Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Notices 21271 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an 

exemption from the requirements of any 

regulation of 10 CFR Chapter 1 (which 

includes 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii)) is an 

action that is a categorical exclusion, 

provided that: 

(i) There is no significant hazards 

consideration; 

(ii) There is no significant change in 

the types or significant increase in the 

amounts of any effluents that may be 

released offsite; 

(iii) There is no significant increase in 

individual or cumulative public or 

occupational radiation exposure; 

(iv) There is no significant 

construction impact; 

(v) There is no significant increase in 

the potential for or consequences from 

radiological accidents; and 

(vi) The requirements from which an 

exemption is sought involve: 

(A) Recordkeeping requirements; 

(B) Reporting requirements; 

(C) Inspection or surveillance 

requirements; 

(D) Equipment servicing or 

maintenance scheduling requirements; 

(E) Education, training, experience, 

qualification, requalification or other 

employment suitability requirements; 

(F) Safeguard plans, and materials 

control and accounting inventory 

scheduling requirements; 

(G) Scheduling requirements; 

(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity 

requirements; or 

(I) Other requirements of an 

administrative, managerial, or 

organizational nature. 

The requirements from which this 

exemption is sought involve only ‘‘(B) 

Reporting requirements’’ or ‘‘(G) 

Scheduling requirements’’ of those 

required by 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). 

The NRC staff’s determination that 

each of the applicable criteria for this 

categorical exclusion is met as follows: 

I. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i): There is no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Staff Analysis: The criteria for 

determining if an exemption involves a 

significant hazards consideration are 

found in 10 CFR 50.92. The proposed 

action involves only a schedule change 

regarding the submission of an update 

to the application for which the 

licensing review is currently suspended. 

Therefore, there are no significant 

hazard considerations because granting 

the proposed exemption would not: 

(1) Involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or 

(2) Create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) Involve a significant reduction in 

a margin of safety. 

II. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii): There is no 

significant change in the types or 

significant increase in the amounts of 

any effluents that may be released 

offsite. 

Staff Analysis: The proposed action 

involves only a schedule change, which 

is administrative in nature, and does not 

involve any changes in the types or 

significant increase in the amounts of 

effluents that may be released offsite. 

III. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iii): There is 

no significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure. 

Staff Analysis: Since the proposed 

action involves only a schedule change, 

which is administrative in nature, it 

does not contribute to any significant 

increase in occupational or public 

radiation exposure. 

IV. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv): There is 

no significant construction impact. 

Staff Analysis: The proposed action 

involves only a schedule change which 

is administrative in nature. While the 

environmental portion of the 

application review is complete in that 

the final environmental impact 

statement is already issued, the safety 

portion of the COL application review 

has been suspended and no license will 

be issued prior to the NRC resuming the 

review and receipt of the 

aforementioned application’s December 

31, 2015, submittal of the revised FSAR; 

therefore, the proposed action does not 

involve any construction impact. 

V. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v): There is no 

significant increase in the potential for 

or consequences from radiological 

accidents. 

Staff Analysis: The proposed action 

involves only a schedule change which 

is administrative in nature and does not 

impact the probability or consequences 

of accidents. 

VI. 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi): The 

requirements from which this 

exemption is sought involve only ‘‘(B) 

Reporting requirements’’ or ‘‘(G) 

Scheduling requirements.’’ 

Staff Analysis: The exemption request 

involves requirements in both of these 

categories because it involves 

submitting an updated COL FSAR by 

December 31, 2015, and also relates to 

the schedule for submitting COL FSAR 

updates to the NRC. 

IV. Conclusion 

The NRC has determined that, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

exemption is authorized by law, will not 

present an undue risk to the public 

health and safety, and is consistent with 

the common defense and security. Also, 

special circumstances exist under 10 

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). This one-time 

exemption will support the NRC staff’s 

effective and efficient review of the COL 

application, when resumed, as well as 

issuance of the NRC staff’s safety 

evaluation report. Therefore, the NRC 

hereby grants UNE a one-time 

exemption from the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the 

BBNPP COL application to allow 

submittal of the next FSAR update on or 

before December 31, 2015. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22, the 

Commission has determined that the 

exemption request meets the applicable 

categorical exclusion criteria set forth in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), and the granting of 

this exemption will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of April 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Frank Akstulewicz, 

Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, 

Office of New Reactors. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08934 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 

