This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

59158 

Vol. 75, No. 186 

Monday, September 27, 2010 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 54 

[Docket No. PRM–54–6; NRC–2010–0291] 

Earth Day Commitment/Friends of the 

Coast, Beyond Nuclear, Seacoast AntiPollution League, C–10 Research and 

Education Foundation, Pilgrim Watch, 

and New England Coalition; Notice of 

Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice 

of receipt. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has received and 

requests public comment on a petition 

for rulemaking dated August 18, 2010, 

submitted by Raymond Shadis and 

Mary Lampert on Behalf of Earth Day 

Commitment/Friends of the Coast, 

Beyond Nuclear, Seacoast AntiPollution League, C–10 Research and 

Education Foundation, Pilgrim Watch, 

and New England Coalition, for 

docketing as a petition for rulemaking 

under 10 CFR 2.802. In another letter 

dated August 18, 2010, Robin Read, 

State Representative for New 

Hampshire, requested to be included as 

a petitioner for this petition for 

rulemaking. The petition was docketed 

by the NRC and has been assigned 

PRM–54–6. The petitioners request that 

the NRC amend its regulations to permit 

a license renewal application no sooner 

than 10 years before the expiration of 

the current license and to apply the rule 

to all license renewal applications that 

have not yet been issued an NRC staff 

Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER). 

The petitioners also requested a freeze 

on all new relicensing activity until the 

rulemaking is decided. 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

13, 2010. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0291 in the subject line of 

your comments. For instructions on 

submitting comments and accessing 

documents related to this action, see 

‘‘Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

You may submit comments by any one 

of the following methods. 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0291. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

telephone 301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attn: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1966. 

Hand Deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

during Federal workdays (Telephone 

301–415–1966). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, 

Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, Telephone 301–492– 

3667, toll free 800–368–5642, 

Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be posted on the 

NRC Web site and on the Federal 

rulemaking Web site http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. The NRC requests that any 

party soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document, 

including the following documents, 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O– 

1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

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

or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 

accession number for the petition is 

ML1023803790. 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public 

comments and supporting materials 

related to this action, including the 

petition for rulemaking, can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID NRC–2010–0291. 

Petitioners 

The petitioners all have a residence or 

interests within 50 miles of the NextEra 

Seabrook Nuclear Generating Station, 

which has applied for license renewal 

(Docket 050–00443) at 10 CFR 54.17(c), 

20 years in advance of the end of its 

current license. The petitioning 

organizations all have members residing 

within 50 miles of NextEra Seabrook 

Nuclear Generating Station. The 

petitioners who are elected-officials 

represent constituents who reside 

within 50 miles of NextEra Seabrook 

Nuclear Generating Station. 

The petitioners are as follows: 

Friends of the Coast has been 

incorporated as a non-profit, for the 

public good, corporation in the State of 

Maine since 1995. Friends of the Coast 

has members who live within fifty miles 

of the NextEra Seabrook Nuclear 

Generating Station, which has applied 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59159 

for license renewal 20 years in advance 

of the expiration of its current license 

under 10 CFR 54.17(c). 

Beyond Nuclear is incorporated as a 

not for profit organization based in 

Takoma Park, MD, which aims to 

educate and activate the public about 

the connections between nuclear power 

and nuclear weapons. Beyond Nuclear 

has members who live and work within 

fifty miles of the NextEra Seabrook 

Nuclear Generating Station which has 

applied for a license renewal 20 years in 

advance of the expiration of its current 

license under 10 CFR 55.17(c). 

New England Coalition has been 

incorporated as a not for profit 

corporation in the State of Vermont 

since 1971. It has intervened in NRC 

licensing and license amendment 

proceedings at Vermont Yankee, Yankee 

Rowe, and Seabrook. 

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 

(SAPL). SAPL has worked since 1969 to 

protect the health, safety and general 

well-being of the New Hampshire 

Seacoast community from nuclear 

pollution and other threats to the 

environment. Most of SAPL’s members 

live and work within fifty miles of the 

NextEra Seabrook Nuclear Generating 

Station. 

New England Coalition has members 

who live within fifty miles of the 

NextEra Seabrook Nuclear Generating 

Station, which has applied for license 

renewal 20 years in advance of the 

expiration of its current license under 

10 CFR 54.17(c). 

Pilgrim Watch is a public interest 

organization located in Duxbury, MA. 

Pilgrim Watch is an intervener in the 

Entergy Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 

license renewal application. Pilgrim 

Watch has members who reside within 

50 miles of Seabrook Station. 

C–10 Research & Education 

Foundation is located in Newburyport, 

MA, and has members who reside 

within 50 miles of Seabrook Generating 

Station. C–10 maintains an 

environmental monitoring system in the 

vicinity of Seabrook Generating Station 

and provides public education on 

environmental and energy matters. 

Robin Read is a State Representative 

for the State of New Hampshire. 

