[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38124-38159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-12702]
[[Page 38123]]
Vol. 91
Wednesday,
No. 120
June 24, 2026
Part III
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 30, 37, 40, et al.
Modernizing Materials Licensing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38124]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 30, 37, 40, 51, 70, 72, and 140
[NRC-2025-1370]
RIN 3150-AL56
Modernizing Materials Licensing
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its regulations for byproduct, source, and special nuclear
material to modernize the NRC's materials licensing requirements. This
proposed action is responsive to several executive orders and the NRC's
mission to enable safe, efficient, and reliable licensing. These
changes are deregulatory in nature and include streamlining the process
for existing and certain new applicants to enable bringing power to the
grid. Unnecessary regulations are being eliminated, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are being changed. The NRC is proposing
several other changes to clarify regulations that are confusing or
ambiguous to make the overall licensing process more efficient.
Finally, regulations governing the storage of radioactive material are
being amended to accommodate new and advanced nuclear fuels.
DATES: Comments must be submitted electronically using https://www.regulations.gov by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 10, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID NRC-2025-1370,
at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted
using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as
name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business
information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are
public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and
will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted
anonymously.
Follow the search instructions on https://www.regulations.gov to
view public comments.
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2025-1370. 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: Andy Imboden, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9055, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
B. Submitting Comments
II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
III. Background
IV. Discussion
A. Reducing Facility Construction Timelines
B. Clarifying Physical Protection Regulations
C. Enabling Pilot Fuel Lines
D. Streamlining Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility Licensing
E. Modernizing Fuel Cycle Facility Licensing
F. Modernizing Spent Fuel Licensing
V. Specific Requests for Comments
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
X. Plain Writing
XI. Environmental Assessment and Proposed Finding of No Significant
Environmental Impact
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as
Amended by Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All
Agencies)
B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy
C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
D. Executive Order 14294: Fighting Overcriminalization in
Federal Regulations
XIV. Coordination With NRC Agreement States
XV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
XVI. Availability of Guidance
XVII. Availability of Documents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1370 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1370.
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 ``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 convenience of the reader, instructions
about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in
the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Public Meeting: The NRC may conduct a public meeting to
describe the proposed amendments and answer questions from the public
on the proposed rule. If the NRC determines it will hold a public
meeting, NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of
the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website within 10 calendar days
of the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting
website for information about the public meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
B. Submitting Comments
Comments must be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov by
11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 10, 2026. Please include Docket ID
NRC-2025-1370 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
[[Page 38125]]
submissions to remove such information before making the comment
submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Executive Order 14300: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order
(E.O.) 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.'' This rulemaking addresses Section 5, ``Reforming and
Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,'' of E.O. 14300, which directs the
NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and
guidance documents as guided by the policies set forth in section 2 of
the E.O.
III. Background
The NRC is proposing rulemaking in response to recent E.O.s. Some
of the proposed changes would also address issues that have
historically been raised as subjects of discussion between the NRC and
its stakeholders. The following discussion provides background
information on some of the most significant changes proposed by this
rulemaking.
First, the changes proposed to title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 37, ``Physical Protection of Category 1 And
Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material,'' have been the topic of
prior discussions between the NRC and its stakeholders. These have been
addressed, in large part, through other regulatory processes, but not
yet by rulemaking. The issue of creating exemptions from physical
protection requirements for large and robust structures was the subject
of an unresolved petition for rulemaking (PRM).
On June 12, 2014, the NRC received a PRM submitted by the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14199A570), requesting
that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 37 to clarify and expand current
exemptions in Sec. 37.11 for when the physical protection measures for
category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material do not
apply to a power reactor licensee. NEI stated that both licensees and
the NRC have encountered significant problems with Sec. 37.11 which
can only be remedied through a rulemaking. NEI indicated that the
exemption in Sec. 37.11(c) only addresses waste material, and
therefore large components and non-waste material stored in robust
structures that present a similar or lower risk for theft or diversion
are not exempt from the 10 CFR part 37 requirements. The petition was
docketed as PRM-37-1 and published for comment on October 28, 2014 (79
FR 64149). On June 12, 2015, the NRC published a notice in the Federal
Register (80 FR 33450) stating that it had reviewed the petition and
related public comments and agreed to consider the issues raised in the
rulemaking process.
Recognizing the low risk associated with large components
containing category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material
and the storage of category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive
material in robust structures, the NRC issued Enforcement Guidance
Memorandum (EGM)-14-001, ``Interim Guidance for Dispositioning 10 CFR
Part 37 Violations with Respect to Large Components or Robust
Structures Containing Category I or Category 2 Quantities of Material
at Power Reactor Facilities Licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52,''
dated March13,2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14056A151). This EGM
documented the NRC's policy of enforcement discretion for power reactor
licensees subject to 10 CFR part 73, ``Physical Protection of Plants
and Materials,'' whose security programs did not separately address the
requirements of 10 CFR part 37. EGM-14-001 provided guidance for
dispositioning violations associated with large components (e.g., steam
generators, steam dryers, turbine rotors, reactor vessels, reactor
vessel heads, reactor coolant pumps, and shielding blocks) containing
category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material, or
category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material contained
in robust structures, such as mausoleums at power reactor facilities
licensed under 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities,'' and 10 CFR part 52, ``Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.'' However, EGMs
are intended to provide temporary guidance and are typically put in
place for relatively short periods of time.
While the NRC actively pursued the 10 CFR part 37 rulemaking, it
issued an Interim Enforcement Policy (IEP) on August 23, 2024 (89 FR
68083), allowing continued enforcement discretion until the underlying
technical issue could be resolved through rulemaking or other
regulatory action. IEPs provide an avenue to establish policy, allowing
them to be in place for longer periods of time than EGMs and providing
for increased clarity because they are approved by the Commission as a
policy matter. IEPs also offer enhanced openness because they are
incorporated in the Enforcement Policy and published in the Federal
Register to provide broad awareness among stakeholders. The NRC would
continue to exercise enforcement discretion using this IEP and would
not issue a notice of violation pending completion of the final
rulemaking. The changes proposed in this rulemaking now seek to address
this issue and propose an additional clarifying change to 10 CFR part
37.
The proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 70, ``Domestic Licensing of
Special Nuclear Material,'' also arise from E.O.s and historical
discussions between the NRC and its stakeholders. In response to E.O.
14301, ``Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of
Energy,'' and E.O. 14299, ``Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor
Technologies for National Security,'' issued May 23, 2025, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) established a pilot program to expedite the
testing of advanced nuclear reactor designs under DOE authority outside
of the national laboratories and a corresponding Fuel Line Pilot
Program. The pilot fuel lines would establish a domestic nuclear fuel
supply chain for pilot reactors for non-commercial purposes.
The NRC is working closely with the DOE on developing a process to
allow for efficient leveraging of the DOE authorization in the NRC
licensing process. This rulemaking is one part of that process. This
rulemaking recognizes that the construction and operation of pilot fuel
lines authorized by the DOE for non-commercial purposes would be exempt
from the requirements for an NRC license under the regulations in 10
CFR part 70. The proposed rulemaking would also allow for streamlined
commercial licensing of these fuel lines in the future by focusing the
potential future NRC review on parts of the application where aspects
of the DOE authorization do not satisfy NRC regulations and statutory
provisions as they apply to commercial operations. This would allow the
NRC's review of future applications under this program to focus on any
potential differences rather than revisiting areas already addressed by
the DOE authorization that are consistent with the NRC's regulatory and
statutory requirements.
The proposed changes to streamline and clarify the licensing of
spent fuel reprocessing facilities using 10 CFR part 70 are responsive
to a long history of discussion between the NRC and its stakeholders.
As determined by a gap analysis performed by the NRC staff in 2009
(SECY-09-0082, ``Update on Reprocessing Regulatory Framework--Summary
of Gap Analysis'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML091520280)), gaps were found
to exist between the current regulations and requirements that would be
necessary to provide for
[[Page 38126]]
adequate protection of public health and safety, the common defense and
security, and the environment, for the unique aspects of spent fuel
reprocessing facilities. Subsequently, from 2013 to 2016, the NRC
assessed the quantitative risk associated with reprocessing facility
accidents in support of a limited-scope rulemaking. However, due to a
lack of industry plans for a reprocessing facility license application,
the rulemaking was withdrawn in 2021. The gaps, however, remain, and
because of these gaps, an applicant seeking such a license may need to
request exemptions, and may require additional license conditions, to
address issues specific to reprocessing technology. The proposed
amendments aim to reduce regulatory burden by addressing some of the
procedural gaps and thereby providing a clearer licensing framework for
applications for spent fuel reprocessing facilities under 10 CFR part
70.
Finally, with respect to spent fuel storage, the proposed changes
are also responsive to issues that have been a topic of discussion
between NRC and its stakeholders. The regulations in 10 CFR part 72,
``Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear
Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than
Class C Waste,'' have undergone significant revisions over the past
decades. Currently the regulations for spent fuel storage have separate
technical regulatory requirements spread across several subparts of 10
CFR part 72 for specific licensees and Certificate of Compliance (CoC)
holders with a common set of performance specifications (e.g., dose
limits and criticality control) and quality assurance (QA)
requirements.
Significant changes to 10 CFR part 72 were first described in a
final rule published in July 1990 (55 FR 29181) and were a result of
the 1987 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This rulemaking
added subparts K and L which included requirements for General
Licensees (GLs) (subpart K) and approval of dry spent fuel storage
systems (subpart L). However, the regulatory changes described in the
July 1990 and October 1999 (64 FR 56121) rulemakings led to confusion
regarding the applicability of 10 CFR part 72 between the Specific
Licensees, GLs, and CoC holders, which led to the addition of Sec.
72.13 in August 2000 (65 FR 50606). The changes proposed in this
rulemaking seek to address this confusion and to provide additional
clarity to the regulations.
The changes to 10 CFR part 72 also reduce burden by streamlining
the certification process for dry storage cask designs by removing the
rulemaking process for cask approvals. They also seek to streamline the
change process for 10 CFR part 72 by codifying the discretion granted
in an August 2025 IEP (ADAMS Accession No. ML25224A097), which allows
the NRC staff to exercise enforcement discretion for certain GL
violations of Sec. Sec. 72.48 and 72.212. Lastly, they seek to
streamline the licensing of advanced reactor technologies by clarifying
definitions for spent fuel and descriptions of damaged fuel to
accommodate advanced reactor fuels.
IV. Discussion
The NRC is proposing this rulemaking as part of the NRC's response
to E.O. 14300, ``Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission,'' which directs the NRC to modernize its regulations and
enable the delivery of safe, abundant nuclear energy to the American
people. This proposed rule addresses topics in Section 5, ``Reforming
and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations'' of E.O. 14300 and additional
deregulatory changes consistent with the NRC's mission to enable safe,
efficient and reliable licensing. Because this proposed rule would
cover a wide-ranging set of issues, the following discussion is
organized by subject area.
A. Reducing Facility Construction Timelines
The proposed rule would make changes to the NRC's regulations for
constructing byproduct, source, and certain fuel cycle facilities to
safely enable bringing power to the grid. Historically, stakeholders
have identified areas where the regulations are not clear and could
cause unnecessary delays during critical pre-application stages of
facility construction. Prior efforts have been made to increase clarity
on individual licensing actions, and this rule would clarify and
accelerate overall construction timelines for many materials
facilities.
Specifically, this proposed rule addresses the construction of
byproduct, source, and fuel cycle facilities by making identical
changes in 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70. Stakeholders have identified
that provisions in the current regulations indicate that commencement
of construction prior to approval of the license is ``grounds for
denial,'' which has raised concern among applicants proposing to
construct facilities. The NRC is proposing to clarify the language
across its materials facility construction regulations, including
Sec. Sec. 30.33(a)(5), 40.32(e), and 70.23(a)(7) to explain that
construction prior to approval may proceed but it occurs at the
applicant's own risk. The proposed change in Sec. 70.23(a)(7) from
``grounds for denial'' to ``at its own risk'' would not apply to
uranium enrichment facilities or spent fuel reprocessing facilities.
Pursuant to statutory requirements in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (AEA), uranium enrichment facilities and production facilities
may not commence construction prior to the issuance of a license.
Accordingly, language has been proposed to clarify this, including a
new Sec. 70.23(a)(8), which addresses uranium enrichment facilities
specifically, and retains the existing ``grounds for denial'' language.
Additionally, current regulations require submittal of certain
materials facility applications at least nine months prior to
commencement of construction. This nine-month period is not a statutory
requirement and does not substantially improve the NRC application
review process and is therefore proposed for elimination from
Sec. Sec. 30.32(f), 40.31(f), and 70.21(f). Instead, the NRC proposes
to find that pre-application engagement is more effective at achieving
the goals of increased awareness of details of construction than the
fixed nine-month period. Applicants would be expected to continue
providing updated construction schedule information as it becomes
available to facilitate effective communication and coordination with
NRC regional inspection and project management staff throughout the
duration of the construction project.
While the NRC is not currently proposing a change to the definition
of ``construction'' in 10 CFR part 70; the NRC is seeking public input
on whether to expand the definition in the final rule to add
flexibility by further clarifying what the term construction does not
include. The NRC is seeking feedback on what specific items should be
added to the definition.
Other proposed changes to regulatory provisions, such as revisions
to Sec. 70.21(f), and conforming changes to Sec. Sec. 30.32(f) and
40.31(f), are intended to avoid confusion and delay by simplifying the
requirements for the environmental report. Additionally, the proposed
rule would streamline the process by directing applicants to NRC's
environmental regulations in 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.''
[[Page 38127]]
B. Clarifying Physical Protection Regulations
The NRC is proposing a new exemption for large components and
storage of material in robust structures containing category 1 or
category 2 quantities of radioactive material. This new exemption would
be consistent with the enforcement discretion described in EGM-14-001
and the subsequent IEP. To accomplish this, this proposed rule would
make changes to Sec. 37.5, ``Definitions,'' by adding definitions for
``large component'' and ``robust structure.'' The new definitions
proposed in this rulemaking are identical to those that have been
successfully used for several years under EGM-14-001 and the subsequent
IEP and are therefore appropriate for inclusion in Sec. 37.5. Large
components, due to their size and weight, pose a low risk of theft or
diversion as they are not easily moved without cranes, rigging, and
heavy equipment. In addition, large components are not easily concealed
during loading or when they are in motion, and the amount of time
required to steal or divert these large components is such that it is
reasonable to expect that the licensee would timely detect these
activities. Radioactive materials contained within robust structures
can only be accessed using heavy equipment to remove structural
components or large access blocks that weigh 2,000 kilograms or more.
Access into these robust structures requires significant execution
time.
The proposed rule would also include a new exemption in Sec.
37.11, ``Specific exemptions.'' Specifically, the NRC is proposing to
add Sec. 37.11(d), which provides an exemption for large components
and robust structures containing category 1 or category 2 quantities of
radioactive material if the licensee meets the following conditions:
(1) has identified in writing those large components and robust
structures that contain category 1 or category 2 quantities of
radioactive material; (2) has an approved 10 CFR part 73 security plan
or a written 10 CFR part 37 security plan that provides security
measures adequate to detect, assess, and respond to actual or attempted
theft or diversion, as well as a written analysis that considers the
time needed to accomplish these activities given the proximity and
mobility of the equipment available for those large components and
robust structures; and, (3) has a written analysis documenting that the
measures do not decrease the effectiveness of the 10 CFR part 73
security plan.
Typically, routine work activities, observation by licensees'
authorized individuals located within or close to these robust
structures, or observation by licensees' authorized individuals, are
conducted in accordance with Sec. 73.55(i)(5)(ii), ``Requirements for
physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors
against radiological sabotage--Detection and assessment systems--
Surveillance, observation, and monitoring.'' These requirements make it
likely that licensees would detect actual or attempted theft and
diversion considering the time needed to accomplish these activities.
Additionally, the NRC is proposing to revise the rule language
regarding the exemption for radioactive waste in Sec. 37.11(c). The
existing language lacks clarity about which types of radioactive waste
are exempted from 10 CFR part 37. Revising this language would provide
licensees with greater regulatory certainty in implementing this
provision.
C. Enabling Pilot Fuel Lines
The NRC is proposing regulations to establish a streamlined NRC
review process for applications for 10 CFR part 70 materials facility
licenses where the facilities were previously authorized under the
DOE's Reactor Pilot Program, including DOE pilot fuel lines. In
addition to defining a pilot fuel line within Sec. 70.4, this
rulemaking would also amend Sec. 70.11 to add a new subsection (d) to
reflect the exemption for the construction and operation of pilot fuel
lines authorized by the DOE for non-commercial purposes from the
requirements for an NRC license.
The NRC is proposing to clarify its regulations to streamline the
NRC's licensing of potential commercial operations for such a facility.
Because a non-commercial DOE-authorized pilot fuel line may eventually
want to convert to commercial operations, thereby requiring an NRC
license, proposed amendments to Sec. 70.22(r) would also clarify the
additional information such an applicant for an NRC license would need
to provide to the NRC. The proposed amendments provide that an
applicant for an NRC license for a facility that was originally
constructed and operated as a DOE authorized pilot fuel line would need
to describe in its application how it meets all applicable NRC
regulations and statutory requirements, including how the DOE
authorization satisfies them in part or whole. The NRC may request
references and excerpts from the documented safety analyses and other
supporting safety and security-related documents for the authorization,
or may request the documents in full, if the information is needed for
the NRC to make its safety and security findings.
This rulemaking would also amend Sec. 70.23 to add a new paragraph
(a)(15) to identify the finding the NRC must make to approve a 10 CFR
part 70 license application for a facility that is also a DOE
authorized pilot fuel line. Specifically, the new paragraph would
require the NRC to find that the application meets all relevant
statutory provisions and appropriate regulations, including any
necessary conditions that were not satisfied by DOE's authorization,
before issuing a license.
D. Streamlining Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility Licensing
The NRC is also proposing to update its regulations to explicitly
include a licensing process for spent fuel reprocessing facilities in
10 CFR part 70. The NRC has historically expected a commercial
reprocessing facility to meet the definition of ``production facility''
in section 11 of the AEA, and as supplemented by Sec. 50.2, because
reprocessing can be used to separate plutonium isotopes and produce
special nuclear material (SNM) in quantities that could affect
radiological health and safety and be of significance to common defense
and security. Under existing regulations, the NRC could license a spent
fuel reprocessing facility under 10 CFR part 50 or 10 CFR part 70.
However, 10 CFR part 70 does not explicitly include spent fuel
reprocessing facilities or address production facilities. This proposed
rule clarifies that spent fuel reprocessing facilities, including those
that meet the definition of production facility, may be licensed under
10 CFR part 70, and this proposal would provide an alternative
licensing process to the two-step process (Construction Permit and
Operating License) in 10 CFR part 50. Regardless of the licensing
pathway chosen, the NRC would assess the specific safety and security
risks of each application and ensure that they are appropriately
addressed, resulting in an equivalent level of safety and security.
In a gap analysis performed in 2009 (SECY-09-0082), the NRC staff
identified 23 gaps between existing regulations and requirements that
would be necessary to provide for adequate protection of public health
and safety, common defense and security, and environmental protection
for the unique aspects of spent fuel reprocessing facilities. Given
that, under the current framework, neither 10 CFR part 50 nor 10 CFR
part 70 fully address these gaps, an applicant seeking a
[[Page 38128]]
license under either part may need to request exemptions, and may
require additional license conditions, to address issues specific to
the applicant's proposed reprocessing technology. The proposed
revisions to 10 CFR part 70 would address some of these gaps and
streamline the licensing process for spent fuel reprocessing facility
applications submitted under 10 CFR part 70, limiting the need for as
many potential license conditions and exemptions.
The proposed framework for including spent fuel reprocessing
facility licensing in 10 CFR part 70 would include proposed
requirements to ensure the statutory requirements for production
facilities in the AEA are met. For spent fuel reprocessing facilities
that are production facilities, these statutory mandates would include
submitting proposed technical specifications (AEA Sec. 182a.) and a
proposed operator licensing program (AEA Sec. 107), complying with the
necessary financial protection provisions (AEA Sec. 170), and
complying with the ineligibility of foreign control provisions (AEA
Sec. 103d.). An application for a spent fuel reprocessing facility
that meets the definition of a production facility under the AEA would
also be required, consistent with the AEA, to be submitted under oath
or affirmation; include inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance
criteria (ITAAC) (AEA Sec. 185b.); and be subject to a mandatory
hearing (AEA Sec. 189a.(1)(A)).
Under this proposed rule, applicants for spent fuel reprocessing
facilities that do not meet the definition of production facility would
not be required to meet all the statutory provisions that apply to
production facilities. Although the November 2011 draft regulatory
basis document (ADAMS Accession No. ML112081702) that the NRC staff
developed and issued as an enclosure to SECY-11-0163, ``Reprocessing
Rulemaking--Draft Regulatory Basis and Path Forward'' (ADAMS Accession
No. ML113210386), contemplated that all spent fuel reprocessing
facilities would need to meet all AEA requirements, that document
assumed that all reprocessing facilities would be production
facilities. In accordance with the directive of E.O. 14300, this
proposed rulemaking is designed to allow maximum flexibility. Due to
the limited information available regarding potential future spent fuel
reprocessing facilities, this proposed rule is written to take into
consideration possible applicants that do not meet the definition of a
production facility.
The NRC is not aware today of a reprocessing technology that would
not meet the definition of a production facility. However, this
proposed rule would build regulatory flexibility for a hypothetical
reprocessing facility that does not meet the definition of production
facility, ITAAC and technical specifications would not be required; the
application would not have to be submitted under oath or affirmation;
and there would not be a mandatory hearing. ITAAC would not be required
because proposed Sec. 70.32(l) would require that the Commission
verify through inspection that the facility has been constructed in
accordance with the license thereby accomplishing the safety component
provided by ITAAC. Additionally, the current system of demonstrating
safety under subpart H to 10 CFR part 70 (e.g., the performance of the
integrated safety analysis, identification of items relied on for
safety (IROFS), and the application of management measures) as
supplemented by this proposed rule, would provide the basis for a
finding of reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health
and safety without the application of technical specifications.
Finally, for applications for spent fuel reprocessing facilities that
are not production facilities, a mandatory hearing would not be
required, but the public would be afforded an opportunity for a
hearing.
Due to the lack of available information on the designs of
reprocessing facilities that may not be production facilities, this
proposed rule does extend some of the statutory requirements that apply
to spent fuel reprocessing facilities that meet the definition of
production facilities to reprocessing facilities that are not
production facilities, including the requirement to have an operator
licensing program (if controls, as defined, are being manipulated), to
meet indemnification and foreign ownership and control requirements,
and the prohibition against construction at risk. The exemption
process, as provided in Sec. 70.17, would allow a non-production
reprocessing facility applicant the opportunity to demonstrate why
certain requirements should not apply to them. The NRC is seeking
specific comment on the proposed regulations regarding spent fuel
reprocessing facilities that are not production facilities, among other
topics, in section V of this proposed rule.
The framework presented in this proposed rule provides a licensing
pathway consistent with all applicable statutory requirements while
providing for the more complex regulatory gaps identified in SECY-09-
0082 and any other gaps that may be applicable to the proposed spent
fuel reprocessing facility technology to be addressed on a case-by-case
basis. Thus, the proposed framework does not seek to address the
specific safety requirements that may be determined necessary to
provide for reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public
health and safety, common defense and security, and the environment,
for different reprocessing technologies. Rather, the proposed framework
is flexible and technology-neutral, allowing applicants to provide the
information necessary to address the regulatory gaps as they apply to
their design. This also provides flexibility to the NRC in its
licensing process, as appropriate. The NRC is seeking specific comment
on this approach, and on whether the NRC should instead specify in the
regulation the regulatory gaps necessary for discussion in the
application.
Many of the proposed changes to subpart A of 10 CFR part 70,
``General Provisions'' are additions that are necessary to establish
the basis for the spent fuel reprocessing licensing framework. Notably,
the proposed revisions include expansion of the ``Purpose'' section to
address issuance of spent fuel reprocessing licenses, including
operator licenses for spent fuel reprocessing facilities (Sec. 70.1).
The proposed rule would also add directions for where applicants should
submit spent fuel reprocessing facility and operator license
applications (Sec. 70.5(b)(1)(viii) & (ix)).
The proposed rule would also include new definitions throughout
Sec. 70.4. A definition is proposed for ``Spent fuel reprocessing
facility'' because, while the term ``reprocessing'' is used throughout
the NRC's regulations, this term is not currently defined. The proposed
definition clarifies that a spent fuel reprocessing facility may also
meet the definition of a production facility, as that term is defined
in the AEA and supplemented by Sec. 50.2. This term is intended to be
interchangeable with various other similar terms used throughout the
NRC's regulations such as ``fuel reprocessing plant,'' ``reprocessing
facility,'' ``irradiated fuel reprocessing operations,'' or
``irradiated fuel reprocessing plant.'' Given the different terminology
used throughout its regulations, the NRC may proceed with a term other
than ``spent fuel reprocessing facility'' in the final rule.
A definition is also proposed for ``Combined license,'' to reflect
the addition of a combined licensing pathway for spent fuel
reprocessing facilities that are production facilities, which is
different than the two-step licensing process in 10 CFR part 50
[[Page 38129]]
currently available for production facilities. This combined license
for spent fuel reprocessing facilities that are production facilities
would include the necessary statutory requirements under the AEA,
including requirements for technical specifications, an operator
licensing program, identifying and meeting ITAAC, and a mandatory
hearing, among others. Given the potential complications that arise
with this term being defined previously in other NRC regulations, the
NRC may proceed with a term other than ``combined license'' in the
final rule.
A definition is also proposed to reflect the new ``Operator
license'' required for spent fuel reprocessing facilities. The proposed
rule would require all spent fuel reprocessing facility applicants to
include in the license application a description of an operator
licensing program if certain thresholds are met. A definition of
``Control'' has been proposed to provide this threshold for when an
operator licensing program is required. If no controls exist, an
operator licensing program would not be required. On December 19, 2008,
NEI addressed a similar high consequence threshold for controls in a
white paper entitled ``Regulatory Framework for NRC Licensed Recycling
Facility'' (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML083590114). Although the NRC
is currently proposing this high consequence outside the controlled
area threshold as the threshold for controls, the NRC is asking for
specific public feedback on this threshold and is considering other
options to ensure the appropriate threshold is applied.
Changes proposed throughout subpart D of 10 CFR part 70, ``License
Applications,'' provide details regarding spent fuel reprocessing
applications, including filing requirements, detailed information
regarding the contents of spent fuel reprocessing applications, and
requirements necessary for approval of spent fuel reprocessing
applications. Many of the changes proposed in subpart D of 10 CFR part
70 align with AEA statutory requirements for a production facility, and
other changes update the provisions to include spent fuel reprocessing
application requirements in a manner consistent with other 10 CFR part
70 licensees.
The proposed changes to the filing instructions in Sec. 70.21
include some minor proposals to simplify the regulations and eliminate
duplication, such as combining the filing directions previously in
Sec. 70.21(a)(1) and (2) into a simplified Sec. 70.21(a)(1); and
including provisions addressing statutory requirements, such as the
addition of Sec. 70.21(a)(4), which would require a combined license
application for a spent fuel reprocessing facility to be submitted
under oath or affirmation consistent with the AEA. Changes also include
a proposal to revise the specific cross-reference in Sec. 70.21(e) to
the NRC's fee regulations in 10 CFR part 170, ``Fees for Facilities,
Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services
Under the Atomic Energy Act Of 1954, as Amended.'' Currently, Sec.
70.21(e) requires each application for a special nuclear material
license to be accompanied by the fee prescribed in Sec. 170.31. Rather
than referencing a specific section, Sec. 70.21(e) would be revised to
require each application to be accompanied by the fee prescribed in 10
CFR part 170. This change would aid with the durability of cross-
references in the regulation should service fees for spent fuel
reprocessing applicants be assessed under a different section of 10 CFR
part 170. For example, depending on the application, spent fuel
reprocessing applicants could be assessed under Sec. 170.21.
Changes are also proposed throughout Sec. 70.22 to update the
provisions to include information that would be necessary for an
application for a spent fuel reprocessing facility. The changes include
a proposal to amend Sec. 70.22(a)(7) to require applicants to include
management and storage of radioactive waste, including high level
waste, in the description of equipment and facilities associated with
the applicant's spent fuel reprocessing facility. This regulatory
change is necessary because spent fuel reprocessing facilities have the
potential to generate significant quantities of waste, which may need
to be managed and stored on site for a period of time, compared to
other fuel facilities licensed under this part. Therefore, addressing
this specific subject in the application in detail will be necessary
for licensing decisions. The NRC is seeking specific comments on this
approach and whether additional changes are needed to this part, or
potentially other parts, of NRC regulations to address waste issues at
spent fuel reprocessing facilities.
Additionally, the NRC is proposing amendments to Sec. 70.22 to
require all applications for spent fuel reprocessing facilities to
include information consistent with requirements for other similar
applicants or required by statute. Under the proposed Sec. 70.22, an
application for a spent fuel reprocessing facility should include: a
description of the applicant's program for control and accounting of
SNM (Sec. 70.22(b)); provisions for liability insurance (specific
amounts to be determined on a case-by-case basis) (Sec. 70.22(n)); and
a proposed operator licensing program for the manipulation of controls
(Sec. 70.22(o)). In the case of an applicant for a spent fuel
reprocessing facility that is a production facility, applicants would
also have to provide proposed technical specifications and proposed
ITAAC, consistent with the AEA statutory requirements (Sec. 70.22(p)).
In section V of this proposed rule, the NRC seeks specific feedback on
the approach presented for technical specifications, and on a potential
optional means the NRC is considering for addressing technical
specifications in the final rule.
The proposed changes would also require all spent fuel reprocessing
facility applications to include a QA program that complies with
appendix B to 10 CFR part 50 (Sec. 70.22(f)). This is the only set of
regulations in 10 CFR part 50 that are being proposed to apply directly
to spent fuel reprocessing facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 70.
The NRC is seeking specific feedback on the proposal of requiring a QA
program in accordance with appendix B of 10 CFR part 50 and is
considering the option of applying a graded approach to QA requirements
that would be tailored to the specific technology.
The NRC is also proposing the addition of Sec. 70.22(q) to reflect
the likely need for an application for a spent fuel reprocessing
facility to include additional information, including requested
exemptions, and proposed license conditions deemed necessary to provide
for reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and
safety, common defense and security, and the environment. This
provision is intended to provide the applicants with the flexibility
needed to address the technical gaps that currently exist in the NRC's
regulations regarding specific spent fuel reprocessing technologies.
Although 10 CFR part 70 provides a good baseline for such applications,
there is a gap between the baseline technical requirements in 10 CFR
part 70 and the requirements that may be necessary to demonstrate
reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and
safety, common defense and security, and the environment depending upon
the specific technology proposed. These gaps have been documented in
SECY-09-0082. Consequently, depending upon the specific facts of the
design and technology proposed for a spent fuel reprocessing facility,
an applicant seeking a license under 10 CFR part 70 may need to request
exemptions, and may need to propose license conditions to address
issues specific to the
[[Page 38130]]
proposed reprocessing technology. If an applicant determines that a gap
does not apply to its facility, the applicant could provide the
technical basis for that conclusion in its application. To make the
NRC's license application acceptance and review process more efficient,
the applicant is encouraged to identify the applicable gaps and
describe to the NRC how it plans to address them in the application
during pre-application engagement with the NRC. Regarding this broad
approach where applicants are to identify and address case-specific
applicable gaps depending on the technology proposed, the NRC is also
considering amending the regulations to, instead, identify in the
regulatory text the specific gaps that need to be addressed in spent
fuel reprocessing facility applications. The NRC is specifically
requesting feedback on this alternative approach in section V of this
proposed rule.
Amendments proposed to Sec. 70.23 would require, consistent with
licensed facilities of similar risk, a spent fuel reprocessing
application to include an adequate emergency plan (Sec. 70.23(a)(11))
and an acceptable QA Plan, developed in accordance with appendix B of
10 CFR part 50 (Sec. 70.23(a)(13)), in order to be approved.
Amendments proposed to this section would also require spent fuel
reprocessing applications to include adequate financial protection
prior to approval of an application (Sec. 70.23(a)(12)). Accordingly,
a conforming amendment would be made to 10 CFR part 140, ``Financial
Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements,'' to clarify that
spent fuel reprocessing facility licensees required to enter into an
indemnification agreement would also be required to pay an indemnity
agreement fee to the Commission (Sec. 140.7). All licensees of spent
fuel reprocessing facilities that are production facilities are
statutorily required to enter into an indemnification agreement. A
licensee for a spent fuel reprocessing facility that is not a
production facility may also be required to enter into an
indemnification agreement if the Commission, acting in its discretion,
so determines. An additional conforming amendment is proposed to 10 CFR
part 140 to clarify that all spent fuel reprocessing facility licensees
would be required to have and maintain liability insurance in the type
and in the amounts the Commission considers appropriate (Sec.
140.13c).
A new subsection in Sec. 70.23 is also proposed to provide clarity
regarding the need for a spent fuel reprocessing facility applicant to
adequately address all relevant statutory provisions and appropriate
regulations, including any necessary conditions, for approval of an
application (Sec. 70.23(a)(14)). This additional regulatory provision
is intended to provide a clear avenue for addressing all necessary
issues, or gaps, on a case-by-case basis that may not have been
addressed otherwise, given the specific technology involved. Just as
the proposed addition of Sec. 70.22(q) is intended to provide
flexibility and ensure all necessary components are included as
contents of a spent fuel reprocessing facility application, this
proposed provision is intended to be a parallel provision, providing
flexibility in addressing necessary items for approval of a spent fuel
reprocessing facility application. This provides a technology-neutral
and flexible framework allowing for case-by-case licensing of spent
fuel reprocessing facility applications to capture technical variations
in the proposed reprocessing designs.
The proposed amendments in this subpart also include a
clarification that spent fuel reprocessing facilities cannot undertake
construction at risk (Sec. 70.23(a)(8)). For spent fuel reprocessing
facilities that are production facilities (defined as combined licenses
in this proposed rule), this is consistent with the AEA Sec. 185b.
This proposed rule also applies this restriction on construction at
risk to spent fuel reprocessing facilities that are not production
facilities because all spent fuel reprocessing facilities would have a
higher risk profile compared to existing fuel facilities because of the
presence of fission products. In addition, because of the safety
significance of equipment and structures related to spent fuel
reprocessing facilities, the NRC would want to inspect these as they
are being constructed or installed, and only after it has approved the
license application. Applicants for spent fuel reprocessing facilities
that do not meet the definition of production facility may request an
exemption from this requirement if they have the necessary basis to
support the request.
The proposed rule also includes changes to Sec. 70.23a to capture
the AEA requirement for a mandatory hearing for a combined license
application for a spent fuel reprocessing facility that is a production
facility. For spent fuel reprocessing facilities that are not
production facilities, a mandatory hearing is not required; however,
the public would be afforded an opportunity for a hearing.
Finally, the proposed addition to Sec. 70.25(a)(3) requires an
applicant for a spent fuel reprocessing facility to submit a
decommissioning plan as described in paragraph (e) of the section,
consistent with other similar 10 CFR part 70 applicants. The NRC is
requesting specific comments on whether the decommissioning funding
provisions in Sec. 70.25 are sufficient, as is, to address spent fuel
reprocessing facility decommissioning, or if, instead, specific spent
fuel reprocessing facility decommissioning funding provisions should be
added to 10 CFR part 70.
The proposed amendments to subpart E of 10 CFR part 70,
``Licenses,'' include amendments to comply with AEA statutory
requirements, including changes to reflect that a combined license for
a spent fuel reprocessing facility will not be issued until the
mandatory hearing requirement has been satisfied (Sec. 70.31(e)); and
that a combined license issued under this part will include the
required ITAAC sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the
facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with
the license (Sec. 70.31(f)).
The proposed revisions would also require spent fuel reprocessing
facility licenses to include a condition that a facility will not be
able to operate until it has been verified through inspection that it
has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the license
prior to operation (Sec. 70.32(l)). This provision is intended to
capture the current practice where certain licenses are conditioned on
an operational readiness review prior to being allowed to operate. The
proposed amendments also add an additional condition for a combined
license for a spent fuel reprocessing facility that is a production
facility which would limit operation until the Commission finds that
the prescribed ITAAC have been met, as required by the AEA (Sec.
70.32(m)). While both Sec. 70.32(l) and (m) make it clear that a
facility would not be allowed to operate until the licensee has
demonstrated that the facility has been constructed consistent with the
application, for combined licenses for spent fuel reprocessing
facilities, the language added mirrors the statutory language and
process.
Amendments are also being proposed to add conditions to address
operator licenses at spent fuel reprocessing facilities. Under this
proposed rule, an operator licensing program would be required of all
spent fuel reprocessing facilities (both production and non-production)
that meet the threshold provided in the proposed definition of
``control.'' The NRC is requesting specific feedback on this proposal,
and
[[Page 38131]]
particularly on the threshold provided in the proposed rule.
The proposed changes implementing operator licensing programs
include a new subsection (Sec. 70.32(n)) to reflect that a license for
a spent fuel reprocessing facility would include the conditions
necessary to determine the qualifications of operators, and would limit
the ability for anyone who is not a licensed operator to manipulate
controls, as defined in Sec. 70.4, except in cases where a non-
licensed operator manipulates the controls under the direction and in
the presence of a licensed operator.
Because the NRC has not developed specific regulations or guidance
on these topics as they would apply to spent fuel reprocessing
facilities, outside of the definitions of ``Operator license'' and
``Control'' added to Sec. 70.4, the proposed rule envisions applicants
proposing an operator licensing program as part of the application
(Sec. 70.22(o)); the NRC adding the necessary conditions to the
license to require adherence to the approved operator licensing program
(Sec. 70.22(n)); and NRC's approval of operator licenses that meet the
requirements of the approved operator licensing program (Sec.
70.23(a)(16)). The NRC is also considering the option of, instead,
establishing a general license for licensed operators of spent fuel
reprocessing facilities. The NRC is asking a specific question to
elicit feedback on this topic.
Changes proposed to this subpart would also prevent spent fuel
reprocessing facility licenses from being issued to an entity that is
foreign-owned, controlled, or dominated, or if issuance of the license
would be inimical to the nation's common defense and security. This
proposed change is necessary to conform with statutory licensing
requirements for production facilities in the AEA and is also being
applied to spent fuel reprocessing facilities that do not meet the
definition of production facility given the uncertainty regarding the
technical details of potential non-production facilities and the risks
involved. Applicants that do not meet the definition of production
facilities may request an exemption from this requirement if they have
the necessary basis to support the request.
Amendments are also proposed in subpart G of 10 CFR part 70,
``Special Nuclear Material Control, Records, Reports and Inspections,''
and subpart H, ``Additional Requirements for Certain Licensees
Authorized to Possess a Critical Mass of Special Nuclear Material.''
The proposed amendments would require effluent monitoring reporting of
spent fuel reprocessing facilities, consistent with other 10 CFR part
70 licensees (Sec. 70.59). Additionally, the proposed changes would
amend Sec. 70.60, the ``Applicability'' section of subpart H of 10 CFR
part 70, to include the potential need for additional requirements for
spent fuel reprocessing facilities, beyond those described in Sec.
70.61 through Sec. 70.76, reflecting the increased risk that such a
facility may pose compared to other fuel cycle facilities licensed
under 10 CFR part 70. Amending Sec. 70.60, as proposed, is intended to
allow the NRC to move forward with spent fuel reprocessing facility
licensing under 10 CFR part 70, using the existing subpart H of 10 CFR
part 70 requirements as a baseline and supplementing, with additional
conditions, as necessary, without the development of more specific
safety requirements. The NRC will assess applications on a case-by-case
basis to ensure an applicant adequately identifies and controls
radiological and NRC-regulated chemical hazards and accidents at a
reprocessing facility, and limits any resulting risks to the public,
workers, and the environment.
Finally, this proposed rule would also update the authority
citation to 10 CFR part 70 to add citations to the provisions of the
AEA that provide the NRC the authority to make these proposed
amendments.
E. Modernizing Fuel Cycle Facility Licensing
The proposed rule would also make specific changes to the NRC's
regulations in 10 CFR part 70 in several areas, with the overall goal
to reduce burden on licensees and improve licensing efficiency while
continuing to ensure safety. Taken together, these changes would lower
the regulatory burden on fuel cycle licensees and applicants and
therefore enable bringing more power to the grid efficiently.
The proposed rule would accelerate licensing of plutonium
processing and fuel fabrication plants and reduce the regulatory burden
on applicants by incorporating lessons learned from the licensing of
the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the DOE's Savannah River
site in South Carolina. Specifically, the NRC is proposing to eliminate
the regulations that establish a two-step licensing process for these
facilities that requires both that the Commission approve construction
of the principal structures, systems, and components, and the
requirement for a description and safety assessment of the design bases
of the principal structure, systems, and components. These requirements
in current Sec. 70.23(a)(8) and Sec. 70.23(b), predate the addition
of subpart H of 10 CFR part 70, and the integrated safety analysis
(ISA) now required, and with those additional requirements, these items
are no longer justified. This change is also consistent with the one-
step licensing process proposed for spent fuel reprocessing facilities.
These regulations contribute to significant burden on the applicant
without adding to the safety of the facility given the addition of
subpart H of 10 CFR part 70.
The amendments also seek to reduce the burden on licensees by
addressing an issue that has historically been an item of discussion
between the NRC and its stakeholders, namely the determination of
whether structures must be designated as IROFS. The NRC does not
require all new fuel cycle facility structures to be designated as
IROFS because IROFS are strictly developed as a result of facility-
specific ISAs. If an applicant's ISA determines that a safety function
provided by a structure is needed to adequately protect workers and the
public, then normally that structure is designated an IROFS. The
proposed revisions to the regulations would reduce the need for
designating a structure as IROFS when the safety function of the
structure is limited to providing adequate protection against natural
phenomena-initiated accident sequences (i.e., structural stability) and
the safety function is maintained under the licensee's management
measures program. Under current regulations, licensees must request
exemptions to avoid being required to designate certain structures as
IROFS. This proposal would reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.
Specifically, this proposed rule would introduce an alternative
from the designation of certain structures as IROFS as otherwise
required under Sec. 70.61(e). The proposed alternative in Sec.
70.61(e)(2) would apply specifically to structures that credit solely
their structural stability safety function (i.e., no structural
failure) to meet the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61(b), (c),
and (d), and only in the context of accident sequences initiated by
natural phenomena hazards (NPH). This alternative would not apply if
the structure is credited for other safety functions, such as
confinement or containment. Additional changes to the regulations
related to this alternative were made to Sec. Sec. 70.64(a)(1),
70.64(a)(8), 70.65(b)(6), and the revised reporting requirements in
appendix A to 10 CFR part 70.
This alternative would not relieve licensees from the obligation to
[[Page 38132]]
demonstrate through accident sequence analyses that the credited
structures meet the applicable performance requirements of Sec.
70.61(b), (c), and (d). Licensees seeking to apply this alternative
would be required to submit a technical basis as part of their license
application. The NRC will continue to evaluate how NPH are addressed in
the license application on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that NPH-
initiated accident sequences are inherently facility-specific,
depending on factors such as geographic location, facility design, and
process configuration.
While the NRC is not prescribing a prescriptive methodology for
demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements in Sec.
70.61, it is anticipated that structures designed in accordance with
applicable industry standards and engineering practices may provide an
adequate basis for demonstrating that the risks associated with NPH-
initiated accident sequences are appropriately limited. For new
facilities or new processes at existing facilities, the requirements of
Sec. 70.64 continue to apply. The baseline design criteria outlined in
Sec. 70.64 generally provide an acceptable set of initial design
safety considerations; however, they may not be sufficient in all cases
to ensure adequate safety for all new processes and facilities. The ISA
process is intended to identify any additional safety features or
changes to the design criteria necessary to demonstrate that the risks
from NPH-initiated accident sequences are appropriately limited. To
ensure continued safety, the credited structural aspects must remain
available and reliable, consistent with the requirements for management
measures in Sec. 70.62(d). This proposed rule change is consistent
with the NRC approach outlining an acceptable method for licensees to
request an exemption from designating certain structures as IROFS (See
NRC letter dated February 14, 2025, ADAMS Accession No. ML24241A119).
To support the implementation of this alternative, the rule would
clarify new reporting requirements for structures that are credited
with meeting the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61(b), (c), and
(d), but are not designated as IROFS. These new proposed reporting
requirements are less burdensome than those applicable to IROFS,
thereby reducing the overall regulatory burden on licensees. The
reporting requirements for structures that are credited with meeting
the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61(b), (c), and (d), but are
not designated as IROFS are tailored to their structural stability
safety function and the risks from NPH-initiated accident sequences,
thereby allowing the NRC to maintain appropriate oversight while also
reducing regulatory burden. Additional regulatory relief is provided
for structures whose sole credited safety function is to prevent
structural failure during NPH-initiated accident sequences. Such
structures would no longer be subject to the additional requirements
associated with sole IROFS designation.
Furthermore, the NRC is proposing changes intended to enhance
regulatory clarity and support efficient implementation of the
alternative framework. This would include an amendment to add a new
criterion to Sec. 70.72 to clarify when prior Commission approval is
not required for changes to structures that are credited with safety
functions under Sec. 70.61 but are not designated as IROFS (Sec.
70.72(c)(3)). This amendment would allow changes to the structure as
long as the structural stability safety function is preserved.
Additionally, amendments would add a clarification to Sec. 70.65 to
require identification of these structures in the application (Sec.
70.65(b)(6)); and clarifications to Sec. 70.64 to identify which
baseline design criteria apply to these structures.
The proposed rule also seeks to reduce the burden on applicants by
proposing revisions to Sec. 70.24 to relieve licensees authorized to
possess certain isotopes of SNM in the quantities specified in Sec.
70.24(a) from the requirement to maintain a criticality accident alarm
system, provided they can demonstrate that a criticality accident is
not credible based on the laws of physics. This change would be
consistent with the basis previously used to grant case-by-case
exemptions from criticality accident alarm system requirements. There
is not a compelling safety basis to require criticality accident alarm
monitoring in instances where such an accident is not credible based on
the laws of physics. The demonstration that a criticality accident is
not credible may apply to specific areas within a facility or to the
entire facility. If the demonstration covers the entire facility, the
licensee would also be relieved of the requirement to maintain
emergency procedures related to the criticality accident alarm system
specified in Sec. 70.24.
Several reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 10 CFR part 70
would be amended in this rule to reduce regulatory burden and improve
clarity. The proposed amendments include consolidating reporting
requirements from Sec. Sec. 70.50, 70.52, and 70.74 into the existing
appendix A to 10 CFR part 70, ``Reportable Safety Events.'' This
consolidation is intended to streamline the reporting process, reduce
burden, eliminate redundancy, and improve consistency and understanding
across licensees. The NRC is also proposing to remove or relax some
reporting requirements in this rulemaking. As a result of these
proposals, the only remaining provision in proposed Sec. 70.50 is a
reference directing licensees to appendix A.
In this proposal, Sec. 70.50(b)(1) would be relocated to appendix
A(c)(5)(iv) and amended to eliminate the requirement to report
unplanned contamination events when they occur in a restricted area
that is inaccessible to the public, was already controlled as a
Radioactive Materials Area within a building before the event occurred,
and where the release is contained within that area. The proposed
provision would also require that trained personnel and appropriate
equipment be readily available to manage contamination. This change
only eliminates reporting requirements reflecting exemptions that NRC
has already determined to be safe and granted to at least two fuel
facilities and does not significantly increase risk to the public,
workers, or the environment.
Section 70.50(b)(3) would be relocated to appendix A(c)(7) and
amended to limit reporting of unplanned medical treatment involving
spreadable radioactive contamination to cases where treatment occurs at
an offsite medical facility. Medical treatment that can be managed
onsite is not considered significant enough to warrant NRC reporting.
Section 70.50(c)(2) would be relocated to appendix A(d) and amended
to extend the deadline for follow-up reports from 30 to 60 days. This
additional time to submit reports does not negatively impact safety.
Reporting requirements in appendix A(b)(2) would be relocated to
appendix A(c)(2) and amended to allow licensees to use site-specific
definitions of likelihood criteria for reporting failures or
degradation of IROFS. In its NRC-approved license application, a
licensee may have justified likelihood thresholds for reporting that
differ from the likelihood definitions used to demonstrate compliance
with the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61 based on the potential
accident sequences in the ISA and considering the overall facility risk
(e.g., number of accident sequences that exceed the performance
requirements in Sec. 70.61). Allowing flexibility for site-specific
thresholds for reporting that deviate from the performance requirements
of Sec. 70.61 is expected to reduce the
[[Page 38133]]
reporting burden for some licensees, codify flexibilities that have
resulted from the NRC accepting different definitions of likelihood for
safety analyses across existing fuel cycle facilities, and result in no
impact to equipment or procedures used to protect health and minimize
danger to life or property.
The NRC is also proposing to relocate several other reporting
requirement provisions to appendix A with minor edits and
clarifications, including proposed appendix A(a)(1), (e)(1), and
(e)(4). Relocating the requirement in current Sec. 70.50(c)(1) to
proposed appendix A(e)(1), and amending it to allow licensees to submit
reports using any method that ensures compliance with the required
reporting timeframe, rather than mandating telephone reporting, would
reduce regulatory burden on licensees and improve internal consistency
within the regulation. Relocating information from Sec.
70.50(c)(2)(iii) to proposed appendix A(d)(iii), with edits to remove
the phrase ``to prevent occurrence of similar or identical events in
the future,'' would reduce regulatory burden by eliminating language
that implies a guarantee of future event prevention, which is not
directly relevant to reporting requirements. While corrective actions
are important, their effectiveness in preventing future events cannot
be assured and should not be a required component of the reporting
criteria.
The NRC staff is also proposing to relocate some reporting
requirements with no substantive changes (proposed appendix A(b),
(c)(6), (c)(8), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)) and to remove the concurrent
reporting requirement currently found in appendix A(c). This deletion
reduces regulatory burden by removing the requirement to report events
or situations--related to public or onsite personnel health and safety,
or environmental protection--for which a news release is planned or
notification to other government agencies has been or will be made. The
NRC staff has determined that the burden placed on licensees to make
these concurrent and follow-up reports is not justified by the
associated risk.
Several changes have also been proposed to Sec. 70.32 to reduce
regulatory burden and provide licensees with additional flexibility in
reporting timelines, particularly for programmatic changes that do not
reduce the effectiveness of safety and security plans. These changes
would extend the timeframes for submitting updates to the NRC without
prior Commission approval, while maintaining appropriate oversight and
ensuring continued protection of public health and safety.
Specifically, the time allowed to report changes to the Material
Control and Accounting program without prior Commission approval in
Sec. 70.32(c)(2)(i) has been increased from 2 to 4 months when the
changes pertain to uranium-233, uranium-235 enriched to 20 percent or
more, or plutonium (excluding plutonium containing 80 percent or more
by weight of plutonium-238). For changes involving uranium enriched to
less than 20 percent in uranium-235 or plutonium containing 80 percent
or more by weight of plutonium-238, the reporting timeframe in Sec.
70.32(c)(2)(ii) has been extended from 6 to 12 months. These changes
reduce unnecessary administrative burden while preserving appropriate
regulatory oversight based on material type and associated risk.
Similarly, the timeframe for reporting changes to the physical
protection plan for SNM in Sec. 70.32(d) would be increased from 2 to
12 months, provided the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of
the plan. The same extension--from 2 to 12 months--would apply to
changes made to the security plan under the same condition, as proposed
in Sec. 70.32(e). These changes would extend the timeframes for
submitting updates to the NRC without prior approval, while maintaining
appropriate oversight and ensuring continued protection of public
health and safety. Annual reporting, coupled with the robust inspection
program, provides confirmation of the continued safety and security of
the facilities. These revisions collectively reduce regulatory burden
by aligning reporting requirements with the safety significance of the
changes, allowing licensees more time to implement and document non-
safety-significant updates without compromising regulatory intent or
public safety.
The proposed revisions also include other burden-reducing
initiatives. Proposed changes would clarify that information submitted
with applications for renewal of licenses under 10 CFR part 70 should
be narrowly focused on the scope of renewal, limiting the submission of
redundant or unnecessary information (Sec. 70.73). Similarly, changes
proposed to Sec. 70.42(d)(3) clarify that, for emergency shipments
involving transfer of special nuclear material, the follow-up written
communication required in the regulation can be accomplished through
multiple methods, as outlined in the section.
Finally, the proposed rule also seeks to delete several ambiguous
or obsolete requirements contained in 10 CFR part 70 to improve
regulatory clarity. Some sections of 10 CFR part 70 are obsolete
because they pertain to facilities or cases that are no longer relevant
and are highly unlikely to be relevant in the future. This includes the
proposed deletion of Sec. 70.1(d) which refers to 10 CFR part 76,
``Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants.'' These plants are no
longer operational and it is unlikely for there to be any gaseous
diffusion plants in the foreseeable future. The NRC also proposed to
sunset 10 CFR part 76 as part of its sunset rule (90 FR 55699) in
response to E.O. 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash
American Energy.'' Additionally, Sec. 70.24(a)(2) refers to the
timelines required for the implementation of subpart H of 10 CFR part
70 and specifically applies to persons licensed prior to December 6,
1974. The dates in those timelines have passed, these regulations are
no longer necessary as there are no licensees for which this regulation
still applies and there will be no licensees for which it will apply in
the future.
F. Modernizing Spent Fuel Licensing
The proposed rule would make specific changes to the NRC's
regulations in 10 CFR part 72 in several areas, with the overall goal
to reduce burden on licensees and CoC holders and modernize the NRC's
spent fuel licensing regulations while continuing to ensure reasonable
assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. One
change to 10 CFR part 72 proposed in this rule is to streamline the
process for certifying spent fuel storage cask designs, which currently
involves a safety review of the application, along with a rulemaking to
amend Sec. 72.214 to codify NRC approval of each individual CoC. The
agency has almost 25 years of data indicating that these rules are
uncontroversial, as evidenced by the fact that the NRC has received
very few adverse comments on CoC rulemakings. Eliminating the
rulemaking requirement would eliminate unnecessary resource expenditure
from the regulatory process without impacting the depth and rigor of
the NRC's safety review and certification of the cask design. NEI
suggested removing the rulemaking process from cask certifications in
their letter dated February 10, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25058A144).
The NRC has streamlined the Sec. 72.214 rulemaking process in recent
years. Rulemaking is now developed in parallel with the NRC's safety
evaluation, and the overall timeframe is significantly reduced.
However, agency resources continue to be spent to develop a rulemaking
package and savings may be achieved by
[[Page 38134]]
eliminating the rulemaking that codifies the CoCs.
This proposed change remains consistent with Section 133 of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act because the Commission continues to establish,
by rule, the procedures for licensing the approved technology-dry cask
storage-under a general license method of approval of individual cask
designs (e.g., by rulemaking). The NRC fulfilled this obligation in its
1990 rulemakinq by establishing a general license and cask
certification process. The proposed amendment does not alter the safety
review or the conditions of use under the general license: rather, it
only removes the ministerial step of codifying each CoC in Sec.
72.214. CoCs will continue to be issued following a rigorous safety
review under the procedures for licensing the dry-cask technology in
existing regulatory requirements and will be publicly accessible on
NRC's website. This approach preserves transparency and public
confidence while improving efficiency.
The NRC does not envision this change impacting the process for CoC
applicants as the NRC's safety review of the application would remain
the same. Currently, the NRC completes a safety review of the CoC or
CoC amendment application, and, if the safety review determines that
the CoC or CoC amendment meets NRC regulatory requirements, then the
NRC begins the rulemaking process to officially codify the CoC into the
listing in Sec. 72.214. Under the proposed rule, rather than the CoC
being issued upon codification in Sec. 72.214, the NRC would, instead,
issue the CoC after the necessary safety findings are made. After
issuance, the approved CoC would then be listed on NRC's website at
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/designs. The direction in
Sec. 72.214 would be revised to reflect that issued CoCs will be
listed on the website.
The changes proposed in this rule to the CoC issuance process also
include a proposed modification to the NEPA compliance provisions in 10
CFR part 51. The existing categorical exclusion from NEPA for CoC
reviews pertains to CoC reviews conducted through the rulemaking
process. This proposed rule modifies that categorical exclusion so that
it would apply to CoCs issued under this proposed process, as the
action--review of a CoC application--is the same.
Additionally, the NRC does not envision this change impacting the
process for GL adoption of NRC-approved cask designs. GLs will continue
to be limited to use of only approved and issued CoCs or CoC
amendments. Minor edits are also proposed for Sec. 72.212(b)(3) and
(b)(5)(i) to remove the reference to the list of approved CoCs, but the
regulations will continue to require that storage of spent fuel under a
general license must be in conformance with an approved CoC or CoC
amendment. The proposed changes would only impact where the GLs would
find the list of final NRC approved CoCs available for their use, which
would be on the referenced website rather than listed specifically in
Sec. 72.214. The proposed revision of Sec. 72.214 would not change
prior NRC CoC approvals; all NRC approvals of CoCs and CoC amendments
(past, current, and future) are currently listed and would continue to
be listed on that website.
Notwithstanding the Commission's previously stated reservations in
the 2001 denial of a petition for rulemaking (66 FR 63964), the NRC is
not proposing to add an opportunity for a hearing to the CoC issuance
process, because the issuance, amendment, or revision of a CoC under
the new proposed process would not trigger an opportunity for a hearing
under AEA Sec. 189a. Section 189a.(1)(A) of the AEA, provides, in
relevant part, that in any proceeding for the granting or amending of
any license or construction permit, the Commission must grant a hearing
upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the
proceeding. However, cask approval, which results in a certificate, is
neither a license nor a license amendment. A certificate, as defined in
Sec. 72.3, means ``the certificate issued by the Commission that
approves the design of a spent fuel storage cask in accordance with the
provisions of subpart L of this part.'' While the CoC issued by the NRC
approves the design of the spent fuel storage cask, the CoC alone does
not give permission to use the CoC to store spent fuel. Further, CoCs
are not issued to NRC licensees but rather to cask vendors who apply
for a CoC and then become CoC holders, once approved. By contrast, a
license, or license amendment, is an approval issued under the
licensing provisions of the AEA (Sec. Sec. 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82,
101, 103, 104, 107, and 109), all of which concern some activity
involving byproduct, source or special nuclear material or production
or utilization facilities. The CoC only approves of a design of a CoC
system, and does not, by itself, provide the CoC holder with the
authority to possess regulated material. Indeed, the NRC has
historically maintained a distinction between certificates and licenses
not only in 10 CFR part 72, but also in 10 CFR part 71.
The staff also proposes revisions to specific sections of Sec.
72.48, including the addition of clarifying language, to create
additional flexibility in the requirements for evaluation of changes
that result in a departure from a ``method of evaluation'' (MOE). The
proposed changes would maintain the focus of NRC licensing activities
on the most safety significant issues. Other proposed changes would
reduce burden by eliminating redundancy in evaluations performed by a
GL for changes initiated by the CoC holder and codify the regulatory
relief provided in the ``Interim Enforcement Policy for Enforcement
Discretion for General Licensee Adoption of Certificate of Compliance
Holder-Generated Changes,'' issued on August 15, 2025 (90 FR 39308).
Requirements would be modified to specify that only site-specific
changes initiated by the GL need to be evaluated utilizing the Sec.
72.48 change process. GLs may accept CoC holder Sec. 72.48 changes
without re-performing the Sec. 72.48 evaluation for themselves when
there are no site-specific changes needed. Further, the rule would
implement changes to the Sec. 72.48 criterion, ``method of
evaluation,'' to eliminate the need for license amendments for MOE
changes that have low safety significance.
The NRC is proposing to allow changes to the elements of an MOE
that would result in ``no more than a minimal increase'' in the
applicable safety margins. Currently, only changes to elements that
have a decrease in safety margin or essentially the same results are
allowed, which has the effect of allowing only incremental changes to
be made without prior NRC approval. Using a ``no more than a minimal
increase'' approach gives more change authority to licensees under
Sec. 72.48 that would allow additional, minimal, increases in safety
margin while minimizing the risk of substantial changes that could
challenge established safety limits.
New MOEs used in the safety analyses or to establish the design
bases, that have not been approved by the NRC, have the potential to
significantly affect the margins to safety limits. For changing from an
MOE described in the final safety analysis report to another MOE not
approved by the NRC, the staff is proposing a graded approach based on
the current important to safety (ITS) categories for storage.
Currently, only MOEs that were previously reviewed and approved by the
NRC for the intended application may be used without prior NRC review.
In the
[[Page 38135]]
proposed rule, only new or different MOEs that specifically affect ITS
Category ``A'' and ``B'' structures, systems, and components (SSCs),
the results of which, when applied, would be critical to, or would have
a major impact on, safe operation of the affected SSC, would require
prior NRC review and approval. Additionally, the new definition would
retain the language that allows use of MOEs that have been previously
approved for an intended application.
Through its review of applications, the NRC has determined that
there is little or no confirmatory analysis for compliance necessary
for those items that have a minor impact on safety. As a result, the
NRC is recommending focusing NRC reviews only on those methods that
have an effect on SSCs that are critical to safe operation or have a
major impact on safety. Therefore, for new MOEs that only affect ITS
Category ``C'' or ``not important to safety'' components and the
results of which, when applied, would only have a ``minor impact on
safety'', as defined in Table 2 of NUREG 6407, ``Classification of
Transportation Packaging and Dry Spent Fuel Storage System Components
According to Importance to Safety'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML15127A114),
prior NRC approval would not be required.
The proposed changes also include a provision that would reduce the
regulatory burden on the part of licensees and CoC holders by
eliminating Sec. 72.48(d)(2), which currently requires the submission
of reports associated with Sec. 72.48 evaluations. The NRC has
determined that there is no risk to removing the reporting requirement
and that the current practices to maintain records, as required by the
approved QA programs and specific regulations, provides reasonable
assurance that licensees are documenting and maintaining the required
evaluation records.
The NRC is also proposing to clarify the definition for spent fuel
and the description of damaged fuel in 10 CFR part 72 to accommodate
advanced reactor fuels and streamline licensing of advanced reactor
technologies. This would provide operational flexibility to new and
advanced fuel designers, including transportable microreactors, in the
storage of spent fuel generated by proposed advanced reactor designs.
These changes are deregulatory in nature as they revise the narrowly
defined characteristics for spent fuel and descriptions of damaged fuel
in 10 CFR part 72.
One such change is in the definition of spent fuel which currently
states that spent fuel needs to be ``aged for at least one year'' prior
to storage. The staff has determined that this requirement was not
based on risk insights, and the NRC has confidence in the programs
currently established at existing independent spent fuel storage
installations (ISFSIs) to characterize and safely store spent fuel,
regardless of how long it has been ``aged.'' Under the proposed
definition, irradiated fuel must first be permanently removed from a
reactor, and a determination made that the fuel will not be reused in a
reactor or subjected to reprocessing. Only after such a determination
is the material designated as ``spent fuel,'' consistent with the
intent of regulatory classifications under 10 CFR part 72 and related
guidance. A conforming amendment is also proposed to Sec. 72.2 to
remove the ``aged for at least one year'' requirement. The proposed
definition also aligns with the definition for ``spent nuclear fuel''
found in Sec. 2.1105. Similarly, the regulatory language in Sec.
72.122(h)(1) for describing damaged fuel has language specific to light
water reactors. The proposed revisions to this section make the
requirement technology-neutral so that it may also be applied to
advanced reactor designs.
Several changes proposed in the 10 CFR part 72 regulations would
reduce the burden of unnecessary reporting requirements and relax the
timelines for written reports. The NRC is proposing to revise Sec.
72.42(b) to decrease the time for the submittal of renewal applications
for specific licensees to be 30 days before expiration, consistent with
the requirements in Sec. 72.240(b) for CoC renewals. A common set of
license terms, CoC terms, and renewal requirements would simplify and
clarify the regulatory requirements. Another proposed change to Sec.
72.44(d)(3) would eliminate the regulatory requirement for annual
reporting for licensee effluent monitoring programs. This information
would be collected and retained by the licensee and subject to
inspection. Notification requirements of first storage of spent fuel
under the general license letter submittal requirement would be reduced
from 90 days before cask loading to 30 days before cask loading in
Sec. 72.212(b)(1). Similarly, in Sec. 72.212(b)(2), the cask
registration letter submittal requirement would increase from 30 days
from cask loading to 90 days from cask loading. These changes would
provide a reduction in burden on licensees.
V. Specific Requests for Comments
The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on
the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments and
supporting rationale and basis from the public on the following
questions. In addition to the general discussion in section IV,
additional context is provided for certain questions in order to help
the public comment on these issues.
Issue 1: Definition of Construction
The NRC is not proposing changes to the definition of construction
in this proposed rule but is considering expanding the definition in
the final rule to add flexibility by further clarifying what the term
construction does not include. The NRC is seeking feedback on what
specific items should be added to the definition. That is, what
specific items should not be considered ``construction''? Please
provide the basis for your response.
Issue 2: Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility Regulations
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--Regulatory Gap Identification
The NRC seeks comments on spent fuel reprocessing facility
regulatory gap identification. The NRC is proposing to amend Sec.
70.22, ``Contents of applications,'' to require applicants to identify
and address any regulatory gaps relevant to their proposed design as
part of the license application. As discussed in section IV, this would
include applicable gaps in 10 CFR part 70 that were previously
identified in the enclosure to SECY-09-0082 and further discussed in
SECY-11-0163. Under the proposed approach, applicants are to identify
and address the gaps that are applicable to their application based on
the proposed technology and risks. Applicants may address these gaps by
proposing license conditions or, where appropriate, by requesting
exemptions.
The NRC is considering an alternative option of addressing the gaps
more specifically by adding a provision in the final rule that would
require an applicant to include in its application information and
analyses regarding the previously identified specific gaps. For
example, a new subsection of Sec. 70.22 could require applicants to
include in their spent fuel reprocessing facility application
information and analyses pertaining to issues identified as gaps, such
as risk considerations, effluent monitoring, and general design
criteria, as the gaps may pertain to the specific technology proposed.
The NRC is seeking input on this alternative approach. If the NRC
were to proceed, instead, with the alternative approach, please
identify which of the gaps should be specifically identified in
[[Page 38136]]
the regulatory text and why. Additionally, the NRC is also seeking
feedback on whether additional regulatory gaps exist--beyond those
identified in SECY-09-0082--that may apply to the reprocessing
technologies currently under consideration, including novel
technologies that were not considered in the original gap analysis. If
so, please identify each additional gap and provide a justification for
why it should be included in list of gaps required to be addressed as
part of the license application. Similarly, the NRC is seeking input on
whether any gaps identified in SECY-09-0082 are no longer applicable to
spent fuel reprocessing facilities. Please explain the basis for your
response.
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--Decommissioning Funding
The NRC seeks comments on the proposed provisions for spent fuel
reprocessing facility decommissioning funding. The NRC is proposing to
apply the existing decommissioning funding requirements to spent fuel
reprocessing facilities rather than proposing new decommissioning
funding requirements specific to these facilities. However, the NRC is
considering whether requirements specific to spent fuel reprocessing
facilities should be added to 10 CFR part 70 in this rulemaking. Both
10 CFR parts 50 and 70 contain specific funding requirements that a
licensee must meet for decommissioning nuclear power plants and fuel
cycle facilities, respectively.
The NRC is specifically seeking feedback on whether the
decommissioning funding regulations in 10 CFR part 70 are sufficient
for spent fuel reprocessing facilities. Should the NRC, instead,
provide specific decommissioning funding regulations for these
facilities? If additional funding requirements are warranted, please
indicate what the NRC should consider in developing these specific
decommissioning funding regulations and why. Also consider whether the
NRC should consider a new provision similar to Sec. 70.38(a) that
applies to spent fuel reprocessing facilities.
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--Waste Issues
The NRC seeks comments on spent fuel reprocessing facility waste
issues. The proposed rule seeks to address the handling and onsite
storage of radioactive waste generated by a spent fuel reprocessing
facility through the existing and proposed requirements in 10 CFR part
70, including those in subpart H, and in 10 CFR parts 20 and 72. The
NRC is also considering additional provisions in the final rule in
either 10 CFR part 70 or 10 CFR part 72, if necessary, to adequately
address the safe handling and onsite storage of radioactive waste at
spent fuel reprocessing facilities. If there are additional changes to
the regulations needed to address the safety of radioactive waste and
enable efficient licensing of a spent fuel reprocessing facility in a
technology-neutral way, please provide the changes necessary, including
specifically which regulations should be changed and why.
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--Quality Assurance Program
The NRC seeks comments on spent fuel reprocessing facility quality
assurance programs. The NRC is proposing that each application for a
spent fuel reprocessing facility license include a QA program that
fully complies with the criteria outlined in appendix B of 10 CFR part
50. This proposal aligns with existing requirements for plutonium
processing and fuel fabrication plants and supports the objective of
ensuring high confidence in the availability and reliability of IROFS
in these higher-risk facilities, thereby meeting the standard of
reasonable assurance of adequate protection. It also aligns with
requirements for production facilities under 10 CFR part 50 and would
apply commensurate QA requirements to a spent fuel reprocessing
facility licensed under 10 CFR part 70.
However, given the wide range of potential technologies and
facility scales associated with spent fuel reprocessing facilities and
plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants, the NRC is
considering, instead, applying in the final rule a graded technology-
neutral approach that would specifically tailor the QA requirements to
the technology involved. The NRC is specifically seeking feedback on
whether there may be specific instances where certain criteria in
appendix B of 10 CFR part 50 may not be justified for making a safety
determination. The NRC is also seeking feedback on whether there are
relevant safety features or aspects of reprocessing operations that
would make a graded approach to QA requirements more appropriate.
Please explain the basis for your response.
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--Operator Licensing Program
The NRC seeks comments on the proposed spent fuel reprocessing
facility operator licensing program. The NRC is proposing to add a new
Sec. 70.22(o) that requires spent fuel reprocessing facility
applications to contain a proposed operator licensing program if
operation of the facility involves the manipulation of controls. The
NRC is also proposing a new definition of ``control'' in Sec. 70.4,
which defines a control, with respect to a spent fuel reprocessing
facility licensed under 10 CFR part 70, as ``an engineered item relied
on for safety, the manipulation of which could result in unmitigated
high consequences identified in Sec. 70.61(b) to any individual
located outside the controlled area identified pursuant to Sec.
70.61(f).''
The NRC is specifically seeking feedback on this definition and the
threshold for what constitutes a control and therefore an operator
licensing program. As part of this consideration, the public is invited
to provide comments on whether the threshold is appropriate or if
another threshold should be considered.
More specifically, the NRC is considering revising the definition
of control in the final rule to include both onsite and offsite
consequences of concern. And to differentiate from other facilities
licensed under subpart H of 10 CFR part 70, the NRC is also considering
revising the definition of control in the final rule to specify that
the consequences of concern from unmitigated accident sequences are
related to hazards that are unique to spent fuel reprocessing. If the
NRC were to opt for this revised definition, the NRC is interested in
feedback detailing what those unique hazards are that differentiate
spent fuel reprocessing facilities from other subpart H of 10 CFR part
70 facilities.
The NRC is also considering revising the definition of control such
that, rather than the proposed consequence based definition, the
definition would instead include other considerations such as the
complexity of the controls, or sequence of controls, to be manipulated
to prevent or mitigate a consequence above the defined threshold. The
NRC is seeking feedback on this potential change to the proposed
definition. Please provide the basis for your response.
Finally, the NRC is seeking feedback on the proposal in this rule
that operator licensing should be required for spent fuel reprocessing
facilities that are not defined as production facilities. In light of
the ISA and management measures requirements in subpart H of 10 CFR
part 70, the NRC is considering not requiring an operator licensing
program requirement for spent fuel reprocessing facilities that are not
production facilities. Specifically, the NRC is seeking feedback on
whether an operator licensing program should be
[[Page 38137]]
required only for spent fuel reprocessing facilities that are
production facilities. In responding, please include a basis in your
response that describes why an operator licensing program would or
would not be needed at non-production facilities to ensure adequate
safety. If, instead, the NRC continues with the rule as proposed, where
all spent fuel reprocessing facilities are required to have an operator
licensing program based on a threshold (such as the thresholds for
controls), should the proposed threshold be modified; and if so, how
and why?
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--Operator General Licenses
The NRC seeks comments on the spent fuel reprocessing facility
operator licensing process. The NRC is proposing to specifically
license operators of a spent fuel reprocessing facility through license
conditions. Alternatively, the NRC is considering an option where the
final rule would establish a general license for operators of a spent
fuel reprocessing facility. The NRC envisions the option would include
requirements similar to those the NRC has proposed in ``Risk Informed,
Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors'' (89
FR 86918; October 31, 2024). Under this option, general-licensed
reprocessing facility operators would perform duties under the
provisions of a general license that would be effective without the
filing of an application with the NRC or the issuance of licensing
documents to a particular person.
The NRC is specifically seeking feedback on whether spent fuel
reprocessing facility licensed operators should be specifically or
generally licensed. If the NRC pursues a general license for spent fuel
reprocessing facility operators (and, similarly, if operators are to be
specifically licensed), what should the requirements be for that
program? Are there key concepts in Sec. Sec. 53.805 through 53.820
that should or shouldn't be included? Please provide the basis for your
responses.
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--As Production Facilities
The NRC seeks comments on the application of AEA requirements for
``production facilities'' to all spent fuel reprocessing facilities.
This proposed rule is written to take into consideration possible
applicants that do not meet the AEA's definition of production
facility. However, due to uncertainties in the technologies and
associated risk, the NRC is proposing to apply some of the statutory
requirements for reprocessing facilities that meet the definition of
production facility to facilities that do not meet the definition of
production facility. These include proposed operator licensing programs
(if manipulation of controls, as defined, are required), as well as
prohibitions on both construction at risk and foreign ownership,
control, and domination. If there are non-production facility spent
fuel reprocessing facilities in the future where these requirements are
not necessary, under this proposed rule, those applicants may request
exemptions under Sec. 70.17 that the NRC may grant if justified. The
NRC is seeking input on this approach, and specifically, whether this
is the appropriate list of statutory provisions to apply to non-
production reprocessing facilities. If not, what provisions should be
excluded or what other provisions should be included? What specific
factors or considerations should the NRC evaluate when determining
whether such requirements should not apply to non-production
reprocessing facilities? What information currently exists to indicate
that the requirements, as proposed, are not necessary to ensure safety
at facilities that do not meet the definition of a production facility?
And, conversely, if the provisions in this proposed rule are
sufficient. Please provide the basis for your responses.
Spent Fuel Reprocessing Facility--Technical Specifications
The NRC is seeking feedback on the proposed approach regarding
technical specifications. Under the proposed rule, technical
specifications would not be required for spent fuel reprocessing
facilities that do not meet the AEA's definition of production facility
because these facilities are subject to the requirements in subpart H
of 10 CFR part 70 for ISA and management measures. Under the NRC's
proposal, spent fuel reprocessing facilities that are defined as
production facilities would need to provide technical specifications,
regardless of facility risks, in accordance with the AEA.
The NRC is considering an alternative approach that would require
all spent fuel reprocessing facility applications (whether production
or non-production facilities) to include technical specifications based
on an established set of thresholds, similar to the proposed approach
for operator licensing programs. In the alternative approach, spent
fuel reprocessing facilities that do not have accident sequences that
would exceed these thresholds would not be required to provide
technical specifications as part of the application. If the NRC were to
proceed with the alternative approach of establishing a threshold, the
NRC is seeking feedback on whether the technical specification
thresholds in the November 2011 draft regulatory basis document should
be applied to all spent fuel reprocessing facilities (production and
non-production facilities) and whether those thresholds are
appropriate. Please provide the basis for your response.
Issue 3: Change Process for 10 CFR Part 70 License Application
Documents
The NRC seeks comments on the change process for 10 CFR part 70
license application documents. The regulations currently provide
processes to allow licensees to make changes to certain licensing
documents without prior NRC approval if they meet specified criteria.
Some of these regulations include Sec. 70.32(c)(1)(3) for changes to
material control procedures, Sec. 70.32(d) for changes to plans for
the physical protection of special nuclear material in transit, Sec.
70.32(e) for changes to physical security plans, Sec. 70.72(c) for
facility changes, and in 10 CFR part 95, Sec. 95.19(b) for changes to
security practices and procedures. Additionally, Sec. 70.72 includes a
facility change process and provides criteria specifying the conditions
under which a licensee may make changes to the site, structures,
processes, systems, equipment, components, computer programs, and
activities of personnel, without prior NRC approval.
However, current requirements do not allow a licensee to make
changes to their license application or to the supporting documents
referenced in the license under Sec. 70.72 without prior NRC approval
because they are limited by a license condition. In response to several
requests, the NRC has added a license condition that permits licensees
to change certain information in the license application and the
supporting licensing documents without first seeking NRC approval if
they meet established criteria. Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.74, ``Guidance
for Fuel Cycle Facility Change Processes'' (77 FR 823, January 6,
2012), contains guidance regarding the information a licensee or
applicant must provide to request this license condition.
The NRC is considering amending 10 CFR part 70 in the final rule to
codify the license condition and make it broadly applicable, as a
voluntary option, to any licensee under subpart H of 10 CFR part 70. In
the process under consideration, the licensee would be able to make
changes to the license application without prior NRC approval provided
the change meets certain
[[Page 38138]]
provisions. The considerations for this change process are described in
RG 3.74 positions C.5.b and C.5.c and the rule provision under
consideration, which would build on RG 3.74 and past approvals (with
some revisions, e.g., reporting changes to the NRC every 12 months)
would read:
Any change to the license application and supporting licensing
documents included in license conditions must be evaluated by the
licensee before the change is implemented and a record of the
evaluation must be retained.
The licensee may make changes to the license application and
supporting licensing documents included in license conditions
without prior Commission approval, if the change: does not decrease
the level of effectiveness of the design basis as described in the
License Application; does not result in a degradation of safety;
does not affect compliance with applicable regulatory requirements;
and does not conflict with an existing license condition.
Within 12 months after each change is made, the licensee shall
submit the revised chapters of the License Application to the
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, using an
appropriate method listed in Sec. 70.5(a) with a copy to the
appropriate NRC Regional Office.
The NRC is specifically seeking feedback on whether it would be
beneficial to add this optional change process to its regulations in 10
CFR part 70, and if so what criteria should be used to determine if
prior NRC approval is needed. Additionally, the NRC is seeking feedback
on an appropriate reporting frequency as license conditions, to date,
have required reporting every six months. Should the NRC specify
documentation requirements for the licensee's evaluation supporting the
finding that preapproval is not required, similar to those included in
Sec. 70.72(a)? Conversely, the NRC is seeking information on if the
optional change process is not seen to be beneficial. Please provide
the basis for your responses.
Issue 4: Baseline Design Criteria in 10 CFR Part 70
The NRC is not proposing any changes to the baseline design
criteria requirements in the proposed rule; however the NRC is seeking
stakeholder input on the implementation of each of the baseline design
criteria which were established when subpart H was added to 10 CFR part
70. These criteria were intended to provide an acceptable set of
initial design safety considerations and complement the performance
requirements in Sec. 70.61 to ensure that safety is not wholly
dependent on any single element of design, construction, maintenance,
or operation. This approach is intended to help maintain safety
margins, defense in depth, and reduce challenges to IROFS. Based on
more than 20 years of operating and licensing experience, the NRC
requests feedback on whether rule text changes are needed. Please
provide the basis for your response.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC
anticipates that this proposed rule will not, if issued, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While the rule may affect some ``small entities'' as defined by the Act
or the NRC's size standards (Sec. 2.810), the overall impact is
expected to be minimal.
The staff is proposing several changes across the materials
regulations to modernize the NRC's materials licensing requirements.
These changes are deregulatory in nature and include streamlining the
process for certain new applicants and eliminating certain requirements
prior to facility construction to enable bringing power to the grid.
Unnecessary regulations are also being eliminated, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are being reduced. The staff is proposing
several other changes to clarify regulations that are confusing or
ambiguous to make the overall licensing process more efficient.
Finally, regulations governing the storage of radioactive material are
being amended to accommodate new and advanced nuclear fuels.
Therefore, the NRC attests under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this
rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a
comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how
and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
VII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC is proposing to make several changes to its materials
regulations to reduce burden, increase efficiency, and enable bringing
power to the grid. These changes will also have economic benefits, but
for the reasons stated in this section, the NRC is not able to make a
quantitative assessment of the cost savings for all proposed regulatory
changes. For example, the NRC does not have detailed data on licensees'
pre-construction procurement schedules or financing, therefore the NRC
is unable to make a detailed analysis of the economic benefits of
shortening the time required for facility construction. Other proposed
regulatory changes seek to modernize licensing for new technologies,
including for reprocessing and fuel fabrication, for which there is
either no existing data or no publicly available data. Where possible,
a quantitative analysis has been provided.
Parts 30 and 40
In 10 CFR parts 30 and 40, the NRC is proposing to amend its
regulations to clarify existing language, reduce the facility
construction timelines, and simplify the requirements for the
environmental report. The changes proposed are also necessary to
address a licensee's flexibility in implementing existing regulatory
requirements. The NRC anticipates economic benefits, in the form of
monetary savings, from shortening the amount of time required to
construct facilities under 10 CFR parts 30 and 40 (as well as 10 CFR
part 70, discussed further below). However, since the NRC is being
proactive in its approach for regulating perceived new technology, the
NRC does not have data to formulate a quantitative assessment of the
economic benefits the industry can anticipate from these changes, nor
is there enough data to quantitatively address monetary savings from
streamlining the construction timelines and application requirements.
Qualitatively, however, the benefits in savings to the industry, as a
result of the clarifying changes to 10 CFR parts 30 and 40, reduce
interaction time with the NRC, as well as provide flexibility for
applicants moving forward.
Part 37
The proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 37 would formalize existing
practice established through EGM-14-001. Additionally, the proposed
rule also includes clarifying language in Sec. 37.11(c) to alleviate
potential confusion. The NRC maintains that these changes are
economically neutral, as they do not alter licensee behavior but rather
reflect current practices.
Part 70
The changes the NRC is proposing in 10 CFR part 70 provide industry
with flexibility in meeting current regulatory requirements, as well as
flexibility in how to meet the regulatory requirements as they apply to
potential new technological advancements in reprocessing and fuel
fabrication. Some modifications proposed in 10 CFR part 70 are
clarifying in nature, and therefore, do not create an economic burden.
There are also many proposed
[[Page 38139]]
changes to 10 CFR part 70 that reduce burden by eliminating or reducing
reporting or record keeping requirements, which may also create savings
for the industry by minimizing interactions with the NRC.
The NRC has also identified several other proposed changes to 10
CFR part 70 for which it is unable to quantitively determine the cost
savings they would create for the industry. The following table
provides a qualitative assessment of the provisions proposed in 10 CFR
part 70 that the NRC anticipates would create economic savings for the
industry.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.047
[[Page 38140]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.048
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
Part 72
There are portions of the changes in 10 CFR part 72 that are
similar to those in 10 CFR part 30 above. Therefore, NRC is referring
back to 10 CFR part 30 for discussion on proposed changes affecting
technological innovation.
Additionally, the NRC is proposing to revise Sec. 72.44(d)(3) by
removing redundant annual reporting of gaseous effluents to the NRC.
This change removes the requirement for licensees to submit these
reports to the NRC but still provides licensees with the option to
submit these reports if they so choose. If the licensee elects not to
submit the report, they would instead need to maintain the report in
their files and present the report when asked by an NRC inspector. The
NRC estimates potential time savings, for both licensees and NRC staff,
from implementing this change.
The NRC's estimated savings for licensees was calculated using the
loaded wage rate of $137.14.\1\ The NRC estimates that a licensee would
take 0.083 hours to submit the gaseous effluent report to NRC. The
estimated total annual saving from reducing duplicative reporting is
$857 non-discounted, and savings over a period of 10-year is estimated
to be $6,020 and $7,311 discounted at 7 and 3 percent, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The wage used for this occupation was Facilities Managers
(11-3013) from across all industries on BLS SOC website https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/221113. for year 2024. In addition, the
wage rate is loaded by a ratio of 1.6 to account for benefits
employees receive from their employer (e.g., health care insurance,
vacation time) $137.14 = ($85.71 * 1.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC's potential savings would come from eliminating the need to
review and process the annual reports. The NRC receives 75 gaseous
effluent annual reports, and it takes the staff two hours to review and
process each report. Annually, the NRC spends 150 hours reviewing
gaseous effluent reports. Using the wage rate of $158 for NRC's
employment, the staff expect this proposed rule to save the agency
approximately $23,700 annually. The staff estimates total 10 years
savings at
[[Page 38141]]
$166,460 and $202,166 discounted at 7 and 3 percent, respectively.
Total combined 10 years savings for both industry and the NRC are
estimated at $245,571 (undiscounted) and net present value of $209,477
discounted at 7 and 3 percent, respectively, with annualized 10 years
savings at $172,479 discounted at 7. Table 2 shows the combined 10-year
period of analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.049
Furthermore, the NRC's proposed change to Sec. 72.214 would
eliminate the requirement for a direct final rule as part of the NRC's
approval process for new or modified spent fuel dry storage casks
entering the market. Under the current regulation, in order for a cask
design or modification to be approved for use, a cask vendor must
submit an application to the NRC for approval and, as part of the
approval process, the NRC reviews the application and develops a direct
final rule. The direct final rule serves to add the new cask design or
modification to a list of NRC-approved cask designs in Sec. 72.214.
The proposed change to Sec. 72.214 would remove the list of approved
cask designs from the regulation and instead point general licensees to
a list of NRC-approved casks on the NRC's public website. Thus, the
proposed change would have the NRC review and approve the application
without developing a direct final rule for each new cask design or
modification. Therefore, the proposed change to Sec. 72.214 would
mostly affect the NRC's approval process and have an indeterminate
effect on vendors and licensees.
Under the current approval process, the NRC develops a direct final
rule every time it approves a cask design or modification for use by
general licensees. On average, the NRC receives 8 applications per
year, which means it must create 8 separate direct final rules. NRC
staff spend about 1,500 hours developing each rule. Therefore, over the
course of 1 year, the NRC invests approximately 12,000 hours in
creating direct final rules under Sec. 72.214. To estimate the
monetary costs of the NRC, the staff uses a $158 hourly rate for the
NRC wage rate. The estimated cost of creating one direct final rule is
$237,000 per application. Assessing the 1-year and 10-year cost savings
from changes to Sec. 72.214, the staff estimates potential NRC benefit
at $1.9 million and $19 million respectively in undiscounted savings.
The estimated 10-year net present value for the 10-year period of
analysis is $13.3 million at a 7 percent discount. Hence, the NRC is
anticipating a reduction in its burden which would create a saving for
the NRC. Table 3 shows the results of calculating the effect of changes
to Sec. 72.214.
[[Page 38142]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.050
Additionally, the proposed changes to the cask approval process
would create a benefit to the industry. The process of drafting and
publishing a direct final rule for each NRC approval of a cask design
or modification takes approximately six months to complete. During that
time, the cask vendor is unable to generate revenue from the cask
design for which they are awaiting NRC's approval. By removing the
rulemaking requirement, a vendor would be able to generate revenue on a
quicker timeframe that, under the current regulation, is unattainable.
Removing the rulemaking requirement for cask approvals would allow
vendors to reverse the opportunity lost due to rulemaking process,
which would equate to approximately six months. The NRC foresees a
vendor's time as an opportunity gained, and therefore, a benefit.
However, the NRC is unable to enumerate the benefits for two reasons:
(1) the NRC does not have information on vendors' marketing strategies
to make an intuitive cash flow assessment, and (2) the NRC is unable to
track sales data of casks. Although the NRC cannot provide a
quantitative assessment of the vendor's benefits, it anticipates that
the change to Sec. 72.214 will yield a positive economic impact for
vendors for the reasons aforementioned.
To summarize the quantitative impact to the affected population,
the NRC combines estimates from tables 2 and 3 to assess the overall
impact of the proposed rule. The total aggregated cost saving for the
proposed rule is estimated to have annual savings of $1.9 million
(undiscounted) with a 10-years net present value of $13.5 million
discounted at 7 percent. Table 4 shows a savings schedule over a 10-
year period of analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.051
[[Page 38143]]
Additionally, the NRC estimates this proposed rule would have
perpetuity cost savings of $1.9 million discounted at 7 percent in 2024
dollars.
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
This section describes the backfitting implications of this
proposed rule. The NRC's backfitting provisions relevant to this
proposed rule appear in Sec. Sec. 70.76 and 72.62, each entitled
``Backfitting,'' and apply to holders of certain licenses under 10 CFR
part 70 and holders of general or specific licenses under 10 CFR part
72, respectively. Parts 30, 37, 40, 51, and 140 of 10 CFR chapter I do
not contain backfitting provisions. The NRC Management Directive 8.4,
``Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and
Information Requests,'' describes the Commission's policies on
backfitting.
The 10 CFR parts 70 and 72 backfitting provisions apply to actions
taken by the NRC under 10 CFR parts 70 and 72, respectively, or actions
taken by the NRC under other parts of 10 CFR chapter I that, for
holders of certain approvals under 10 CFR part 70 or 72, inextricably
affect their activities regulated under 10 CFR part 70 or 10 CFR part
72, respectively. The proposed changes would not meet the definition of
``backfitting'' in Sec. 70.76 because the proposed changes would not
modify or add to the SSCs or design of a facility or to the procedures
or organization required to operate a facility under 10 CFR part 70.
These changes would not meet the definition of ``backfitting'' in Sec.
72.62 because the proposed changes would not add, eliminate, or modify
the SSCs of an ISFSI or the procedures or organization required to
operate an ISFSI.
Further, the proposed changes to 10 CFR part 37 (see section IV.B
of this document) as well as the proposed conforming changes to 10 CFR
parts 30, 40, 51, and 140 (see section IV.A and IV.D of this document)
to reflect the proposed changes to 10 CFR parts 70 and 72, would not
inextricably affect activities regulated under 10 CFR parts 70 or 10
CFR part 72. Therefore, the issuance and implementation of the proposed
rule would not affect 10 CFR part 70 or 10 CFR part 72 entities'
activities regulated under 10 CFR part 70 or 10 CFR part 72. For these
reasons, the proposed rule would not constitute backfitting under 10
CFR parts 70 and 72.
The NRC would also post on its public website a series of
frequently asked questions (FAQs) and NRC responses related to this
proposed rule as described in section XVI, ``Availability of
Guidance,'' of this document. These FAQs would not constitute
backfitting as defined in Sec. 70.76 or Sec. 72.62 because licensees
would not be required to comply with the positions set forth in the
FAQs.
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
The NRC seeks to minimize potential negative consequences resulting
from the cumulative effects of regulation (CER). The NRC believes that
the deregulatory impacts of this rulemaking activity are unlikely to
cause implementation challenges for stakeholders. In addition, during
the pendency of this rulemaking, the NRC is deprioritizing issuance of
regulatory actions that might influence the implementation date for the
new rule requirements (e.g., orders, generic communications, license
amendment requests, and inspection findings of a generic nature).
To fully understand any potential CER implications that could
result from this rulemaking, the NRC is asking the following questions.
Response to these questions is voluntary and any input will be
considered during development of the final rule.
1. NRC is proposing an effective date that will be 30 days after
the date of publication of a final rule. Does this provide sufficient
time to implement the proposed requirements? Please provide a rationale
for your response.
2. Are there unintended consequences related to this rulemaking and
how should they be addressed? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
3. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the
regulatory analysis that supports this proposed rule.
X. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31885). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the
clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
XI. Environmental Assessment and Proposed Finding of No Significant
Environmental Impact
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, an environmental impact statement is not required. The
basis of this determination is available in ADAMS Accession No.
ML25288A041.
The determination of this environmental assessment is that there
will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment
from this action. Public stakeholders should note, however, that
comments on any aspect of this environmental assessment may be
submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule amends new or amended collections of information
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and approval of the information
collections.
Type of submission: New.
The title of the information collection: Modernizing Materials
Licensing.
The form number if applicable: Not applicable.
How often the collection is required or requested: Certain events
must be reported to the NRC Operations Center within 1 hour, 4 hours,
or 24 hours of discovery, depending on the event type. Other reports
are due within 30 days or 60 days of an event, semiannually, annually,
or upon the occurrence of specific events. Records must be maintained
for periods ranging from 3 years to the duration of the license or
until decommissioning is complete, depending on the record type.
Who will be required or asked to respond: Applicants and licensees
regulated under 10 CFR parts 30, 37, 40, 51, 70, 72, and 140, including
spent fuel reprocessing facilities and pilot fuel lines licensed under
10 CFR part 70.
An estimate of the number of annual responses:
10 CFR part 30: 3 (3 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 37: 2 (2 reporting responses + 0 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 40: 0
10 CFR part 51: -8 (-8 reporting responses)
10 CFR part 70: 120 (92 reporting responses + 28 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 72: -213 (-298 reporting responses + 85 recordkeepers)
10 CFR part 140: 1 (1 reporting response + 0 recordkeepers)
The estimated number of annual respondents:
10 CFR part 30: 3
10 CFR part 37: 2
10 CFR part 40: 0 during the clearance period
[[Page 38144]]
10 CFR part 51: 0
10 CFR part 70: 31
10 CFR part 72: 85
10 CFR part 140: 1
An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply
with the information collection requirement or request:
10 CFR part 30: 6 (6 reporting +0 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 37: 16 (16 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 40: 0
10 CFR part 51: 0
10 CFR part 70: 44,591 (40,642 reporting + 3,949 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 72: -2,305 (-2,900 reporting + 595 recordkeeping)
10 CFR part 140: 2 (2 reporting + 0 recordkeeping)
Abstract: The proposed rule would revise information collection
related to materials licensing. Major changes would include eliminating
the nine-month advance application requirement for facility
construction in 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and for some facilities under 10
CFR part 70, and allowing construction to begin at the applicant's risk
for most materials facility types; introducing a new exemption in 10
CFR part 37 for large components and robust structures containing
category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material, with new
recordkeeping for exemption documentation; streamlining and clarifying
application content and reporting requirements in 10 CFR part 70,
especially for spent fuel reprocessing facilities; shifting certain
annual and biennial reporting requirements in 10 CFR part 72 to
recordkeeping only, and adjusting notification and registration
deadlines for spent fuel storage; and establishing new documentation
requirements in 10 CFR part 140 for spent fuel reprocessing facility
licensees (liability insurance and indemnification for reprocessing
facilities). These changes collectively would reduce unnecessary
regulatory burden, clarify ambiguous requirements, and improve the
efficiency and practical utility of NRC's information collections,
ensuring that the agency would continue to receive essential
information for effective oversight while minimizing paperwork burdens
on regulated entities.
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the
information collection(s) contained in this proposed rule and on the
following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility? Please explain your response.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection accurate? Please explain your response.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected? Please explain your response.
4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on
respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the OMB clearance package is available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML25288A044 or may be viewed free of charge by contacting
the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. You may obtain
information and comment on submissions related to the OMB clearance
package by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
NRC-2025-1370.
You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
above issues, by the following method:
Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-1370.
Submit comments by July 24, 2026.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
XIII. Executive Orders
The following are Executive orders that are related to this
proposed rule:
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (as Amended by
Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies)
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has
determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action.
Accordingly, the NRC submitted this proposed rule to OIRA for review.
The NRC is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with
section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in Section VII, of
this document, ``Regulatory Analysis.''
B. Executive Order 14154: Unleashing American Energy
The NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it
is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.
C. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is tentatively determined to be a deregulatory action
as defined by E.O. 14192. Details on the estimated cost savings of this
proposed rule can be found in Section VII of this document,
``Regulatory Analysis.''
D. Executive Order 14270: Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting To Unleash
American Energy
E.O. 14270, ``Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American
Energy,'' requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all
new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1)
promulgated under the AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended (ERA), or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended
(NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's
permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes
proposed in this rule are required because they are necessary for
providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health
and safety and the common defense and security, and would be part of
the NRC's permitting regime authorized by the AEA. Therefore, the NRC
views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of E.O. 14270 and did not
insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this
proposed rule.
E. Executive Order 14294: Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal
Regulations
This proposed rule includes Federal regulations that, if adopted,
would be enforceable by criminal penalty, as authorized by Section 223
of the AEA. Therefore, per E.O. 14294, those regulations constitute
``criminal regulatory offenses.''
For the purposes of Section 223 of the AEA, the NRC is issuing this
proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR parts 70, 72, and 140 under one
or more of Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA, except as noted in
Sec. Sec. 70.92, 72.86, and 140.89. The applicability of criminal
penalties to regulations in 10 CFR parts 70, 72, and 140 is set forth
in Sec. Sec. 70.92, 72.86, and 140.89. Willful violations of the 10
CFR parts 70, 72, and 140 regulations, other than those listed in
Sec. Sec. 70.92, 72.86, and 140.89 (including as updated by this
proposed rule), would be subject to criminal enforcement.
[[Page 38145]]
XIV. Coordination With NRC Agreement States
On September 3, 2025, the NRC held a government-to-government
meeting with the Agreement States regarding E.O. 14300, ``Ordering the
Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.'' In this meeting, the NRC
presented its goals and objectives for future rulemakings, including
this proposed rule, to be done in response to the E.O. At the time of
the meeting, the proposed rule text was not available.
XV. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
On the basis of the ``Agreement State Program Policy Statement''
approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the
Federal Register (82 FR 48535; October 18, 2017), NRC program elements
can be placed into six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, or health and
safety (H&S)) to form the basis for evaluating and classifying the
program elements. Under the Policy Statement, a program element means
any component or function of a radiation control regulatory program,
including regulations and other legally binding requirements imposed on
regulated persons, which contributes to implementation of that program.
This proposed rule only modifies regulations that are of Compatibility
Categories B, C, D, and NRC.
Compatibility Category B pertains to a limited number of program
elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be addressed
to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis. For
Compatibility Category B, the Agreement State program element shall be
essentially identical to that of NRC.
Program elements in Compatibility Category C include those program
elements that are important for an Agreement State to have in order to
avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would
jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material
on a national basis. An Agreement State program shall embody the
essential objectives of the Category C program elements. Under Category
C, Agreement State program elements may be more restrictive than NRC
program elements; however, they should not be so restrictive as to
prohibit a practice authorized by the AEA, and in the national interest
without an adequate public health and safety or environmental basis
related to radiation protection.
Compatibility Category D are those program elements that do not
meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C, and are not required
to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. An
Agreement State has the flexibility to adopt and implement program
elements within the State's jurisdiction that are not addressed by the
NRC or that are not required for compatibility. However, such program
elements of an Agreement State relating to agreement material shall (1)
not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that
would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement
material on a nationwide basis; (2) not preclude a practice authorized
by the AEA and in the national interest; and (3) not preclude the
ability of the NRC to evaluate the effectiveness of Agreement State
programs for agreement material with respect to protection of public
health and safety.
Compatibility Category NRC are those program elements that address
areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States
under the AEA, or provisions of 10 CFR. The NRC maintains regulatory
authority over these program elements and the Agreement States must not
adopt these NRC program elements. However, an Agreement State may
inform its licensees of these NRC requirements through a mechanism
under the State's administrative procedure laws, as long as the State
adopts these provisions solely for the purposes of notification, and
does not exercise any regulatory authority as a result.
The proposed rule is a matter of compatibility between the NRC and
the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among Agreement
State and NRC requirements. The compatibility (A, B, C, D, and NRC) and
adequacy (H&S) categories are designated in the following table:
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[[Page 38146]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.052
[[Page 38147]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.053
[[Page 38148]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.054
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
XVI. Availability of Guidance
Due to the accelerated schedule for this rulemaking, the NRC is not
issuing draft guidance for implementation of the proposed requirements
at this time. However, the NRC has prepared ``frequently asked
questions'' which, when finalized, will be posted to the NRC public
website to provide stakeholders with guidance for implementing the
final requirements contemplated by this proposed rule. The FAQs are
available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML26168A407. You may submit
comments on the draft FAQs by the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
XVII. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[[Page 38149]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.055
[[Page 38150]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN26.056
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including
public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://
www.regulations.gov
[[Page 38151]]
under Docket ID NRC-2025-1370. In addition, the Federal rulemaking
website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or
additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the
docket folder (NRC-2025-1370); (2) click the ``Subscribe'' link; and
(3) enter an email address and click on the ``Subscribe'' link.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 30
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts,
Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear energy, Nuclear
materials, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Whistleblowing.
10 CFR Part 37
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Exports, Hazardous
materials transportation, Imports, Licensed material, Nuclear
materials, Penalties, Radioactive materials, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
10 CFR Part 40
Criminal penalties, Exports, Government contracts, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear
materials, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source
material, Uranium, Whistleblowing.
10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear
power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 70
Classified information, Criminal penalties, Emergency medical
services, Hazardous materials transportation, Material control and
accounting, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Packaging and
containers, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures,
Special nuclear material, Whistleblowing.
10 CFR Part 72
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
10 CFR Part 140
Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear
power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing
to amend 10 CFR parts 30, 37, 40, 51, 70, 72 and 140:
PART 30--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
0
1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 81,
161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2014,
2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2273, 2282, 2021);
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
0
2. In Sec. 30.32, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 30.32 Application for specific licenses.
* * * * *
(f) Any application for license under this part must include the
environmental information required by part 51 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 30.33, revise paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 30.33 General requirements for issuance of specific licenses.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) In the case of an application for a license to receive and
possess byproduct material for the conduct of any activity that the NRC
determines will significantly affect the quality of the environment,
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or
designee, on the basis of information filed and evaluations made
pursuant to part 51 of this chapter, has concluded that the action
called for is the issuance of the proposed license, with any
appropriate conditions to protect environmental values. Commencement of
construction prior to this conclusion is undertaken by the applicant at
its own risk. Commencement of construction as defined in Sec. 30.4 of
this part may include non-construction activities if the activity has a
reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
* * * * *
PART 37--PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CATEGORY 1 AND CATEGORY 2
QUANTITIES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
0
4. The authority citation for part 37 continues to read as:
Authority: Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 53,
81, 103, 104, 147, 148, 149, 161, 182, 183, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C.
2014, 2073, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2167, 2168, 2169, 2201, 2232, 2233,
2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202
(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
0
5. In Sec. 37.5, add in alphabetical order the definitions for Large
component and Robust structure to read as follows:
Sec. 37.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Large component means an item weighing 2,000 kg (4,409 lbs) or
more, but not containing either discrete sources or ion exchange
resins. Large components typically include steam generators, steam
dryers, turbine rotors, reactor vessels, reactor vessel heads, reactor
coolant pumps, and shielding blocks.
* * * * *
Robust structure means a closed concrete bunker or modular vault,
for which access to the radioactive materials contained within the
structure is gained only through the use of heavy equipment to remove
structural components or large access blocks that weigh 2,000 kg (4,409
lbs) or more.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 37.11, revise paragraph (c) introductory text and add
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 37.11 Specific exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) A licensee that possesses radioactive waste containing category
1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive material that does not
contain discrete sources or ion-exchange resins, or is activated
material weighing greater than 2,000 kg (4,409 lbs), is exempt from the
requirements of subparts B, C, and D of this part. The licensee must,
instead, implement the following requirements to secure the radioactive
waste:
* * * * *
(d) A licensee is exempt from the requirements of subparts B, C,
and D of this part to the extent its category 1 or category 2
quantities of radioactive material is a large component or is contained
within a robust structure. The licensee must satisfy the following
requirements to rely upon this exemption:
(1) The licensee identifies in writing those large components and
robust
[[Page 38152]]
structures containing category 1 or category 2 quantities of
radioactive material; and
(2) The licensee has an approved 10 CFR part 73 security plan or a
written 10 CFR part 37 security plan that provides security measures
adequate to detect, assess, and respond to actual or attempted theft or
diversion, as well as a written analysis that considers the time needed
to accomplish these activities given the proximity and mobility of the
equipment available for the large components and robust structures
identified in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
(3) The licensee has a written analysis documenting that the
measures in this section do not decrease the effectiveness of the 10
CFR part 73 security plan.
* * * * *
PART 40--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL
0
7. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 69,
81, 83, 84, 122, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 223, 234,
274, 275 (42 U.S.C. 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2113, 2114,
2152, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2273, 2282,
2021, 2022); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206,
211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978, sec. 104 (42 U.S.C. 7914); 44 U.S.C.
3504 note.
0
8. In Sec. 40.31, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 40.31 Application for specific licenses.
* * * * *
(f) Any application for license under this part must include the
environmental information required by part 51 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 40.32, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 40.32 General requirements for issuance of specific licenses.
* * * * *
(e) In the case of an application for the conduct of any activity,
other than for a license for a uranium enrichment facility, that the
NRC determines will significantly affect the quality of the
environment, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards or designee, on the basis of information filed and
evaluations made pursuant to part 51 of this chapter, has concluded
that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed license,
with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values.
Commencement of construction prior to this conclusion is undertaken by
the applicant at its own risk. Commencement of construction as defined
in Sec. 40.4 of this part may include non-construction activities if
the activity has a reasonable nexus to radiological safety and
security.
* * * * *
PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
0
10. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C.
2201, 2243); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs.
144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161,
10168); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued under
Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10155,
10161, 10168).
Section 51.22 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 274 (42
U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C.
10141).
Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear
Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)).
0
11. In Sec. 51.22, revise paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.22 Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of
licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or
otherwise not requiring environmental review.
(a) * * *
(12) Issuance of certificates for new, amended, revised, or renewed
certificates of compliance for cask designs used for spent fuel
storage.
* * * * *
PART 70--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
0
12. The authority citation for part 70 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 102, 103, 104, 107,
161, 182, 183, 185, 189, 193, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2132,
2133, 2134, 2137, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2235, 2239, 2243, 2273, 2282,
2297f); secs. 201, 202, 204, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845,
5846, 5851); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44
U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119
Stat. 194 (2005).
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141,
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 70.21(g) also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 122
(42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under Atomic Energy Act
sec. 57(d) (42 U.S.C. 2077(d)). Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued
under Atomic Energy Act sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.81
also issued under Atomic Energy Act secs. 186, 187 (42 U.S.C. 2236,
2237). Section 70.82 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 108
(42 U.S.C. 2138).
0
13. In Sec. 70.1, remove and reserve paragraph (d), and add paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.1 Purpose.
* * * * *
(d) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(f) The regulations in this part establish requirements,
procedures, and criteria that may be used for the issuance of licenses
for a spent fuel reprocessing facility, including issuance of operator
licenses, subject to additional requirements, conditions and
exemptions, as determined by the Commission on a case-by-case basis.
0
14. In Sec. 70.4, add in alphabetical order the definitions for
Combined license, Control, Operator license, Pilot fuel line, and Spent
fuel reprocessing facility to read as follows:
Sec. 70.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Combined license, as used in this part, means a combined
construction permit and operating license with conditions for a spent
fuel reprocessing facility that is a production facility issued under
this part.
* * * * *
Control, as used in Sec. Sec. 70.22(o) and 70.32(n) of this part
with respect to an operator licensing program for a spent fuel
reprocessing facility licensed under this part, means an engineered
item relied on for safety, the manipulation of which could result in
unmitigated high consequences identified in Sec. 70.61(b) of this part
to any individual located outside the controlled area identified
pursuant to Sec. 70.61(f) of this part.
* * * * *
Operator license means a license issued to an individual under this
part for operating a spent fuel reprocessing facility.
* * * * *
Pilot fuel line means a facility authorized by the Department of
Energy, at the time of submittal of an application under this part, to
produce nuclear fuel for non-commercial purposes for qualified test
reactors under the Department's Reactor Pilot Program.
* * * * *
Spent fuel reprocessing facility means a facility that separates
irradiated fuel for the purpose of recovering fissionable material,
including a facility that meets the definition of a production facility
in
[[Page 38153]]
Sec. 50.2 of this chapter, excluding subsection (1) which states
``[a]ny nuclear reactor designed or used primarily for the formation of
plutonium or uranium-233.''
* * * * *
0
15. In Sec. 70.5, add paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) and (ix) to read as
follows:
Sec. 70.5 Communications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Spent fuel reprocessing facilities licensed under this part.
(ix) Operator licenses for spent fuel reprocessing facilities.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec. 70.11, revise paragraph (c), and add paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 70.11 Persons using special nuclear material under certain
Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission contracts.
* * * * *
(c) the use or operation of nuclear reactors or other nuclear
devices in a United States Government-owned vehicle or vessel. In
addition to the foregoing exemptions, and subject to the requirement
for licensing of Department facilities and activities pursuant to
section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, any prime
contractor or subcontractor of the Department or the Commission is
exempt from the requirements for a license set forth in section 53 of
the Act and from the regulations in this part to the extent that such
prime contractor or subcontractor receives title to, owns, acquires,
delivers, receives, possesses, uses, or transfers special nuclear
material under his prime contract or subcontract when the activity
conducted by the prime contractor or subcontractor is authorized by
law; and that, under the terms of the contract or subcontract there is
adequate assurance that the work thereunder can be accomplished without
undue risk to the public health and safety; or
(d) the construction and operation of pilot fuel lines as defined
in Sec. 70.4 of this part.
0
17. In Sec. 70.21, revise paragraphs (a), (e), and (f), and remove and
reserve paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.21 Filing.
(a)(1) A person may apply for any license issued under this part by
filing the application in accordance with the instructions in Sec.
70.5(a) of this part. If the application is on paper, only one copy
need be provided. If the application is to be submitted electronically,
see guidance for electronic submissions to the Commission.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Information contained in previous applications, statements, or
reports filed with the Commission may be incorporated by reference if
the references are clear and specific.
(4) An application for a combined license for a spent fuel
reprocessing facility must be executed in a signed original by the
applicant or duly authorized officer thereof under oath or affirmation.
* * * * *
(e) Each application for a special nuclear material license, other
than a license exempted from part 170 of this chapter, must be
accompanied by the fee prescribed in part 170 of this chapter. No fee
will be required to accompany an application for renewal or amendment
of a license, except as provided in part 170 of this chapter.
(f) Any application for a license under this part must include the
environmental information required by part 51 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(h) [Reserved]
0
18. In Sec. 70.22, revise paragraphs (a)(7), (b), (f), and (n), and
add paragraphs (o), (p), (q), and (r) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.22 Contents of applications.
(a) * * *
(7) A description of equipment and facilities which will be used by
the applicant to protect health and minimize danger to life or property
(such as handling devices, working areas, shields, measuring and
monitoring instruments, devices for the disposal of radioactive
effluents, and management and storage of radioactive wastes including
high level waste, storage facilities, criticality accident alarm
systems, etc.);
* * * * *
(b) Each application for a license to possess special nuclear
material, to possess equipment capable of enriching uranium, to operate
a uranium enrichment facility or a spent fuel reprocessing facility
licensed under this part, to possess and use at any one time and
location special nuclear material in a quantity exceeding one effective
kilogram, except for applications for use as sealed sources and for
those uses involved in the operation of a nuclear reactor licensed
pursuant to part 50 or 53 of this chapter and those involved in a waste
disposal operation, must contain a full description of the applicant's
program for control and accounting of such special nuclear material or
enrichment equipment that will be in the applicant's possession under
license to show how compliance with the requirements of Sec. Sec.
74.31, 74.33, 74.41, or 74.51 of this chapter, as applicable, will be
accomplished.
* * * * *
(f) Each application for a license to possess and use special
nuclear material in a plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant
or a spent fuel reprocessing facility must include a quality assurance
program that meets the criteria in appendix B of part 50 or 53 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
(n) A license application that involves the use of special nuclear
material in a uranium enrichment facility or a spent fuel reprocessing
facility must include the applicant's provisions for liability
insurance.
(o) Each application for a spent fuel reprocessing facility must
contain a proposed operator licensing program if operation of the
facility involves the manipulation of a control as defined in Sec.
70.4 of this part. The proposed operator licensing program shall
include a description of the training, examination, and proficiency
programs necessary to implement the operator licensing program.
(p) Each application for a combined license for a spent fuel
reprocessing facility must contain proposed technical specifications;
and proposed inspections, tests, and analyses, including those
applicable to emergency planning, and proposed acceptance criteria that
are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that if
the inspections, tests, and analyses are performed, and the acceptance
criteria are met, the facility will be constructed and operated in
conformity with the combined license, the provisions of the Act, and
the Commission's rules and regulations.
(q) Each application for a spent fuel reprocessing facility, in
addition to other information required under this part, must also
contain any proposed exemption requests, and any proposed license
conditions as necessary on a case-by-case basis to meet statutory
requirements and provide for reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety and common defense and security.
(r) Each application for a license under this part from an
applicant that is authorized by the Department for a pilot fuel line,
in addition to other information required under this part, must
identify how aspects of the authorization satisfy NRC regulations and
statutory provisions, including how
[[Page 38154]]
any changes to the facility design and operations address applicable
NRC requirements and statutory provisions.
0
19. In Sec. 70.23, revise paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(11), and
(a)(12), add paragraphs (a)(13) through (a)(16), and remove and reserve
paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 70.23 Requirements for the approval of applications.
(a) * * *
(7) Where the proposed activity is an activity, other than
construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility or a spent
fuel reprocessing facility for which the NRC determines will
significantly affect the quality of the environment, the Director,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or designee, on the
basis of information filed and evaluations made pursuant to part 51 of
this chapter, has concluded that the action called for is the issuance
of the proposed license, with any appropriate conditions to protect
environmental values. Commencement of construction prior to this
conclusion is undertaken by the applicant at its own risk. Commencement
of construction as defined in Sec. 70.4 of this part may include non-
construction activities if the activity has a reasonable nexus to
radiological safety and security.
(8) Where the proposed activity is construction and operation of a
uranium enrichment facility or a spent fuel reprocessing facility, the
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or designee,
before commencement of construction of the plant or facility in which
the activity will be conducted, on the basis of information filed and
evaluations made pursuant to part 51 of this chapter, has concluded,
that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed license,
with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values.
Commencement of construction prior to this conclusion is grounds for
denial to possess and use special nuclear material in the plant or
facility. Commencement of construction as defined in Sec. 70.4 of this
part may include non-construction activities if the activity has a
reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
* * * * *
(11) Where the proposed activity is processing and fuel
fabrication, scrap recovery, conversion of uranium hexafluoride, or
involves the use of special nuclear material in a uranium enrichment
facility or a spent fuel reprocessing facility, the applicant's
proposed emergency plan is adequate.
(12) For proposed activities under this part where it is
statutorily required or otherwise determined to be necessary,
applicable provisions of part 140 of this chapter have been satisfied.
(13) Where the proposed activity is use of special nuclear material
in a plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant or a spent fuel
reprocessing facility, the QA program satisfies the criteria in
appendix B of part 50 of this chapter.
(14) Where the proposed activity is use of special nuclear material
in a spent fuel reprocessing facility, all relevant statutory
provisions and appropriate regulations, including conditions required
under this part, have been satisfied.
(15) Where the application is for a license under this part for a
facility that is also a Department of Energy authorized pilot fuel
line, all relevant statutory provisions and appropriate regulations,
including the conditions required under this part that were not
satisfied by the Department of Energy's authorization, have been
satisfied.
(16) Where the proposed activity is a licensed operator for a spent
fuel reprocessing facility, the applicant meets the requirements of the
spent fuel reprocessing facility's approved operator licensing program.
(b) [Reserved]
0
20. Revise Sec. 70.23a to read as follows:
Sec. 70.23a Hearings required.
The Commission will hold a hearing on each application for issuance
of a license for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment
facility or a combined license for a spent fuel reprocessing facility.
The Commission will publish public notice of the hearing in the Federal
Register at least thirty (30) days before the hearing.
0
21. In Sec. 70.24, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.24 Criticality accident requirements.
(a) Each licensee authorized to possess special nuclear material in
a quantity exceeding 700 grams of contained uranium-235, 520 grams of
uranium-233, 450 grams of plutonium, 1,500 grams of contained uranium-
235 if no uranium enriched to more than 4 percent by weight of uranium-
235 is present, 450 grams of any combination thereof, or one-half such
quantities if massive moderators or reflectors made of graphite, heavy
water or beryllium may be present, must maintain in each area in which
such licensed special nuclear material is handled, used, or stored, a
monitoring system meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) and
using gamma- or neutron-sensitive radiation detectors that will
energize clearly audible alarm signals if accidental criticality
occurs, unless it is demonstrated that criticality is not credible
based on the laws of physics. This section is not intended to require
underwater monitoring when special nuclear material is handled or
stored beneath water shielding or to require monitoring systems when
special nuclear material is being transported when packaged in
accordance with the requirements of part 71 of this chapter.
(1) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
(3) The licensee must maintain emergency procedures for each area
in which criticality is credible to ensure that all personnel withdraw
to an area of safety upon the sounding of the alarm. These procedures
must include the conduct of drills to familiarize personnel with the
evacuation plan, and designation of responsible individuals for
determining the cause of the alarm, and placement of radiation survey
instruments in accessible locations for use in such an emergency. The
licensee must retain a copy of current procedures for each area as a
record for as long as licensed special nuclear material is handled,
used, or stored in the area. The licensee must retain any superseded
portion of the procedures for three years after the portion is
superseded.
* * * * *
0
22. In Sec. 70.25, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 70.25 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for
decommissioning.
(a) Each applicant for a specific license of the types described in
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of this section must submit a
decommissioning funding plan as described in paragraph (e) of this
section.
* * * * *
(3) A specific license, including a combined license, for a spent
fuel reprocessing facility.
* * * * *
0
23. In Sec. 70.31, revise paragraph (e) and add paragraph (f) to read
as follows:
Sec. 70.31 Issuance of licenses.
* * * * *
(e) No combined license for a spent fuel reprocessing facility or a
license to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility may be
issued until a hearing is completed and decision issued on the
application.
(f) Each combined license for a spent fuel reprocessing facility
will include the required inspections, tests, and analyses, including
those for emergency planning, that the licensee must perform, and that,
if met, are necessary
[[Page 38155]]
and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has
been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license.
0
24. In Sec. 70.32:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(2)(i), remove the phrase ``Two months'' and add in
its place the phrase ``Four months'';
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), remove the phrase ``Six months'' and add in
its place the phrase ``Twelve months'';
0
c. In paragraphs (d) and (e), remove the phrase ``two months'' and add
in its place the phrase ``twelve months''; and
0
d. Add paragraphs (l), (m), and (n).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 70.32 Conditions of licenses.
* * * * *
(l) No person may commence operation of a spent fuel reprocessing
facility until the Commission verifies through inspection that the
facility has been constructed and will operate in accordance with the
requirements of the license.
(m) A combined license for a spent fuel reprocessing facility will
be issued on condition that the Commission has ensured that the
prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses are performed. No person
may commence operation under a combined license for a spent fuel
reprocessing facility until the Commission finds that the acceptance
criteria identified within the combined license have been met. The
Commission shall publish notice of the inspection results in the
Federal Register.
(n) The Commission shall prescribe conditions necessary to
determine the qualifications of, and issue operator licenses to,
operators of spent fuel reprocessing facilities if operation of the
facility involves the manipulation of a control, as defined in Sec.
70.4 of this part. A spent fuel reprocessing facility licensee may not
permit the manipulation of the controls of any facility by anyone who
is not a licensed operator except in cases where a non-licensed
operator manipulates the controls under the direction and in the
presence of a licensed operator.
0
25. In Sec. 70.40, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 70.40 Ineligibility of certain applicants.
A license may not be issued to the Corporation, or to an applicant
for a spent fuel reprocessing facility, if the Commission determines
that:
(a) The Corporation, or the applicant for a spent fuel reprocessing
facility, is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign
corporation, or a foreign government; or
* * * * *
0
26. In Sec. 70.42, revise paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.42 Transfer of special nuclear material.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) For emergency shipments the transferor may accept oral
certification by the transferee that he or she is authorized by license
or registration certification to receive the type, form, and quantity
of special nuclear material to be transferred, specifying the license
or registration certificate number, issuing agency, and expiration
date, provided that the oral certification is confirmed in writing
within 10 days, through one of the methods described within this
section. The transferor must retain the written confirmation of the
oral certification for three years from the date of receipt of the
confirmation;
* * * * *
0
27. Revise Sec. 70.50 to read as follows:
Sec. 70.50 Reporting requirements.
Each licensee must report the applicable events as described in
appendix A to part 70 of this chapter.
Sec. 70.52 [Reserved]
0
28. Remove and reserve Sec. 70.52.
0
29. Revise Sec. 70.59 to read as follows:
Sec. 70.59 Effluent monitoring reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after January 1 of each year, and using an
appropriate method listed in Sec. 70.5(a) of this part, each licensee
authorized to possess and use special nuclear material for processing
and fuel fabrication, scrap recovery, conversion of uranium
hexafluoride, or in a spent fuel reprocessing facility, or uranium
enrichment facility must submit a report addressed: ATTN: Document
Control Desk, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, with a copy to the appropriate NRC Regional Office shown in
appendix D to part 20 of this chapter. The report must specify the
quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to
unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents during the previous
12 months of operation, and such other information as the Commission
may require to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the
public resulting from effluent releases. If quantities of radioactive
materials released during the reporting periods are significantly above
the licensee's design objectives previously reviewed as part of the
licensing action, the report must cover this specifically. On the basis
of these reports and any additional information the Commission may
obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may from time to
time require the licensee to take such action as the Commission deems
appropriate.
0
30. Revise Sec. 70.60 to read as follows:
Sec. 70.60 Applicability.
The regulations in Sec. 70.61 through Sec. 70.76 of this part
apply, in addition to other applicable Commission regulations, to each
applicant or licensee that is or plans to be authorized to possess
greater than a critical mass of special nuclear material, and engaged
in enriched uranium processing, fabrication of uranium fuel or fuel
assemblies, uranium enrichment, enriched uranium hexafluoride
conversion, plutonium processing, fabrication of mixed-oxide fuel or
fuel assemblies, scrap recovery of special nuclear material, or any
other activity that the Commission determines could significantly
affect public health and safety. For a spent fuel reprocessing facility
applicant or licensee, additional requirements beyond those described
in Sec. 70.61 through Sec. 70.76 of this part may be necessary, as
determined on a case-by-case basis, and may be required by this part or
other parts of this chapter, license condition or order. The
regulations in Sec. 70.61 through Sec. 70.76 do not apply to
decommissioning activities performed pursuant to other applicable
Commission regulations including Sec. 70.25 and Sec. 70.38 of this
part. Also, the regulations in Sec. 70.61 through Sec. 70.76 of this
part do not apply to activities that are licensed by the Commission
pursuant to other parts of this chapter.
0
31. In Sec. 70.61, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.61 Performance requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Each engineered or administrative control or control system
necessary to comply with paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section
must satisfy either (e)(1) or (2).
(1) The control or control system must be designated as an item
relied on for safety. The safety program, established and maintained
pursuant to Sec. 70.62 of this subpart, must ensure that each item
relied on for safety will be available and reliable to perform its
intended function when needed and in the context of the performance
requirements of this section.
(2) Structures credited with preventing or mitigating natural
phenomena-initiated accident sequences may be credited to demonstrate
compliance with the performance requirements in paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) of Sec. 70.61 of this part without being designated as an item
[[Page 38156]]
relied on for safety, if all of the following are met:
(i) The structures are designed in accordance with acceptable
standards that demonstrate the risks of natural phenomena-initiated
accident sequences are appropriately limited per the performance
requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of Sec. 70.61 of this
part;
(ii) The credit is only applied to the structural stability safety
function of a structure and does not apply to any other safety
function; and
(iii) The aspects of the structures that are credited to meet the
performance requirements are maintained available and reliable subject
to the requirements for management measures in Sec. 70.62(d) of this
part.
* * * * *
0
32. In Sec. 70.62, revising paragraph (c)(1)(vi) and remove and
reserve paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.62 Safety program and integrated safety analysis.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Each item relied on for safety identified pursuant to Sec.
70.61(e)(1) of this part and each structure addressed in Sec.
70.61(e)(2) of this part, the characteristics of its preventive,
mitigative, or other safety function, and the assumptions and
conditions under which the item is relied upon to support compliance
with the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61 of this part.
* * * * *
(3) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
33. In Sec. 70.64, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1) and
(a)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.64 Requirements for new facilities or new processes at
existing facilities.
(a) Baseline design criteria. Each prospective applicant or
licensee must address the following baseline design criteria in the
design of new facilities. Each existing licensee must address the
following baseline design criteria in the design of new processes at
existing facilities that require a license amendment under Sec. 70.72
of this part. The baseline design criteria must be applied to the
design of new facilities and new processes, but do not require
retrofits to existing facilities or existing processes (e.g., those
housing or adjacent to the new process); however, all facilities and
processes must comply with the performance requirements in Sec. 70.61
of this part. Licensees must maintain the application of these criteria
unless the analysis performed pursuant to Sec. 70.62(c) of this part
demonstrates that a given item is not relied on to meet the performance
requirements of Sec. 70.61 of this part.
(1) Quality standards and records. The design must be developed and
implemented in accordance with management measures, to provide adequate
assurance that items relied on for safety, and structures addressed in
Sec. 70.61(e)(2) of this part, will be available and reliable to
perform their function when needed. Appropriate records of these items
must be maintained by or under the control of the licensee throughout
the life of the facility.
* * * * *
(8) Inspection, testing, and maintenance. The design of items
relied on for safety, and structures addressed in Sec. 70.61(e)(2) of
this part, must provide for adequate inspection, testing, and
maintenance, to ensure their availability and reliability to perform
their function when needed.
* * * * *
0
34. In Sec. 70.65, revise paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.65 Additional content of applications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) A list briefly describing each item relied on for safety which
is identified pursuant to Sec. 70.61(e)(1) and any structures
addressed in Sec. 70.61(e)(2) of this part in sufficient detail to
understand their functions in relation to the performance requirements
of Sec. 70.61of this part;
* * * * *
0
35. In Sec. 70.72, revise paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 70.72 Facility changes and change process.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Does not degrade the safety function of a structure addressed
in 70.61(e)(2) of this part;
(4) Does not alter any item relied on for safety, listed in the
integrated safety analysis summary, that is the sole item preventing or
mitigating an accident sequence that exceeds the performance
requirements of Sec. 70.61 of this part; and
(5) Is not otherwise prohibited by this section, license condition,
or order.
* * * * *
0
36. Revise Sec. 70.73 to read as follows:
Sec. 70.73 Renewal of licenses.
Applications for renewal of a license must be filed in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 2.109, 70.21, 70.22, 70.33, 70.38, and 70.65 of this
chapter. A renewal application should be narrowly focused on the scope
of the renewal and contain as few documents as possible. Information
contained in previous applications, statements, or reports filed with
the Commission under the license may be incorporated by reference,
provided that these references are clear and specific.
Sec. 70.74 [Reserved]
0
37. Remove and reserve Sec. 70.74.
0
38. Revise and republish appendix A to part 70 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Reportable Safety Events.
(a) One hour reports. Events to be reported to the NRC
Operations Center within 1 hour of discovery, supplemented with the
information in (e)(1) of this appendix as it becomes available,
followed by a written report within 60 days:
(1) An inadvertent nuclear criticality (all facilities,
including part 50 of this chapter facilities).
(2) An acute intake by an individual of 30 mg or greater of
uranium in a soluble form.
(3) An acute chemical exposure to an individual from licensed
material or hazardous chemicals produced from licensed material that
exceeds the quantitative standards established to satisfy the
requirements in Sec. 70.61(b)(4) of this part.
(4) An event or condition such that no items relied on for
safety, as documented in the integrated safety analysis summary,
remain available and reliable, in an accident sequence evaluated in
the integrated safety analysis, to perform their function:
(i) In the context of the performance requirements in Sec.
70.61(b) and Sec. 70.61(c) of this part, or
(ii) Prevent a nuclear criticality accident (i.e., loss of all
controls in a particular sequence).
(b) Four hour reports. Within 4 hours of discovery, supplemented
with the information in (e)(1) of this appendix as it becomes
available, report events that prevent immediate protective actions
necessary to avoid exposures to radiation or radioactive materials
that could exceed regulatory limits or releases of licensed material
that could exceed regulatory limits (events may include fires,
explosions, toxic gas releases, etc.).
(c) Twenty-four hour reports. Within 24 hours of discovery,
supplemented with the information in (e)(1) of this appendix as it
becomes available, report:
(1) Any event or condition that results in the facility being in
a state that was not analyzed, was improperly analyzed, or is
different from that analyzed in the integrated safety analysis, and
which results in failure to meet the performance requirements of
Sec. 70.61 of this part.
(2) Loss or degradation of items relied on for safety that
results in failure to meet the performance requirement of Sec.
70.61 of this part, except where other reportability criteria have
been approved as defined in the integrated safety analysis and
documented in the license application.
[[Page 38157]]
(3) An acute chemical exposure to an individual from licensed
material or hazardous chemicals produced from licensed materials
that exceeds the quantitative standards that satisfy the
requirements of Sec. 70.61(c)(4) of this part.
(4) Any natural phenomenon or other external event, including
fires internal and external to the facility, that has affected or
may have affected the intended safety function or availability or
reliability of one or more items relied on for safety or structures
identified under 70.61(e) of this part.
(5) An unplanned contamination event that:
(i) Requires access to the contaminated area, by workers or the
public, to be restricted for more than 24 hours by imposing
additional radiological controls or by prohibiting entry into the
area;
(ii) Involves a quantity of material greater than five times the
lowest annual limit on intake specified in appendix B of Sec. Sec.
20.1001-20.2401 of part 20 of this chapter for the material; and
(iii) Has access to the area restricted for a reason other than
to allow isotopes with a half-life of less than 24 hours to decay
prior to decontamination.
(iv) Exceptions: when the unplanned contamination event occurs
in a restricted area which is maintained inaccessible to the public
by multiple access controls, the area was controlled as a
radioactive material area within a building before the event
occurred, the release of radioactive material is contained within
the radioactive material area and no contamination has spread
outside the radioactive materials area, licensee personnel trained
in contamination control are readily available, equipment and
facilities that may be needed for contamination control are readily
available, and the otherwise reportable unplanned contamination
event is documented in the licensee's corrective action program.
(6) An event in which equipment is disabled or fails to function
as designed when:
(i) The equipment is required by regulation or licensee
condition to prevent or mitigate releases exceeding regulatory
limits or exposures to radiation and radioactive materials exceeding
regulatory limits;
(ii) The equipment is required to be available and operable when
it is disabled or fails to function; and
(iii) No redundant equipment is available and operable to
perform the required safety function.
(7) An event that requires unplanned medical treatment at an
offsite medical facility of an individual with spreadable
radioactive contamination on the individual's clothing or body.
(8) An unplanned fire or explosion damaging any licensed
material or any device, container, or equipment containing licensed
material when:
(i) The quantity of material involved is greater than five times
the lowest annual limit on intake specified in appendix B of
Sec. Sec. 20.1001-20.2401 of part 20 of this chapter for the
material; and
(ii) The damage affects the integrity of the licensed material
or its container.
(d) Written report. Each licensee that makes a report required
by this appendix must submit a written follow-up report within 60
days of the initial report. Written reports prepared pursuant to
other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if
the report contains all the necessary information, and the
appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be sent
to the NRC's Document Control Desk, using an appropriate method
listed in Sec. 70.5(a) of this part, with a copy to the appropriate
NRC regional office listed in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter.
The reports must include the following:
(i) Complete applicable information required by (e)(1) of this
appendix;
(ii) The probable cause of the event, including all factors that
contributed to the event and the manufacturer and model number (if
applicable) of any equipment that failed or malfunctioned;
(iii) Corrective actions taken or planned, and the results of
any evaluations or assessments; and
(iv) For licensees subject to subpart H of this part, whether
the event was identified and evaluated in the integrated safety
analysis.
(e) Preparation and submission of reports. Reports made by
licensees in response to the requirements of this appendix must be
made as follows:
(1) Reports must be made by a knowledgeable licensee
representative and by any method that will ensure compliance with
the required time period for reporting, such as by telephone at the
numbers specified in appendix A to part 73 of this chapter, to the
NRC Operations Center. To the extent that the information is
available at the time of notification, the information provided in
these reports must include:
(i) Caller's name, position title, and call-back telephone
number;
(ii) Date, time, and exact location of the event;
(iii) Description of the event, including:
(A) Radiological or chemical hazards involved, including
isotopes, quantities, and chemical and physical form of any material
released;
(B) Actual or potential health and safety consequences to the
workers, the public, and the environment, including relevant
chemical and radiation data for actual personnel exposures to
radiation or radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals produced
from licensed materials (e.g., level of radiation exposure,
concentration of chemicals, and duration of exposure);
(C) The sequence of occurrences leading to the event, including
degradation or failure of structures, systems, equipment,
components, and activities of personnel relied on to prevent
potential accidents or mitigate their consequences; and
(D) Whether the remaining structures, systems, equipment,
components, and activities of personnel relied on to prevent
potential accidents or mitigate their consequences are available and
reliable to perform their function;
(iv) External conditions affecting the event;
(v) Additional actions taken by the licensee in response to the
event;
(vi) Status of the event (e.g., whether the event is ongoing or
was terminated);
(vii) Current and planned site status, including any declared
emergency class;
(viii) Notifications, related to the event, that were made or
are planned to any local, State, or other Federal agencies; and
(ix) Status of any press releases, related to the event, that
were made or are planned.
(2) Follow-up information to the reports must be provided until
all information required to be reported in (e)(1) of this appendix
is complete.
(3) Each licensee must provide reasonable assurance that
reliable communication with the NRC Operations Center is available
during each event.
(4) The provisions of this appendix, except for (a)(1), do not
apply to licensees subject to Sec. 50.72 or Sec. 53.1630 of this
chapter. They do apply to those part 50 or part 53 of this chapter
licensees possessing material licensed under part 70 of this chapter
that are not subject to the notification requirements in Sec. 50.72
or Sec. 53.1630 of this chapter.
(f) For a spent fuel reprocessing facility, additional reporting
requirements beyond those described in this appendix may be
necessary, as determined on a case-by-case basis.
PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-
RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE
0
39. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63,
65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42
U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e,
2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a),
132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C.
10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168,
10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
0
40. In Sec. 72.2, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 72.2 Scope.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 72.6(b) of this part, licenses
issued under this part are limited to the receipt, transfer, packaging,
and possession of:
(1) Power reactor spent fuel to be stored in a complex that is
designed and constructed specifically for storage of power reactor
spent fuel, other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel
storage, and power reactor-related GTCC waste in a solid form in an
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI); or
[[Page 38158]]
(2) Power reactor spent fuel to be stored in a monitored
retrievable storage installation (MRS) owned by DOE that is designed
and constructed specifically for the storage of spent fuel, high-level
radioactive waste that is in a solid form, other radioactive materials
associated with storage of these materials, and power reactor-related
GTCC waste that is in a solid form.
* * * * *
0
41. In Sec. 72.3, revise the definition of Spent nuclear fuel or Spent
fuel to read as follows:
Sec. 72.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Spent nuclear fuel or Spent fuel means fuel that has been withdrawn
from a nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements
of which have not been separated by reprocessing.
* * * * *
0
42. In Sec. 72.42, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 72.42 Duration of license; renewal.
* * * * *
(b) Applications for renewal of a license should be filed in
accordance with the applicable provisions of subpart B of this part at
least 30 days before the expiration of the existing license. The
application must also include design basis information as documented in
the most recently updated FSAR as required by Sec. 72.70 of this part.
Information contained in previous applications, statements, or reports
filed with the Commission under the license may be incorporated by
reference provided that these references are clear and specific.
* * * * *
0
43. In Sec. 72.44, revise paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 72.44 License conditions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) An annual report, or reports, be developed and maintained
specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released
to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the
previous 12 months. The time between the development of the report, or
reports, must be no longer than 12 months. The report, or reports, must
include any information that may be required by the Commission to
estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public
resulting from effluent releases. The report, or reports, must be
maintained as records until termination of the license. The technical
specifications required by paragraph (d) of this section must include
requirements for when such a report, or reports, must be submitted to
the Commission as specified in Sec. 72.4 of this part. On the basis of
these reports and any additional information that the Commission may
obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may require the
licensee to take action as the Commission deems appropriate.
* * * * *
0
44. In Sec. 72.48, revise paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4)(iii) and (b) and
remove and reserve paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 72.48 Changes, tests, and experiments.
(a) * * *
(2) Departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as
updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety
analyses means:
(i) Changing any of the elements of the method described in the
FSAR (as updated) unless the analysis results in no more than a minimal
increase in the applicable safety margins; or
(ii) Changing from a method described in the FSAR to another method
unless that method has been approved by NRC for the intended
application or would only have a minor impact on safety.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) The evaluations included in the FSAR (as updated) for such
SSCs which demonstrate that their intended function(s) will be
accomplished.
* * * * *
(b) This section applies to:
(1) Each holder of a specific license issued under this part,
(2) Each holder of a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) issued under
this part, and
(3) Each holder of a general license prior to initiating site
specific, technical changes required from evaluation of Sec.
72.212(b)(7) of this part.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
45. In Sec. 72.122, revise paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 72.122 Overall requirements.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) The spent fuel must be protected during storage against
degradation, including gross ruptures of the fuel cladding, if used, or
the fuel must be otherwise confined such that degradation of the fuel
during storage will not pose operational safety problems with respect
to its removal from storage. This may be accomplished by confining the
fuel or unconsolidated assemblies or other means as appropriate.
* * * * *
0
46. In Sec. 72.212, revise paragraphs (b)(1) through (3), (b)(5)(i),
and (b)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 72.212 Conditions of general license issued under Sec. 72.210.
* * * * *
(b) The general license must:
(1) Notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission using instructions in
Sec. 72.4 of this part at least 30 days before first storage of spent
fuel under this general license. The notice may be in the form of a
letter, but must contain the licensee's name, address, reactor license
and docket numbers, and the name and means of contacting a person
responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel
under this general license. A copy of the submittal must be sent to the
administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional
office listed in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter.
(2) Register use of each cask with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission no later than 90 days after using that cask to store spent
fuel. This registration may be accomplished by submitting a letter
using instructions in Sec. 72.4 of this part containing the following
information: the licensee's name and address, the licensee's reactor
license and docket numbers, the name and title of a person responsible
for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage
under this general license, the cask certificate number, the CoC
amendment number to which the cask conforms, unless loaded under the
initial certificate, cask model number, and the cask identification
number. A copy of each submittal must be sent to the administrator of
the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office listed in
appendix D to part 20 of this chapter.
(3) Ensure that each cask used by the general licensee conforms to
the terms, conditions, and specifications of an issued CoC or amended
CoC.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) The cask once loaded with spent fuel or once the changes
authorized by an amended CoC have been applied, will conform to the
terms, conditions, and specifications of an issued CoC or an amended
CoC.
* * * * *
(7) Evaluate any site specific changes to the written evaluations
required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this
[[Page 38159]]
section using the requirements of Sec. 72.48(c) of this part. A copy
of this record must be retained until spent fuel is no longer stored
under the general license issued under Sec. 72.210 of this part.
* * * * *
0
47. Revise Sec. 72.214 to read as follows:
Sec. 72.214 Issued certificates of compliance.
Dry storage systems are approved for the storage of spent fuel
under the conditions in the issued Certificates of Compliance. The list
of issued Certificates of Compliance is available here: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/designs.
PART 140--FINANCIAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY
AGREEMENTS
0
48. The authority citation for part 140 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 170, 223, 234
(42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of
1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
0
49. In Sec. 140.2, add paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 140.2 Scope.
(a) * * *
(5) To each person licensed pursuant to part 70 of this chapter to
construct and operate a spent fuel reprocessing facility.
* * * * *
0
50. In Sec. 140.7, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 140.7 Fees.
* * * * *
(c)(1) Each spent fuel reprocessing facility licensee required to
enter into an indemnification agreement must pay an indemnity agreement
fee to the Commission in the amount determined by the Commission on a
case-by-case basis, depending upon the specifics of each application.
(2) Each person licensed to possess and use plutonium in a
plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant must pay to the
Commission a fee of $5,000 per year for indemnification. This fee is
for the period beginning with the date on which the applicable
indemnity agreement is effective.
* * * * *
0
51. Add Sec. 140.13c to read as follows:
Sec. 140.13c Amount of liability insurance required for spent fuel
reprocessing facilities.
Each holder of a license issued under part 70 of this chapter for a
spent fuel reprocessing facility that involves the use of source
material or special nuclear material is required to have and maintain
liability insurance. The liability insurance must be the type and in
the amounts the Commission considers appropriate to cover liability
claims arising out of any occurrence within the United States that
causes, within or outside the United States, bodily injury, sickness,
disease, death, loss of or damage to property, or loss of use of
property arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic,
explosive, or other hazardous properties of chemical compounds
containing source material or special nuclear material. Proof of
liability insurance must be filed with the Commission as required by
Sec. 140.15 of this part before issuance of a license for a spent fuel
reprocessing facility under part 70 of this chapter.
Dated: June 22, 2026.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carrie Safford,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-12702 Filed 6-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P