72–41; NRC–2015–0093] 

Southern California Edison Company 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact; 

issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of exemptions in response to a 

request from Southern California Edison 

Company (SCE or the licensee) that 

would permit the licensee to reduce its 

emergency planning (EP) activities at 

the San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station (SONGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, and 

the Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation (ISFSI). The licensee is 

seeking exemptions that would 

eliminate the requirements to maintain 

offsite radiological emergency plans and 

reduce some of the onsite EP activities 

based on the reduced risks at the 

permanently shutdown and defueled 

reactors. Offsite emergency planning 

provisions would still exist using a 

comprehensive emergency management 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Notices 

plan (CEMP) process. The NRC staff is 

issuing a final Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and final Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

associated with the proposed 

exemptions. 

DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in 

this document are available on April 17, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0093 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0093. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

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. For the 

convenience of the reader, the ADAMS 

accession numbers are provided in a 

table in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ 

section of this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas J. Wengert, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

4037; email: Thomas.Wengert@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The NRC is considering issuance of an 

exemption concerning Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–13, NPF– 

10, and NFP–15, issued to SCE for the 

operation of SONGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, 

respectively, located in San Diego 

County, California. Therefore, as 

required by sections 51.20(b) and 

51.22(c) of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC 

performed an EA. Based on the results 

of the EA that follows, the NRC has 

determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

exemptions, and is issuing a finding of 

no significant impact. 

SONGS, Units 1, 2, and 3, are 

permanently shutdown and defueled 

power reactors in the process of 

decommissioning. SONGS is located in 

San Diego County, California, on the 

coast of the Pacific Ocean, 

approximately 51 miles north of San 

Diego, California. SCE is the holder of 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–13, 

NPF–10, and NFP–15 for SONGS, Units 

1, 2, and 3, respectively. SONGS, Unit 

1 was permanently shut down in 1993. 

On June 12, 2013, the licensee provided 

the certifications that SONGS, Units 2 

and 3, had permanently ceased power 

operations. On June 28 and July 22, 

2013, the licensee provided 

certifications that all fuel had been 

permanently removed from the SONGS, 

Units 3 and 2, reactors, respectively. As 

a permanently shutdown and defueled 

facility, and pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(2), SONGS is no longer 

authorized to operate the reactors or 

emplace fuel into the reactor vessels, 

but is still authorized to possess and 

store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated 

fuel is currently stored onsite at SONGS 

in spent fuel pools (SFPs) and in the 

ISFSI dry casks. The licensee has 

requested exemptions from certain EP 

requirements in 10 CFR part 50, 

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities,’’ for SONGS, Units 

1, 2, and 3, and the ISFSI. The NRC’s 

regulations concerning EP do not 

recognize the reduced risks after a 

reactor is permanently shut down and 

defueled. A permanently shutdown 

reactor must continue to maintain the 

same EP requirements as an operating 

reactor. To establish a level of EP 

commensurate with the reduced risks, 

SCE requires exemptions from certain 

EP regulatory requirements before it can 

change its emergency plans. 

The NRC is considering issuance of 

exemptions to SCE from portions of 10 

CFR 50.47, ‘‘Emergency plans,’’ and 10 

CFR part 50, appendix E, ‘‘Emergency 

Planning and Preparedness for 

Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ 

which would permit SCE to modify its 

emergency plan to eliminate the 

requirements to maintain offsite 

radiological emergency plans and 

reduce some of the onsite EP activities 

based on the reduced risks at SONGS, 

due to its permanently shutdown and 

defueled status. Consistent with 10 CFR 

51.21, the NRC staff has reviewed the 

requirements in 10 CFR 51.20(b) and 10 

CFR 51.22(c) and determined that an EA 

is the appropriate form of 

environmental review for the requested 

action. Based on the results of the EA, 

which is provided in Section II of this 

document, the NRC is issuing a final 

finding of no significant impact. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Description of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

SCE from meeting certain requirements 

set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and appendix 

E to 10 CFR part 50. More specifically, 

SCE requested exemptions from (1) 

certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) 

regarding onsite and offsite emergency 

response plans for nuclear power 

reactors, (2) certain requirements in 10 

CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume 

exposure and ingestion pathway EP 

zones for nuclear power reactors, and 

(3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 

50, appendix E, section IV, which 

establishes the elements that make up 

the content of emergency plans. The 

proposed action, granting these 

exemptions, would result in the 

elimination of the requirements for the 

licensee to maintain offsite radiological 

emergency plans and reduce some of the 

onsite EP activities at SONGS, based on 

the reduced risks at the permanently 

shutdown and defueled reactors. 