Background 

Grounds for Action Requested 

The petitioners state that the NRC’s 

current regulation (10 CFR 54.17), is 

unduly non-conservative with respect to 

its effect on accuracy and completeness 

of the application, public participation, 

changing environmental consideration, 

aging analysis and management, 

regulatory follow-through, National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance, 

changing regulation, and more. The 

petitioners state that they seek to restore 

some margin of conservation by halving 

the lead time on license renewal 

applications from 20 to 10 years. 

The petitioners state that a 

rulemaking for 10 CFR 54.17(c) was 

conducted more than 15 years ago. The 

rulemaking took place before sweeping 

changes in NRC oversight and before 

economic and regulatory shifts that 

enabled unprecedented changes in 

ownership and an industry-wide shift of 

focus from anticipated 

decommissioning to uprate and license 

renewal. The petitioners state that the 

rulemaking cannot have contemplated 

how these changes have affected the 

dynamics of license renewal aging 

analysis and aging management 

planning over a period of 40 years (20 

years of current license, plus 20 years of 

extended period of operation). The 

petitioners claim that because the rule 

does not take into consideration its 

present context, the rule is antiquated 

and obsolete and must be reconsidered. 

The petitioners state that of 32 license 

renewals granted, none were filed 20 

years in advance of license expiration 

and only among 14 license renewal 

applications under consideration and 

filed in the last few years is an 

exception to be found, Seabrook StationUnit 1. The petitioners state that 

NextEra Seabrook has provided no 

credible justification for its very early 

filing. The petitioners state that the great 

majority of licensees have filed 

applications for license renewal within 

10 years of original license expiration 

without any apparent negative 

consequences. The petitioners believe 

that this experience is a clear 

demonstration that more than 10 years 

lead time is unnecessary and of little 

benefit. The petitioners state that filing, 

reviewing, and granting license renewal 

applications more than 10 years in 

advance of the original license 

expiration can have negative 

consequences. 

The petitioners state that the 

rulemaking for 10 CFR 54.17(c) 

proceeded without sufficient 

consideration of the impact of 20 year 

advance consideration of license 

renewal on the hearing rights of affected 

persons. By renewing the license of a 

nuclear power station 20 years in 

advance of the licensed extended period 

of operation NRC removes to the 

distance of a full generation, the 

opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing, 

a coming generation of affected 

residents, visitors, and commercial 

interests as yet unable or unprepared to 

speak for themselves. The petitioners 

state that 10 CFR 54.17(c) introduces the 

question of whether the action proposed 

is obtaining the license or entering into 

an extended period of operation 20 

years hence. The petitioners believe that 

the safety and environmental 

ramifications (the physical impact on 

affected persons) begin 20 years away. 

The petitioners state that 10 CFR 

54.17(c) allows for effective 

segmentation of the proposed action 

rendering the permission so far removed 

in time from the implementation as to 

provide an intellectual disconnect or, in 

effect, void legal notice. 

The petitioners state that 10 CFR 

54.17(c) allows licensees and NRC 

reviewing staff to press to untenable 

lengths the unproven ability to predict 

the aging and deterioration of systems, 

structures, and components (SSCs). The 

petitioners state that 10 CFR 54.17(c) 

promotes failure of the license renewal 

application to encompass the potential 

effects of an environment that is 

arguably changing at an unprecedented 

rate. The petitioners state that active 

proposals for more than 3,000 

megawatts of wind power are currently 

on the books in New England, with 

potential for 12,000 more. The 

petitioners state that it cannot be 

credibly projected over 20 years what 

wind power will then be available, in 

part because wind power projects are 

seldom, if ever, planned 20 years in 

advance. 

The petitioners state that filing for 

license renewal at mid-term of the 

current license finds the licensee at a 

place in SSC service life where in 

industry experience, few failures are 

observed and, generally, those that are 

observed are episodic or anomalous in 

nature and cannot be readily plotted as 

a trend for prediction purposes. The 

petitioners state that the time of an 

elevated rate of failures due to design, 

manufacturing, and construction defects 

has passed and is largely irrelevant to 

aging management in the proposed 

extended period of operation. The 

petitioners state that the anticipated 

end-of-design life and aging issues have 

barely, if at all, begun to emerge, so little 

or no plant-specific information on how 

a given plant will age is available to be 

trended, provide lessons, or otherwise 

illuminate the path forward. It is 

generally observed that for many SCCs 

this information flow rates increase 

rapidly in the fourth quarter and toward 

the end of a license. The petitioners 

state that this SSC reliability 

progression is well-known and often 

illustrated in the so-called ‘‘Bath Tub 

Curve.’’ Additionally, corrosion risk is a 

function of time. The petitioners state 

that the Beaver Valley NPP containment 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

issue provides a powerful example of 

operating experience emerging at a late 

date in a way that affects the license 

renewal. VT Yankee also provides a 

series of later life structural failures as 

additional examples. The petitioners 

state that it is appropriate, from a 

regulatory audit standpoint, to wait 

until applicable failure rate and 

observed aging phenomena data is in 

hand, before attempting time-limited 

aging analysis or aging management 

planning; less than 10; not less than 20 

years in advance of operating license 

expiration. 

