Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Notices 60507 

and on the NRC’s public website at 

https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov, or by 

telephone at 301–415–1677, to (1) 

request a digital identification (ID) 

certificate, which allows the participant 

(or its counsel or representative) to 

digitally sign submissions and access 

the E-Filing system for any proceeding 

in which it is participating; and (2) 

advise the Secretary that the participant 

will be submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public website at https://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

getting-started.html. After a digital ID 

certificate is obtained and a docket 

created, the participant must submit 

adjudicatory documents in Portable 

Document Format. Guidance on 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

public website at https://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A 

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. ET on the due date. Upon receipt 

of a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email confirming 

receipt of the document. The E-Filing 

system also distributes an email that 

provides access to the document to the 

NRC’s Office of the General Counsel and 

any others who have advised the Office 

of the Secretary that they wish to 

participate in the proceeding, so that the 

filer need not serve the document on 

those participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed to obtain access to 

the documents via the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

on the NRC’s public website at https:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., ET, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(b) through (d). 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving their documents 

on all other participants. Participants 

granted an exemption under 10 CFR 

2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic 

formatting requirement in 10 CFR 

2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also 

seeks and is granted an exemption from 

10 CFR 2.302(g)(1). 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket, which is 

publicly available at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the presiding 

officer. If you do not have an NRCissued digital ID certificate as 

previously described, click ‘‘cancel’’ 

when the link requests certificates and 

you will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any publicly 

available documents in a particular 

hearing docket. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

personal phone numbers in their filings 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants should not include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for license 

amendment dated August 10, 2023 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML23222A037). 

Attorney for licensee: Jon P. 

Christinidis, DTE Electric Company, 

Expert Attorney—Regulatory, 1635 

WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 

48226. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jeff Whited. 

Dated: August 29, 2023. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Surinder S. Arora, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18920 Filed 8–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2023–0113] 

Draft NUREG: Environmental 

Evaluation of Accident Tolerant Fuels 

With Increased Enrichment and Higher 

Burnup Levels 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft report; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment draft NUREG–2266, 

‘‘Environmental Evaluation of Accident 

Tolerant Fuels with Increased 

Enrichment and Higher Burnup Levels.’’ 

This study evaluates the reasonably 

foreseeable impacts of near-term 

accident tolerant fuel (ATF) 

technologies with increased enrichment 

and higher burnup levels to 8 wt% 

uranium-235 (U–235) and up to 80 

GWd/MTU, respectively, on the 

uranium fuel cycle, transportation of 

fuel and waste, and decommissioning 

for light-water reactors (LWRs) (i.e., a 

bounding analysis). 

DATES: Submit comments by October 31, 

2023. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods; 

however, the NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2023–0113. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• Mail Comments to: Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– 

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, ATTN: Program Management, 

Announcements and Editing Staff. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
60508 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Notices 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Palmrose, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–3803, email: 

Donald.Palmrose@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2023– 

0113 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–2023–0113. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

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

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

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

301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The draft 

NUREG, ‘‘Environmental Evaluation of 

Accident Tolerant Fuels with Increased 

Enrichment and Higher Burnup,’’ is 

available in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML23240A756. 

• 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 PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 

time (ET), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

B. Submitting Comments 

The NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website (https://

www.regulations.gov). Please include 

Docket ID NRC–2023–0113 in your 

comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at https://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Discussion 

To support efficient and effective 

licensing reviews of new accident 

tolerant fuels (ATFs) and to reduce the 

need for a complex site-specific 

environmental review for each ATF 

license amendment request, this study 

evaluated the likely impacts of nearterm ATF technologies with increased 

enrichment and higher burnup levels on 

the uranium fuel cycle, transportation of 

fuel and waste, and decommissioning 

for light-water reactors (LWRs) (i.e., a 

bounding analysis). Near-term ATF 

technologies are coated cladding, doped 

pellets, and (iron-chrome-aluminum) 

FeCrAl cladding. Other long-term ATF 

technologies are not a part of this study. 

The NRC staff evaluated the impact of 

increased enrichment and higher 

burnup levels by assessing and applying 

NRC-sponsored ATF technology reports, 

prior environmental reviews, 

transportation studies, and new or 

updated data sources to determine the 

bounding (generic) environmental 

impacts of deploying ATF technologies 

with increased enrichment and higher 

burnup levels in LWRs. 

The NRC initially considered the 

environmental impacts of the uranium 

fuel cycle in WASH–1248 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14092A628). There 

have been significant changes to the 

front-end processes and NRC-licensed 

facilities since the publication of 

WASH–1248. The most notable 

examples of these changes are extracting 

uranium from the ground using in situ 

recovery instead of traditional mining, 

performing all enrichment with gaseous 

centrifuges instead of gaseous diffusion, 

and electricity generation moving 

significantly away from the use of coal. 