However, requirements for certain 

onsite capabilities to communicate and 

coordinate with offsite response 

authorities will be retained. If necessary, 

offsite protective actions could still be 

implemented using a CEMP process. A 

CEMP in this context, also referred to as 

an emergency operations plan (EOP), is 

addressed in the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s (FEMA) 

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 

(CPG) 101, ‘‘Developing and 

Maintaining Emergency Operations 

Plans.’’ CPG 101 is the foundation for 

State, territorial, Tribal, and local EP in 

the United States. It promotes a 

common understanding of the 

fundamentals of risk-informed planning 

and decisionmaking, and helps planners 

at all levels of government in their 

efforts to develop and maintain viable, 

all-hazards, all-threats emergency plans. 

An EOP is flexible enough for use in all 

emergencies. It describes how people 

and property will be protected; provides 

details regarding who is responsible for 

carrying out specific actions; identifies 

the personnel, equipment, facilities, 

supplies and other resources available; 

and outlines how all actions will be 

coordinated. A CEMP is often referred to 

as a synonym for ‘‘all-hazards 

planning.’’ 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Notices 21273 

March 31, 2014, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 9, October 2, 

October 7, October 27, November 3, and 

December 15, 2014. An additional 

supplemental letter dated October 6, 

2014, contains security-related 

information and is therefore, withheld 

from public disclosure. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed for 

SCE to revise the SONGS emergency 

plan to reflect the permanently 

shutdown and defueled status of the 

facility. The EP requirements currently 

applicable to SONGS are for operating 

power reactors. There are no explicit 

regulatory provisions distinguishing EP 

requirements for a power reactor that 

has been shut down from those for an 

operating power reactor. Therefore, 

since the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for 

SONGS no longer authorize operation of 

the reactors or emplacement or retention 

of fuel into the reactor vessels, as 

specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 

occurrence of postulated accidents 

associated with reactor operation is no 

longer credible. In its exemption 

request, the licensee identified the 

remaining possible accidents at SONGS 

in its permanently shutdown and 

defueled condition. The NRC staff 

evaluated these possible radiological 

accidents in the Commission Paper 

(SECY)–14–0144, dated December 17, 

2014. In SECY–14–0144, the staff 

verified that SCE’s analyses and 

calculations provide reasonable 

assurance that if the requested 

exemptions were granted, then (1) for a 

design-basis accident (DBA), an offsite 

radiological release will not exceed the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAGs) 

at the exclusion area boundary, as 

detailed in the EPA ‘‘PAG Manual, 

Protective Action Guides and Planning 

Guidance for Radiological Incidents,’’ 

dated March 2013, which was issued as 

Draft for Interim Use and Public 

Comment; and (2) in the unlikely event 

of a beyond DBA resulting in a loss of 

all SFP cooling, there is sufficient time 

to initiate appropriate mitigating 

actions, and in the unlikely event that 

a release is projected to occur, there is 

sufficient time for offsite agencies to 

take protective actions using a CEMP to 

protect the health and safety of the 

public. The Commission approved the 

NRC staff’s recommendation to grant the 

exemptions in the Staff Requirements 

Memorandum to SECY–14–0144, dated 

March 2, 2015. 

Based on these analyses, the licensee 

states that application of all of the 

standards and requirements of 10 CFR 

50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c), and 10 CFR 

part 50 appendix E, section IV, are not 

necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of those rules. SCE also states 

that it would incur undue costs in the 

maintenance of an emergency response 

organization in excess of that actually 

needed to respond to the diminished 

scope of credible accidents associated 

with a shutdown plant. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC staff concluded that the 

exemptions, if granted, will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents at SONGS in 

its permanently shutdown and defueled 

condition. There will be no significant 

change in the types of effluents that may 

be released offsite. There will be no 

significant increase in the amounts of 

any effluents that may be released 

offsite. There will be no significant 

increase in the individual or cumulative 

occupational or public radiation 

exposure. Therefore, there are no 

significant radiological environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have any foreseeable 

impacts to land, air, or water resources, 

including impacts to biota. In addition, 

there are also no known socioeconomic 

or environmental justice impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The proposed action does not involve 

the use of any different resources than 

those previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for SONGS, 

Units 2 and 3, dated April 1981, and the 

‘‘Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Facilities,’’ NUREG–0586, 

Supplement 1, dated November 2002. 

Agencies or Persons Consulted 

The NRC staff did not enter into 

consultation with any other Federal 

agency or with the State of California 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. On April 8, 2015, 

the California State representatives were 

notified of this EA and FONSI. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

The licensee has proposed 

exemptions from (1) certain 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) 

regarding onsite and offsite emergency 

response plans for nuclear power 

reactors; (2) certain requirements in 10 

CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume 

exposure and ingestion pathway EP 

zones for nuclear power reactors; and 

(3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 

50, appendix E, section IV, which 

establishes the elements that make up 

the content of emergency plans. The 

proposed action of granting these 

exemptions would result in the 

elimination of the requirements for the 

licensee to maintain offsite radiological 

emergency plans and reduce some of the 

onsite EP activities at SONGS, based on 

the reduced risks at the permanently 

shutdown and defueled reactor. 

However, requirements for certain 

onsite capabilities to communicate and 

coordinate with offsite response 

authorities will be retained. 

The NRC staff decided not to prepare 

an environmental impact statement for 

the proposed action. On the basis of the 

EA included in Section II of this 

document, the NRC staff concludes that 

the proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC staff has determined that a finding 

of no significant impact is appropriate. 

IV. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21274 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Notices 

Document 

ADAMS Accession No./

Web link/ 

Federal Register citation 

Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, Version 2.0, 

November 2010.

http://www.fema.gov. 

Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 72–041, Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, dated March 31, 2014.

ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14092A332. 

Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 72–041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI dated, 

September 9, 2014.

ML14258A003. 

Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 72–041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI dated 

October 2, 2014.

ML14280A265. 

Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 72–041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI dated 

October 7, 2014.

ML14287A228. 

Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 72–041, Response to Requests for Clarification of October 6, 2014 RAI 

Responses concerning Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 

2, 3, and ISFSI, dated October 27, 2014.

ML14303A257. 

Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 72–041, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

Emergency Planning Exemption Request, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI, dated 

November 3, 2014.

ML14309A195. 

Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–361, 50–362, and 72–041, Redacted Version of Response to Request for Additional Information Proposed Exemptions from Certain Portions of 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 and ISFSI, dated December 15, 2014.ML14351A078. 

Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Draft for Interim Use and Public Comment, March 2013.

http://www.epa.gov. 

SECY 14–0144, ‘‘Request by Southern California Edison for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,’’ dated December 17, 2014.ML14251A554. 

Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY–14–0144, dated March 2, 2015 ................................................................. ML15061A521. 

Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, dated April 30, 1981.

ADAMS Legacy Library 

Accession No. 

8105180391. 

NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, ‘‘Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, issued November 2002.ADAMS Accession No. 

ML023470327. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of April 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Meena K. Khanna, 

Chief, Plant Licensing IV–2 and 

Decommissioning Transition Branch, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08929 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2015–0044] 

Guidance for Evaluation of Acute 

Chemical Exposures and Proposed 

Quantitative Standards 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft interim staff guidance; 

supplemental information; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is providing 

supplemental information to an earlier 

notice, appearing in the Federal 

Register on March 4, 2015, which 

requested comment on a draft interim 

staff guidance (ISG), ‘‘Guidance for 

Evaluation of Acute Chemical 

Exposures and Proposed Quantitative 

Standards.’’ The draft ISG, if issued in 

final form, would supplement existing 

guidance in NUREG–1520, ‘‘Standard 

Review Plan for the Review of a License 

Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility,’’ 

by providing additional guidance and 

the descriptions of proposed 

quantitative standards for the NRC to 

follow when evaluating the integrated 

safety analysis (ISAs) of acute chemical 

exposures. This action is necessary to 

provide the public with the backfitting 

information with respect to the draft 

ISG, and includes references to the key 

documents on backfitting issues. The 

public comment period was originally 

scheduled to close on May 18, 2015. 

The NRC is extending the public 

comment period on this action to allow 

more time for members of the public to 

review the additional information on 

backfitting before submitting any 

comments. 

DATES: The due date of comments 

requested in the document published on 

March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11692) is 

extended. Comments should be filed no 

later than July 1, 2015. 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 (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2015–0044. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on accessing 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Diaz, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES