
incorporate appropriate NARM into its regulatory framework for
decommissioning funding. This would also provide a clearer, more
predictable basis for Agreement State regulation of decommissioning
funding for these radionuclides. Second, rulemaking would also reduce,
if not eliminate, the need to process exemption requests from licensees
seeking a more risk-informed alternative to the generic default values
that result in decommissioning funding requirements that are not
commensurate with likely costs.
Moreover, a rulemaking would also advance the NRC's commitment to
more risk-informed regulation by better aligning NRC funding
requirements with the risks of decommissioning the affected licensee
facilities.
In addition, the NRC expects that rulemaking would be more cost-
effective than maintaining applicable existing regulations. The short-
term savings to the NRC from denying this petition for rulemaking would
likely be outweighed by the higher aggregate cost to license
applicants, Agreement States, and the NRC for case-by-case exemption
reviews over the long term. The higher cost of NRC inaction would
accrue not only for Ge-68 generators and the Lu-177
radiopharmaceuticals cited by most commenters on Question 1, but
foreseeably for other new technologies. In addition to making costly
exemption reviews unnecessary, a rulemaking would also provide a more
stable, risk-informed basis for decommissioning funding requirements by
using radionuclide-specific possession values that better reflect the
amount of financial assurance required.
Further, more predictable and risk-informed decommissioning funding
requirements could remove an unnecessary barrier to making Ge-68
generator-supported Ga-68 imaging, Lu-177 radiotherapy, and other
emerging medical and industrial technologies that depend on unlisted
radionuclides available to the public.
An additional reason to undertake rulemaking on appendix B is to
align its title with its decommissioning funding purpose.
Lastly, adding unlisted radionuclides in a single comprehensive
rulemaking would minimize the need for additional rulemakings in the
future when new applications are developed for radionuclides remaining
unlisted in appendix B.
VI. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table, listed by their
order of reference in this proposed rule, are available to interested
persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No. or
Document Federal Register
citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition letter of Organization of Agreement ML17173A063
States Board Chairman Mathew McKinley, April
14, 2017.
Federal Register notification of docketing of 82 FR 39971
petition for rulemaking PRM-30-66 and request
for public comment, August 23, 2017.
Federal Register notification extending 82 FR 51363
comment period, November 6, 2017.
Federal Register notification, Final rule, 35 FR 6425
Part 20--Standards for Protection Against
Radiation, Appendix C, April 16, 1970.
Federal Register notification, Final 53 FR 24018
decommissioning rule, June 27, 1988.
Federal Register notification, Final rule, 58 FR 67659
removal of expired material, December 22,
1993.
``Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods 60 FR 42622
in Nuclear Regulatory Activities; Final
Policy Statement,'' August 16, 1995.
``Categorization of Comments on NRC Questions ML18292A481
about PRM-30-66''.
``Advisory Committee on the Medical Use of ML15231A047
Isotopes Germanium-68 (Ge-68) Decommissioning
Funding Plan (DFP) Final Report,'' August 12,
2015.
NRC Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2018-2022.... ML18032A561
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Conclusion
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC will consider in
the rulemaking process the issues raised in PRM-30-66 and will seek
public input on any proposed changes to its requirements in appendix B
to part 30, 10 CFR 30.35, and 10 CFR 70.25. The rulemaking is titled
``Decommissioning Financial Assurance Requirements for Sealed and
Unsealed Radioactive Materials.'' Publication of this document in the
Federal Register closes Docket ID NRC-2017-0159 for PRM-30-66.
The public can monitor further action on the rulemaking that will
address this petition by searching Docket ID NRC-2017-0031 on the
Federal rulemaking website, https://www.regulations.gov. The site
allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or
additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Search for and
open the docket folder (NRC-2017-0031); (2) click the ``Email Alert''
link; and (3) enter an email address and select the frequency for email
receipts (daily, weekly, or monthly). The NRC also tracks the status of
all NRC rules and PRMs on its website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/rules-petitions.html.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of November, 2020.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020-24872 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P