The result of these various changes is to 

significantly reduce the environmental 

effects from the front-end of the 

uranium fuel cycle. Thus, the 

environmental effects of the front-end of 

the uranium fuel cycle from the 

deployment and use of ATF with 

increased enrichment is bounded by the 

environmental effects provided in Table 

S–3 under title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) section 51.51. 

Regarding the back-end of the 

uranium fuel cycle, the current practice 

of long-term storage and management of 

spent nuclear fuel (SNF) would still 

apply to the deployment and use of ATF 

with increased enrichment and higher 

burnup levels. Consistent with NRC 

regulations and thermal loading 

requirements for licensed spent fuel 

storage cask systems, specific cooling 

times in a spent fuel pool would be 

necessary prior to transferring the spent 

fuel to an Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation (ISFSI). 

A benefit from deployment and use of 

ATF with increased enrichment and 

higher burnup levels would be the 

longer times between refueling 

operations, which would lessen the 

average annual rate at which licensees 

place spent ATF assemblies into the 

spent fuel pools and ultimately transfer 

spent ATF assemblies to an ISFSI 

relative to the rate for traditional spent 

fuel. This could, in turn, lessen the 

overall amount of SNF stored at a site 

and lengthen the time before licensees 

need to expand an ISFSI relative to 

facilities using fuel with lower 

enrichments and lower burnup levels. 

This lessens the environmental impacts 

compared to what would occur with 

current fuel, which would be consistent 

with prior NRC environmental 

evaluations. Spent ATF storage would 

be consistent with earlier published 

analyses, would not require any 

significant departure from certified 

spent fuel shipping and storage 

containers, and would continue under 

an approved aging management 

program. 

In conducting the generic analysis in 

the Continued Storage Generic 

Environment Impact Statement (GEIS) 

of NUREG–2157, Volume 1 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14196A105) and 

NUREG–2157, Volume 2 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14196A107), the NRC 

staff applied conditions and parameters 

that are sufficiently conservative to 

bound the impacts such that any 

variances that may occur from site to 

site are unlikely to result in 

environmental impact determinations 

that are greater than those presented in 

the Continued Storage GEIS. Therefore, 

with respect to ATF storage, including 

spent ATF with increased enrichment 

and higher burnup levels, the storage 

period beyond the licensed life for 

operation of a reactor for spent ATF 

would conform with the analysis of the 

Continued Storage GEIS, and 

accordingly, the Continued Storage 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Notices 60509 

GEIS would bound the impacts from 

deployment and use of ATF. 

The analysis of the transportation of 

ATF and ATF waste with increased 

enrichment and higher burnup levels is 

based on shipment of low-level 

radioactive waste, unirradiated, and 

spent ATF, including with increased 

enrichments and higher burnup levels, 

by legal weight trucks in certified 

transport packages. The transportation 

impacts are divided into two parts. The 

first part considers normal conditions, 

or incident-free, transportation, and the 

second part considers transportation 

accidents. 

Shipments that take place without the 

occurrence of accidents are routine, 

incident-free shipments and the 

radiation doses to various receptors 

(exposed persons) are called incidentfree doses. The vast majority of 

radioactive shipments are expected to 

reach their destination without 

experiencing a transportation accident 

or incident or releasing any cargo (to 

date, there have been no shipments of 

spent fuel resulting in a release of 

radioactive material to the 

environment). As previously noted, 

deployment and use of ATF with 

increased enrichment and higher 

burnup levels could result in 

lengthening of the time between 

refueling operations, leading to an 

overall reduction of the number of spent 

fuel assemblies needing to be shipped 

offsite on an annual basis. Such 

reduction would have the effect to 

lessen the environmental impacts 

compared to what would occur with 

current fuel and refueling operations 

due to transportation of spent fuel. The 

incident-free impacts from these 

normal, routine shipments arise from 

the low levels of radiation that are 

emitted externally from the shipping 

container. 

Incident-free legal weight truck 

transportation of spent ATF, including 

spent ATF with increased enrichment 

and higher burnup levels, has been 

evaluated by considering shipments 

from six representative LWR sites to a 

postulated permanent geological 

repository for SNF in the western 

United States. As a surrogate for such a 

postulated permanent geologic 

repository, the NRC has used the 

proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada site 

for the transportation analysis. The six 

LWR sites from which the shipments 

originate include: 

• Brunswick Steam Electric Plant; 

• Columbia Generating Station; 

• Dresden Nuclear Power Station; 

• Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating 

Station Unit 2; 

• Millstone Power Station; and 

• Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. 

For each LWR site, the NRC staff 

considered and evaluated both boiling 

water reactor (BWR) and pressurized 

water reactor (PWR) spent ATF 

shipments, including with increased 

enrichment and higher burnup levels, 

for the purpose of impact comparison 

owing to the different release fractions 

for BWR and PWR fuel designs. 

Environmental impacts from these 

shipments would occur to persons 

residing along the transportation 

corridors between the reactor sites and 

the repository, to persons in vehicles 

passing the spent fuel shipments in the 

same and opposite directions, to 

persons at vehicle stops (such as rest 

areas, refueling stations, inspection 

stations, etc.), and to transportation 

crew members. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the transportation crew for 

truck spent fuel shipments consisted of 

two drivers. The regulatory maximum 

crew dose rate of 2 millirem(s) per hour 

(mrem/hr), and regulatory maximum 

transport package surface dose rate of 10 

mrem/hr at 2 meters is conservatively 

used in the analysis. The characteristics 

of specific shipping routes (e.g., 

population densities, shipping 

distances) influence the normal 

radiological exposures. 

The accident risks are the product of 

the likelihood of an accident involving 

a spent fuel shipment and the 

consequences of a release of radioactive 

material resulting from the accident. 

The likelihood of an accident is directly 

proportional to the number of fuel 

shipments. Accident risks also include 

a consequence term. Consequences are 

represented by the population dose from 

a release of radioactive material given 

that an accident occurs that leads to a 

breach in the shipping cask’s 

containment systems. Consequences are 

a function of the total amount of 

radioactive material in the shipment, 

the fraction that escapes from the 

shipping cask, the fraction of the release 

from the shipping cask that is 

aerosolized, the fraction of the release 

that is respirable, the dispersal of 

radioactive material to humans, and the 

characteristics of the exposed 

population. The NRC staff used the 

shipping distances and population 

distribution information for the regions 

pertaining to the sites used for the 

evaluation of the impacts of incidentfree transportation for accident impact 

evaluations. The NRC staff used the 

most recent available data on accident 

rates, release fractions, aerosolized 

fractions, and respirable fractions in this 

evaluation. 

The transportation impact evaluation 

includes the use of the NRC maintained 

NRC-Radioactive Material Transport 

(NRC–RADTRAN) transportation risk 

code package, pertinent fuel 

radionuclide inventory (source term) 

data, and external and accidental release 

characteristics, routing distance 

information, and population density by 

State along the route. The staff obtained 

routing information by running the 

Web-Based Transportation Routing 

Analysis Geographic Information 

System (WebTRAGIS) code. While the 

population density considered in 

WebTRAGIS is for the year 2012, based 

in part on the 2010 U.S. Census data, 

the staff extrapolated the population 

density to 2022 based on each State’s 

growth rate using 2010 and 2020 U.S. 

Census data. The staff compiled 

information with respect to vehicle 

daily traffic count, vehicle speed, 

vehicle accident, fatality, and injury 

rates from U.S. Department of 

Transportation data base and used that 

information in the NRC–RADTRAN 

analysis to determine single shipment 

impacts. To determine annual 

transportation impacts, the staff applied 

the normalized (annual) truck 

shipments of 52 shipments and 30 

shipments estimated spent ATF from a 

BWR and PWR, respectively. 

The NRC staff found the maximum 

normal conditions (i.e., incident-free) 

cumulative worker dose per year was 

bounded by the 4 person-rem value of 

Table S–4. This worker dose would be 

managed with multiple drivers available 

as the transportation crew so that the 

individual worker dose would be below 

the U.S. Department of Energy 

administrative limit of 2 rem per year 

and the NRC’s occupational exposure 

annual limit of 5 rem per year. PWR 

shipment cumulative public doses were 

at or slightly higher than the 3 personrem per year specified in the Table S– 

4. The NRC staff found the cumulative 

population dose per year for the BWR 

shipments to be higher than 3 personrem per year. However, both the BWR 

and PWR results are not significant 

when the related average individual 

dose is considered. Namely, the average 

individual doses along all routes and 

fuel types are well below 1 mrem per 

year, a small fraction of the average 

annual natural background radiation 

exposure of approximately 310 mrem, 

and within the Table S–4 range of doses 

to exposed individuals. These results 

are conservative because they are based 

on the transport package with the least 

capacity. Applying a transport package 

with a greater capacity would reduce 

the number of shipments resulting in a 

lower cumulative dose that would be 

less than the 3 person-rem of Table S– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
60510 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Notices 

4 as shown by the rail sensitivity case 

in this study (e.g., the GA–4 truck spent 

fuel transport can hold four PWR fuel 

assemblies, which would reduce the 

PWR cumulative doses by a factor of 4). 

The NRC staff found total accidental 

population risk per year due to transport 

of spent ATF, including spent ATF with 

increased enrichment and higher 

burnup levels, continued to demonstrate 

the low risks from both radiological and 

nonradiological accidents and is 

consistent with past transportation 

studies. The greater risk to a member of 

the public would be physical harm from 

an actual vehicle collision involving a 

spent ATF shipment, if such an event 

ever happens. While the nonradiological 

risk is the greater risk, the results of this 

study demonstrate that those risks 

would still not be significant and are 

less than the common (nonradiological) 

cause environmental risks of Table S–4. 

The results for spent ATF with 

increased enrichment and higher 

burnup are consistent with the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the transportation of fuel and 

radioactive wastes to and from currentgeneration reactors presented in Table 

S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. 

Based on the results of the impact 

analysis, shipment of near-term ATF 

technologies with enrichments of up to 

8 (wt%) uranium-235 (U–235) and 

higher burnup levels of up to 80 

gigawatt days per metric ton of uranium 

(GWd/MTU) would not significantly 

change the potential impacts of either 

incident-free or accident transportation 

risk. Hence, the transportation impacts 

of spent ATF are bounded by Table S– 

4. Therefore, the results of this analysis 

could serve as a reference in helping to 

address the environmental impacts of 

ATF licensing without a detailed sitespecific transportation analysis, as long 

as the ATF is within the enrichment and 

burnup levels with the associated fuel 

assembly radionuclide inventory and 

parameters applied in the analyses of 

this proposed NUREG. 

In the case of decommissioning, the 

expected impacts from deployment and 

use of ATF with increased enrichment 

and higher burnup levels would be the 

same as or slightly less than those from 

decommissioning nuclear power plants 

operating with the existing fuel. 

Additionally, the expected 

Decommissioning GEIS and guidance 

updates could build upon the analysis 

from this study to specifically address 

the decommissioning of a LWR 

deploying and using ATF. 

Therefore, based on findings in this 

study, the NRC staff concludes that the 

reevaluated findings addressing nearterm ATF technologies (i.e., coated 

cladding, doping, and FeCrAl cladding) 

indicate the environmental effects 

associated with deploying and using 

ATF would be bounded by the NRC 

staff’s prior analysis with enrichments 

up to 8 wt% U–235 and extending peakrod burnup to 80 GWd/MTU for the 

uranium fuel cycle, transportation of 

fuel and waste, and decommissioning. 

Additionally, if in a future licensing 

action, the enrichment and burnup 

levels are greater than 8 wt% U–235 and 

80 GWd/MTU, respectively, and for the 

deployment and use of long-term ATF 

technologies, the study could provide 

guidance for completing the needed 

revised analysis. 

As the NRC staff continues to prepare 

to review license applications related to 

ATF technologies and fuel with 

increased enrichment and higher 

burnup levels, the NRC staff will 

evaluate new industry developments 

and other activities before publishing 

the final NUREG to consider further 

refinements of the ATF environmental 

evaluation. For example, such new 

information could include results from 

ongoing licensing actions regarding the 

use of higher enrichment levels in fuel 

fabrication (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML22175A070). 

III. Specific Requests for Comments 

The NRC is seeking advice and 

recommendations from the public on 

the draft NUREG. We are particularly 

interested in comments and supporting 

rationale from the public on the 

following: 

Transportation Accident Release 

Fractions 

1. Previous transportation accident 

analyses have relied upon the use of 

release fractions in Table 7.31 from 

NUREG/CR–6672, ‘‘Reexamination of 

Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates,’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML003698324) 

for burnup levels up to 60 GWd/MTU. 

By subjecting LWR nuclear fuel to 

higher burnup levels, the radionuclide 

inventory available to be released is 

greater and material issues such as 

cladding embrittlement, fuel 

fragmentation, and additional 

diffusional release of fission products 

are expected to result in greater release 

fractions than assessed in NUREG/CR– 

6672. Therefore, Appendix B of the draft 

NUREG assessed the potential effects 

due to higher radiological material 

release fractions from the physical 

effects of higher burnup levels on the 

fuel pin cladding and the uranium fuel 

pellets. 

The NRC is seeking comment on the 

use of release fractions developed in 

Appendix B of the draft NUREG for 

higher burnup levels than previously 

considered under transportation 

accident conditions. 

Dated: August 29, 2023. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John M. Moses, 

Deputy Director, Division of Rulemaking, 

Environmental, and Financial Support, Office 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18966 Filed 8–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. CP2022–75; CP2022–91] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

a negotiated service agreement. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: September 6, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the Market Dominant or 

the Competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the Market 

Dominant or the Competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 

date, and the authority cited by the 

Postal Service for each request. For each 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1