Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81849 

1Email dated April 20, 2012 from G. Bowman 

requesting withdrawal of 10 CFR 50.46a final rule 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML121500380). 

submitted a petition for rulemaking 

requesting that the NRC amend its 

regulations to allow licensees to use an 

alternative to the double-ended 

guillotine break of the largest pipe in the 

reactor coolant system in emergency 

core cooling system (ECCS) evaluation 

models (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML082460625). The NRC docketed the 

petition as PRM–50–75, and on April 8, 

2002, published a notice of docketing in 

the Federal Register and requested 

public comment (67 FR 16654). The 

comment period closed on June 24, 

2002, and the NRC received 18 

comment letters (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML022390515). 

After evaluating the merits of the 

petition and the public comments, the 

NRC determined that the issues raised 

in PRM–50–75 would be considered in 

the ongoing ‘‘Risk-Informed 

Redefinition of Large Break Loss-ofCoolant Accident (LOCA) Emergency 

Core Cooling System (ECCS) 

Requirements’’ rulemaking. On 

November 6, 2008, the NRC published 

a document in the Federal Register (73 

FR 66000) stating that the NRC would 

address the substantive comments filed 

in PRM–50–75 as part of that 

rulemaking. 

II. Discussion 

A. Discontinuation of the Rulemaking 

On December 10, 2010, the NRC staff 

provided the Commission SECY–10– 

0161, ‘‘Final Rule: Risk-Informed 

Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident 

Technical Requirements (10 CFR 

50.46a)(RIN 3150–AH29).’’ Subsequent 

to the accident at Fukushima Dai-Ichi 

Nuclear Plant in March of 2011, the 

NRC staff requested Commission 

approval to withdraw the draft final rule 

during its evaluation of Fukushima 

Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 

1 regarding the development of a new 

risk-informed regulatory framework 

from SECY–11–0093, ‘‘Near-Term 

Report and Recommendations for 

Agency Actions Following The Events 

in Japan,’’ and the recent publication of 

NUREG–2150, ‘‘A Proposed Risk 

Management Regulatory Framework.’’ 

The staff stated that: 

Although the staff believes that the draft 

final 10 CFR 50.46a rule is an appropriate 

and well-founded approach to risk-inform 

the NRC’s emergency core cooling 

requirements, the staff requests that SECY– 

10-0161 be withdrawn from Commission 

consideration so that it may be resubmitted 

later after the staff has completed its 

regulatory framework evaluation. When the 

staff establishes its recommended approach, 

it will re-evaluate the draft final 10 CFR 

50.46a rule to ensure its compatibility with 

the recommended regulatory framework. 

Based on the outcome of the compatibility 

evaluation and the completion of any 

necessary changes, the staff will re-submit 

the draft final 10 CFR 50.46a rule with or 

shortly after providing its regulatory 

framework recommendation to the 

Commission.1

In SECY–16–0009, 

‘‘Recommendations Resulting from the 

Integrated Prioritization and ReBaselining of Agency Activities’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML16028A189) 

dated January 31, 2016, the NRC staff 

requested Commission approval of work 

to be shed, deprioritized, or performed 

with fewer resources. One of the items 

to be discontinued was the riskinformed loss-of-coolant accident 

rulemaking (Item 1 of Enclosure 1 to 

SECY–16–0009). 

This rule would have provided a 

voluntary alternative to current 

regulatory requirements. However, at a 

public meeting to discuss the Risk 

Management Regulatory Framework 

paper (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15026A328), certain industry 

representatives indicated that the 

nuclear industry would not be 

interested in implementing the final 

rule. The NRC staff’s regulatory analysis 

for the draft final rule (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML103230250) also 

discussed comments submitted by the 

Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group, 

which conveyed the view that it would 

be difficult to evaluate the cost-benefit 

of the rule due to uncertainties about 

the cost of adopting the rule. 

The Commission approved the 

discontinuation of the rulemaking in the 

staff requirements memorandum (SRM) 

to SECY–16–0009. On October 6, 2016, 

the NRC published a notice in the 

Federal Register informing the public of 

its decision to discontinue the 10 CFR 

50.46a ECCS rulemaking. The NRC 

stated that it had ‘‘decided not to 

proceed with this rulemaking activity 

because there is minimal adverse impact 

on our mission, principles, or values 

and the industry has indicated that 

there may not be much interest in 

implementing the final rule’’ (81 FR 

69447). 

B. Denial of PRM–50–75 

Under 10 CFR 2.803(i)(2), after closing 

the docket for a PRM under 

§ 2.803(h)(2)(ii) by addressing it in an 

ongoing rulemaking, if the NRC decides 

not to complete the rulemaking, the 

PRM is documented as denied. In SRM– 

SECY–16–0009, the Commission 

approved discontinuation of the riskinformed LOCA requirements 

rulemaking, which was the rulemaking 

identified to address PRM–50–75. 

Therefore, the NRC is denying PRM–50– 

75 without prejudice. 

III. Conclusion 

The NRC previously discontinued the 

risk-informed LOCA requirements 

rulemaking and is therefore denying 

without prejudice PRM–50–75 for the 

reasons discussed in this document. 

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27364 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Chapter I 

[NRC–2020–0065] 

Transfer of Very Low-Level Waste To 

Exempt Persons for Disposal 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a 

proposed interpretation of its low-level 

radioactive waste disposal regulations 

that would permit licensees to dispose 

of waste by transfer to persons who hold 

specific exemptions for the purpose of 

disposal by burial. The proposal is being 

withdrawn based on the NRC staff’s 

assessment that the proposed changes 

may not benefit the regulatory 

framework for the disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste. 

DATES: The proposed interpretive rule is 

withdrawn as of December 17, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2020–0065 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–2020–0065. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 

telephone: 301–287–9127; email: 

Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individuals listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

81850 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 

for each document referenced (if it is 

available in ADAMS) is provided the 

first time that it is mentioned in this 

document. 

• Attention: The PDR, where you may 

examine and order copies of public 

documents is currently closed. You may 

submit your request to the PDR via 

email at PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 

1–800–397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maurice Heath, telephone: 301–415– 

3137, email: Maurice.Heath@nrc.gov 

and Stephen Dembek, telephone: 301– 

415–2343, email: Stephen.Dembek@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

6, 2020, the NRC issued a proposed 

interpretation of paragraph 20.2001(a)(1) 

of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations in the Federal Register (85 

FR 13076). The proposed interpretation 

would have expanded, in guidance, the 

meaning of ‘‘authorized recipient’’ in 

§ 20.2001, allowing for the disposal of 

very low-level radioactive waste 

(VLLW) at approved non-licensed 

disposal sites in accordance with 

technical and regulatory requirements 

established by the NRC or Agreement 

States for granting such an exemption. 

This change would have had the 

effect of providing a regulatory 

approach that, in addition to that 

specified by § 20.2002, allowed the 

transfer and disposal of certain VLLW in 

hazardous and solid waste disposal 

facilities having explicit approval to 

dispose of VLLW. In cases where the 

waste disposal site had an approval 

(exemption) for disposing of VLLW, the 

use of § 20.2001 by the licensee would 

not have required additional, specific 

approval to transfer VLLW to that 

disposal site under certain 

circumstances. 

The NRC sought comments on the 

proposed interpretive rule in order to 

engage stakeholders on the merits of the 

idea and collect feedback prior to 

making a decision on whether or not to 

move forward with the proposed 

interpretation. The comment period was 

extended in response to requests related 

to the COVID–19 Public Health 

Emergency and closed on October 21, 

2020 (85 FR 45809). 

The NRC received approximately 200 

individual comment submissions and 

approximately 15,000 form letter 

submissions. The vast majority of these 

comments opposed the proposed 

interpretive rule. The major comment 

themes included: 

The NRC should complete the 2018 

VLLW Scoping Study, address the 

comments already submitted, and 

publicize the results instead of pursuing 

the proposed interpretive rule. 

The current regulations for the 

disposal of VLLW are sufficient and 

already allow for an alternate method of 

disposal on a case-by-case basis under 

the provisions of § 20.2002. 

The NRC should pursue rulemaking 

to provide a definition of VLLW that can 

be used across the industry if a 

regulatory change is pursued. Changes 

to LLW regulations, including the 

definitions of authorized recipient and 

VLLW, should be pursued via the 

formal rulemaking process and not as an 

interpretation to an existing regulation. 

This approach would be more in 

keeping with the provisions of the 

Administrative Procedures Act. 

The NRC and/or Agreement State 

should provide opportunities for public 

involvement during the exemption 

review process that evaluates a disposal 

facility request to become an authorized 

recipient for the disposal of VLLW. 

The approval process should consider 

the need for an NRC or Agreement State 

environmental review related to the 

proposed VLLW disposal sites. 

The NRC should provide an 

explanation of the implementation of 

the proposed interpretation. Specific 

comments questioned how 

implementation would be managed 

across various Agreement State 

programs, the methods for verifying that 

VLLW disposals were conducted as 

intended, and requested clarification of 

oversight responsibilities in the event 

that provisions of an exemption for 

disposal were challenged or found not 

to have been met. 

Implementation of the proposed 

interpretive rule should consider 

potential impacts on existing state and 

LLW compact requirements, including 

additional burdens on state agencies 

that would be the primary regulatory 

body involved in the review, approval, 

and oversight of disposal sites wishing 

to obtain an exemption for VLLW 

disposal. Specific comments questioned 

how the proposed change could affect 

the LLW disposal agreements already in 

place amongst various states involved in 

the LLW compact system. 

In addition, the Organization of 

Agreement States Board and 10 

individual Agreement States provided 

comments that did not support the 

NRC’s expanded definition of 

‘‘authorized recipient.’’ Most Agreement 

State comments also cited the 

restrictions in individual states that 

would prevent them from implementing 

the expanded definition. 

The NRC staff assesses that the 

potential main benefit of the proposed 

interpretive rule—the potential for 

fewer regulatory approvals related to 

disposal at an authorized disposal site— 

would not outweigh the costs of 

implementing the proposed interpretive 

rule, especially given the lack of 

Agreement State support and a limited 

number of potential users. Therefore, 

the NRC has decided to withdraw its 

proposed interpretation of ‘‘authorized 

recipient’’ related to the requirements in 

§ 20.2001 based on the conclusion that 

the proposed changes would not benefit 

the current regulatory framework for the 

disposal of VLLW. 

The information obtained through the 

public comments on this effort will be 

considered in other ongoing low-level 

waste program initiatives, including the 

staff’s Very Low-Level Waste Scoping 

Study. The scoping study is an ongoing 

action from SECY–16–0118, 

‘‘Programmatic Assessment of LowLevel Radioactive Waste Regulatory 

Program’’ (ADAMS Package Accession 

No. ML15208A305). The staff will 

continue to monitor the external 

environment and seek innovations in 

the low-level waste regulatory program. 

Dated: December 10, 2020. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Patricia K. Holahan, 

Director, Division of Decommissioning, 

Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27565 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P