The petitioners state that the current 

rule exacerbates NRC staff and licensee 

difficulty in following license renewal 

commitments. The petitioners state that 

license renewal applications are often 

approved with the proviso that certain 

commitments be made and fulfilled; 

generally before the period of extended 

operation begins. These commitments 

often include inspections, tests, 

analyses, and development of programs 

vital to safety and environmental 

protection. The petitioners state that 

regulatory experience shows NRC staff 

turnover, changes in oversight, licensee 

staff changes, and ownership (licensee) 

changes, greater in a 20-year period than 

a 10-year period, will at once 

complicate and place increased 

emphasis on proper handoff of 

unfulfilled licensee commitments. 

The petitioners state that 20 years 

from application to onset of extended 

operation will, based on regulatory 

history, certainly see an inordinate 

amount of applicable regulatory change, 

with lack of compliance likely to be 

grandfathered in. The petitioners state 

that current issues under consideration 

for treatment in the license renewal 

process include aging management for 

underground, buried, or inaccessible 

pipes that carry radionuclides, and 

aging management for safety-related low 

voltage cables that are below-grade and 

not qualified for a wet environment. 

The petitioners state that, in its 

current form, the regulation conflicts 

with, circumvents, and otherwise 

frustrates the letter and spirit of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The petitioners state it further 

conflicts with, circumvents, and 

otherwise frustrates the object and goals 

of NEPA. The petitioners state that the 

NEPA provides at Section 1500.2, that 

the Federal agencies, ‘‘shall to the fullest 

extent possible: (e) Use the NEPA 

process to identify and assess the 

reasonable alternatives to proposed 

actions that will avoid or minimize 

adverse effects of these actions upon the 

quality of the human environment.’’ The 

petitioners state that the Act provides at 

Section 1500.1(b) that ‘‘NEPA 

procedures must insure that 

environmental information is available 

to public officials and citizens before 

decisions are made and before actions 

are taken. The information must be of 

high quality. Accurate scientific 

analysis, expert agency comments, and 

public scrutiny are essential to 

implementing NEPA. Most important, 

NEPA documents must concentrate on 

the issues that are truly significant to 

the action in question, rather than 

amassing needless detail.’’ 

The Petition 

The petitioners request that the NRC 

amend its regulations to change the time 

before expiration of the operating 

license or combined license currently in 

effect in which a licensee may apply for 

a renewed license from 20 to 10 years. 

The petitioners request that the NRC 

amend 10 CFR 54.17(c) to read as 

follows: 

An application for a renewed license 

may not be submitted to the 

Commission earlier than 20 years before 

the expiration of the operating license or 

combined license currently in effect. 

An application for a renewed license 

may not be submitted to the 

Commission earlier than 10 years before 

the expiration of the operating license or 

combined license currently in effect. 

Petitioner’s Request To Suspend All 

License Renewal Review Pending 

Disposition of the Petition for 

Rulemaking 

The petitioners request that the 

Commission suspend all license 

renewal review pending disposition of 

this petition for rulemaking. The 

petitioners state that given the lead-in 

time on the application(s) and the fact 

that no additional work would be 

required of the licensee, no significant 

additional burden would accrue to the 

applicant. The petitioners state that, 

inasmuch as several petitioners intend 

to file requests for a hearing and 

petitions for leave to intervene in the 

matter of Seabrook license renewal, this 

suspension would preserve the order of 

the application review process and 

contribute to judicial efficiency and 

economy. The petitioners state that 

further suspension of review activities 

now would avoid duplication of effort 

should the Commission issue the 

requested rule change. 

The petitioners state that although 

they are not parties to a proceeding in 

this matter and no proceeding has yet 

been convened, the petitioners urge the 

Commission to find that the present 

situation is analogous to that described 

in 10 CFR 2.802(d) and to exercise its 

discretion for the benefit of the NRC and 

all parties by suspending review of all 

license renewal applications submitted 

more than10 years in advance of current 

license expiration until resolution of 

this petition. 

The NRC has determined that this 

request is not part of the rulemaking 

process. The NRC will address in a 

separate action the petitioners’ request 

to freeze all new relicensing activity 

pending disposition of the PRM. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated previously the 

petitioners request that NRC revise its 

regulations at 10 CFR 54.17 to permit 

license renewal application no sooner 

than 10 years before the expiration of 

current license and to apply the rule to 

all license renewal applications that 

have not yet been issued an NRC staff 

FSER. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24132 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Chapter I 

[NRC–2009–0279] 

Radiation Protection Regulations and 

Guidance; Public Meetings and 

Request for Comments 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and 

Request for Comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is conducting a 

series of public meetings, in the format 

of facilitated roundtable workshops, to 

solicit early public input on major 

issues associated with potential updates 

to NRC’s radiation protection 

regulations and guidance in light of 

recommendations presented in the 

International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP) 

Publication 103 (2007). To aid in that 

process, the NRC is requesting 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this notice. The NRC has not initiated 

rulemaking on this subject, and is 

seeking early input and views on the 

benefits and impacts of options to be 

considered before making any decision 

on whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking. Each meeting will include 

a panel of participants, selected in a 

convening process to represent the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS