|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 11.5-years archives of 43,000 files from June 1996 to January 2008 (~4.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
10 April 2008
Related: Eyeballing 104 Nuclear Reactors at 63 Power Plants: http://cryptome.org/npp/62npp-eyeball.htm
[Federal Register: April 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 70)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19443-19450]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ap08-11]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[NRC-2008-0019]
RIN 3150-AG63
Power Reactor Security Requirements; Supplemental Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to add
new provisions regarding licensee procedures for responding to
notifications of potential aircraft threat and for the mitigation of
the loss of large areas of their facilities due to large fires or
explosions. These provisions were previously noticed for public comment
in the October 26, 2006 (71 FR 62664) proposed power reactor security
rulemaking. The NRC is publishing this supplemental proposed rule
notice to obtain additional stakeholder feedback on the additional
regulatory text that has been added to these provisions since the
original proposed rule was published for comment.
DATES: Submit comments on this proposed rule by May 12, 2008. Submit
comments on the information collection aspects on this proposed rule by
May 12, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number RIN 3150-AG63 in the subject line
of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety.
Personal information, such as your name, address, telephone number, e-
mail address, etc., will not be removed from your submission.
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 301-415-1677. You may also submit comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone
301-415-1677).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
301-415-1101.
You may submit comments on the information collections by the
methods indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction
[[Page 19444]]
contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this
site, 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 PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737
or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@NRC.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bonnie Schnetzler, Office of
Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-7883; e-mail:
Bonnie.Schnetzler@nrc.gov, or Mr. Timothy Reed, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone 301-415-1462; e-mail: Timothy.Reed@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Comments on the Proposed Rule
III. Section-by-Section Analysis for 10 CFR 50.54(hh)
IV. Relationship of Proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)(2) to Aircraft Impact
Assessment Proposed Rule
V. Guidance Supporting Sec. 50.54(hh)
VI. Specific Request for Comments
VII. Availability of Documents
VIII. Plain Language
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Regulatory Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XIV. Backfit Analysis
I. Introduction
The NRC published the proposed rulemaking on power reactor security
for public comment in the Federal Register on October 26, 2006 (71 FR
62664). The proposed rule contained a large number of proposed
requirements, including proposed requirements regarding licensee
procedures for responding to notifications of potential aircraft
threats and for the mitigation of the loss of large areas of their
facilities due to large fires or explosions. Those provisions described
proposed requirements that were similar to those previously imposed
under section B.5 of ``Interim Compensatory Measures (ICM) Order,''
dated February 25, 2002 (EA-02-026, March 4, 2002; 67 FR 9792)
(Safeguards Information); specifically, the ``B.5.a provision'' and the
``B.5.b provision.'' Proposed section II(k)(1) of Appendix C to Part 73
(the B.5.a or ``potential aircraft threats'' provision) stated that
``Licensees shall implement a `Threat Warning System' which identifies
specific graduated protective measures and actions to be taken to
increase licensee preparedness against a heightened or imminent threat
of attack.'' Proposed section II(j) of Appendix C to Part 73 (the B.5.b
or ``mitigative measures'' provision) stated that the licensee
``Integrated Response Plan'' must ``Include specific procedures,
guidance, and strategies to maintain or restore core cooling,
containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities using existing or
readily available resources (equipment and personnel) that can be
effectively implemented under the circumstances associated with loss of
large areas of the plant due to explosions or fires.''
During development of the power reactor security final rule, the
NRC determined that several significant changes to the proposed rule
language would be needed to adequately address stakeholder comments and
associated implementation concerns. External stakeholders commented
that locating these provisions in Appendix C to Part 73 was not
appropriate, given that the actions taken to address these order
requirements were not specific to a licensee's security organization
but instead encompassed a much broader range of actions across the
facility. Although these comments were focused specifically on the
mitigative measures provision that was in proposed section II(j) of
Appendix C to Part 73, the NRC recognized that the same issues applied
equally to the potential aircraft threats provision contained in
proposed section II(k)(1) of Appendix C to Part 73. The NRC agrees with
the stakeholders comments and is proposing to re-locate the provisions
from Part 73 to 10 CFR Part 50. Specifically these provisions would be
located in a new paragraph (hh) that would be added to Sec. 50.54 as a
condition of the license. This approach was chosen to ensure
consistency with the method by which the B.5.b requirements have been
implemented for currently operating reactors. (See ``Orders Modifying
Licenses,'' 71 FR 36554, June 27, 2006.)
In the process of evaluating these comments, the NRC also
considered whether it was appropriate to add additional details and
make editorial changes to the rule language. The NRC wants to ensure
that the potential aircraft threats and mitigative measures provisions
are consistent with the work that was done with licensees over the last
six years during implementation of the ICM requirements. In addition,
the NRC was concerned that the lack of specific language would lead to
confusion about the NRC's expectations. Therefore, the NRC determined
that more detailed rule language would better meet the Commission's
regulatory objectives.
While the NRC has clarified the language in these provisions, these
clarifications merely reflect the current ICM order requirements as
intended by the Commission. In fact, it is the NRC's view that current
Part 50 licensees would already be in compliance with these proposed
requirements if they were to be codified in a final rule. As such, the
language provided in this supplemental proposed rule does not describe
``new requirements'' using the existing post-9-11 security orders as
the baseline of ``current requirements.'' Rather, the NRC views these
language changes as improving the specificity of the original proposed
requirements. However, because this is a significant change to the
proposed rule language on which external stakeholders did not have an
opportunity to comment, the NRC concludes that obtaining stakeholder
feedback on these re-located provisions through the use of a
supplemental proposed rule is appropriate.
II. Comments on the Proposed Rule
As previously discussed, the NRC received several comments on the
proposed 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C provisions (i.e., proposed section
II(j) and proposed section II(k)(1)) that were contained in the larger
proposed power reactor security rulemaking, and that would now be re-
located to proposed Sec. 50.54(hh). These comments are discussed in
detail in the following paragraphs.
II.1. Comments on Proposed Section II(j) of Appendix C to Part 73
Comment: Stakeholders commented that, for existing licensees, the
NRC is already employing a different and more appropriate regulatory
scheme for addressing ICM B.5.b conditions. Commenters noted that the
B.5.b requirement is being controlled with a performance-based license
condition that is satisfied by voluntary licensee commitments to B.5.b
Phase 2 and Phase 3 mitigating strategies. Other commenters noted that
these strategies are generally operations procedures that work in
conjunction with Emergency Operating Procedures, Severe Accident
Mitigation Guidelines, and Extreme Damage Mitigation Guidelines for
beyond design base conditions. It was argued that this is an
inappropriate
[[Page 19445]]
expansion of the security role or the roles of security programs in the
hierarchy of plant procedures and processes and that putting specific
detail regarding mitigating strategies into the security contingency
response plan limits the effectiveness of licensee strategies for
dealing with unpredictable plant events. It was commented that the NRC
should retain the existing regulatory approach and language.
Response: The NRC agrees that the requirements were not
appropriately located in Appendix C to Part 73. The proposed
requirements described in that section pertain to a licensee's
obligation to protect against design basis threat-related security
events. The B.5.b. requirements have always been associated with
beyond-design basis events. They do not specifically describe the
actions that would have to be taken by security force personnel.
The NRC also agrees that the mitigating strategies requirements
should be consistent with the actions that were taken by the NRC to
close the B.5.b ICM order issue both in terms of the specific actions
required and in regard to the general regulatory approach (i.e.,
through the use of license conditions). These efforts were reflected in
the issuance of orders on June 20, 2006, requiring implementation of
key radiological protection mitigation strategies. (See ``Orders
Modifying Licenses,'' 71 FR 36554; June 27, 2006). Thus, to address the
necessary relocation of these requirements and to reflect consistency
with the B.5.b. implementation experience, the NRC proposes that a more
appropriate location for the mitigating strategies requirements would
be in Part 50. It is the NRC's view that Sec. 50.54 is the appropriate
location for these proposed requirements because it describes
``Conditions of Licensees.''
Comment: Another commenter stated that proposed Part 73, Appendix C
does not specify what types of fires or explosions the licensee must
prepare for, nor does it specify what areas of the plant are considered
particularly susceptible to damage or destruction by fire or explosion.
The commenter stated that the provision also does not adequately
describe whether, or to what degree, the licensee would rely on off-
site first responders, such as local fire departments, to aid in either
fighting the fire or maintaining cooling of the core or spent fuel
pools in the event of containment loss or breach of a pool. The
commenter stated that if this proposed revision is intended to address
the potential effects of an aircraft attack on an operating nuclear
plant, then the final rule must contain specific provisions addressing
the effects of jet fuel fires on vital areas of the plant, such as the
containment dome, spent fuel pool building and control room building.
In addition, the commenter said the NRC should require the licensee to
demonstrate its ability to deal with significant aircraft debris, such
as jet engines, impacting these same vital areas. The commenter stated
that one simple solution would be to require licensees to harden the
spent fuel pool buildings and control room building so that they are
more resistant to an aircraft impact.
Response: As part of the issuance of the ICM order of 2002, the
Commission made a determination as to the level of requirements needed
to address beyond-design basis scenarios in section B.5.b. The
Commission did not intend to limit beyond-design basis scenarios to
aircraft attacks but, instead called for the development of mitigation
measures to generally deal with the situation in which large areas of
the plant were lost due to fires and explosions, whatever the beyond-
design basis initiator. This supplemental proposed rule would codify
generically applicable requirements similar to those that have
previously been required by the ICM order. Accordingly, as with the
original section B.5.b requirements, this proposed rule would apply
only performance-based criteria so that individual licensees would have
to determine the most appropriate site-specific measures that would
meet the general performance criteria. Further, the NRC has provided
licensees guidance describing parameters that could be used as aids in
determining the scope of their site-specific mitigating strategies.
Because the Commission has found this approach to be successful, and
the proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) requirements reflect consistency with the
implementation of the 2002 ICM order requirements to address loss of
large areas of the plant due to fire or explosions, the NRC does not
believe it is necessary, or even practical, that the prescription
suggested by the stakeholder be incorporated into supplemental proposed
Sec. 50.54(hh).
Comment: Another commenter noted the draft final Part 52 rule [Note
that it is now a final rule: 72 FR 49352] includes requirements for
design certification applicants to include a description and evaluation
of the design features or strategies for the prevention and mitigation
of a specific set of severe accidents. The commenter acknowledged that
action should be taken to prevent or mitigate certain specific beyond
design bases events including those resulting from large fires and
explosions. To improve regulatory coherency and consistency, the
commenter stated that the NRC should address large fires and explosions
in the same regulation and in the same manner as other similar beyond
design bases events that are already being addressed in the
regulations. The commenter noted that the evaluations of the features
and strategies that could mitigate or prevent beyond design bases
accidents that result from large fires and explosions are performed by
engineering and operational groups and NRC reviews are performed by
engineering and operations inspectors. Therefore, the commenter stated
that it is more appropriate for these matters to be addressed in Part
52 as opposed to Part 73.
Response: The NRC does not agree that the issues that would be
addressed by this proposed rule are design-related matters. As
explained below, the proposed requirements of Sec. 50.54(hh)(2) would
require licensees to develop guidance and strategies to address beyond
design basis events. They would not, however, require licensees or
designers to make design changes. To the extent that some beyond design
basis events such as aircraft impacts could be addressed through the
design of the facility, the Commission intends that such requirements
would be addressed in the proposed aircraft impact assessment
rulemaking also discussed below. Therefore, the NRC believes that the
best location for these proposed requirements is with other technical
requirements in Part 50.
II.2. Comments on Proposed Appendix C, Section II(k)
Comment: One commenter stated that this is a significant expansion
of the integrated response plan required by the Orders. The commenter
also stated that this requirement is the subject of other existing
regulatory requirements. Thus, the commenter recommended that the NRC
delete this provision from the final rule.
Response: The NRC believes that most external stakeholders did not
recognize that the potential aircraft threat requirements were co-
located in proposed Appendix C to Part 73, section II(k) with the
proposed threat warning requirements. The proposed section II(k)
requirements (now the proposed 50.54(hh)(1) requirements) were
inappropriately located in Appendix C, particularly within the proposed
integrated response plan requirements. Further, the language of the
proposed rule failed to capture the proposed requirements that the
Commission
[[Page 19446]]
intended. As with the proposed section II(j) requirements, the NRC
concludes that these proposed provisions need additional clarification
and re-location to a more suitable regulation.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis for 10 CFR 50.54(hh)
Proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)(1)
The proposed language for Sec. 50.54(hh)(1) would establish the
necessary regulatory framework and clarify current expectations to
facilitate consistent application of Commission requirements for
preparatory actions to be taken in the event of a potential aircraft
threat to a nuclear power reactor facility. Because aircraft threats
are significant, rapidly evolving events, and licensees may only
receive threat notifications a short time before potential onsite
impacts, the NRC has determined that it is not prudent for licensees to
attempt to identify and accomplish ad hoc mitigative actions in the
midst of such circumstances and that such an impromptu approach would
unnecessarily limit the effectiveness of onsite and offsite responses.
To cope effectively with potential aircraft threats, the proposed rule
would require licensees to develop specific procedures, whether in a
single procedure or among several procedures that describe the
licensee's pre-identified actions to be taken with little or no
hesitation when provided with pre-event notification. These pre-event
preparations would provide the most effective responses possible to
aircraft threats and demonstrate systematic onsite and offsite
planning, coordination, communication, and testing.
The proposed rule would require licensees to develop, maintain, and
implement procedures for verifying, to the extent possible, the
authenticity of aircraft threat notifications to avoid taking actions
in response to hoaxes that may adversely impact licensees or the health
and safety of the public. Depending on the source of a threat
notification, licensees may or may not be able to establish contact
with appropriate entities to confirm the accuracy of the threat
information received. Consequently, the NRC expects licensees, at a
minimum, to contact the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for
assistance with verifying callers' identities or the veracity of threat
information.
The national protocol for dealing with aircraft threats is designed
to be proactive with respect to threat identifications and
notifications. However, threat information sources may not be able to
identify specific targets, and given the dynamic nature of potential
aircraft threats, any associated notifications to licensees may
necessarily be reactive in nature. Additionally, licensees must rely on
sources which are external to their control rooms for potential
aircraft threat notifications, and updates, when available. As a
result, the proposed rule would require licensees to develop, maintain,
and implement procedures for the maintenance of continuous
communication with threat notification sources because it is imperative
that licensees establish and maintain this capability throughout the
duration of the pre-event notification period. With such a capability,
licensees will be able to receive accurate and timely threat
information upon which to base decisions concerning the most effective
actions that need to be taken.
The proposed rule would also require that licensees develop,
maintain, and implement procedures for notifying all onsite personnel
and appropriate offsite response organizations (e.g., fire departments,
ambulance services, emergency operations centers) in a timely manner
following the receipt of potential aircraft threat notifications. These
notifications would ensure that onsite personnel have as much time as
possible to execute established procedures and provide offsite response
organizations the opportunity to:
Initiate mutual aid assistance agreements based on the
perceived threat;
Commence the near-site mustering of offsite fire-fighting
and medical assistance for sites where these organizations are not
proximately located; or
Mobilize personnel for volunteer organizations or hospital
staffs.
During the pre-event notification period, the proposed rule would
require licensees to develop procedures to assess plant conditions
continuously and take effective actions to mitigate the consequences of
an aircraft impact. Examples include maximizing makeup water source
inventories, isolating appropriate plant areas and systems, ceasing
fuel handling operations and equipment testing, starting appropriate
electrical generation equipment, and charging fire-service piping
headers. By taking these actions, licensees can better position their
sites to minimize the effect on public health and safety.
The proposed rule would also require licensees to develop and
implement procedures for making site-specific determinations of the
amount of lighting required to be extinguished, if any, to prevent or
reduce visual discrimination of sites relative to their immediate
surroundings and distinction of individual buildings within protected
areas. For example, it may make sense to turn off all the lights at an
isolated site, but not for a site situated in an industrial area, where
ambient lighting from surrounding industries is sufficient for target
discrimination. Licensees would use centralized lighting controls or
develop prioritized routes that allow personnel to turn off different
sets of lights depending on available time, when appropriate.
The safety of licensee personnel and contractors is paramount to
the successful response and implementation of mitigating measures after
an onsite aircraft impact. To the maximum extent possible after a
potential aircraft threat notification, the proposed rule would also
require licensees to develop and implement procedures for pre-staging
appropriate personnel and equipment at locations throughout their
sites. Such actions would increase the chance that critical personnel
and equipment will be available to address the consequences of an
onsite aircraft impact and reduce the need to make improvised decisions
during the pre-event notification period. The decision whether to
shelter the remaining personnel in-place or evacuate them in response
to a potential aircraft threat should be based on the physical layout
of the site and the time available to conduct an effective evacuation.
Licensees would need to:
Determine how much time is necessary to evacuate their
protected areas,
Validate the accuracy of that determination using no-
notice drills, and
Incorporate the lessons learned from those drills into
their site-specific procedures.
Licensees would also be required to develop procedures to
facilitate the rapid re-entry of these personnel and offsite responders
into their protected areas to deal with the consequences of an aircraft
impact.
Because even the most well-considered plans and procedures do not
guarantee that critical on-shift personnel will survive an aircraft
impact, the proposed rule would require licensees to develop and
implement procedures for an effective recall process for appropriate
off-shift personnel. Those procedures would describe the licensee's
process for initiating off-shift recalls during the pre-event
notification period and for directing responding licensee personnel to
pre-identified assembly area outside the site protected areas. When
possible, the assembly area
[[Page 19447]]
locations should be coordinated with offsite response organizations to
facilitate offsite response plans, as well as ensure off-shift licensee
personnel will not be unnecessarily prevented from arriving onsite when
needed.
Proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)(2)
The proposed language for Sec. 50.54(hh)(2) would require
licensees to develop guidance and strategies for addressing the loss of
large areas of the plant due to explosions or fires from a beyond-
design basis event through the use of readily available resources and
by identifying potential practicable areas for the use of beyond-
readily-available resources. These strategies would address licensee
response to events that are beyond the design basis of the facility.
These proposed requirements originated in the ICM order of 2002.
Ultimately, these mitigation strategies were further developed and
refined through extensive interactions with licensees and industry. The
NRC recognizes that these mitigation strategies will be beneficial for
the mitigation of all beyond-design basis events that result in the
loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fires. Current
reactor licensees comply with these requirements through the use of the
following 14 strategies that have been required through an operating
license condition. These strategies fall into the three general areas
identified by proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). These
strategies are:
Fire fighting response strategy with the following elements:
1. Pre-defined coordinated fire response strategy and guidance.
2. Assessment of mutual aid fire fighting assets.
3. Designated staging areas for equipment and materials.
4. Command and control.
5. Training of response personnel.
Operations to mitigate fuel damage considering the following:
1. Protection and use of personnel assets.
2. Communications.
3. Minimizing fire spread.
4. Procedures for implementing integrated fire response strategy.
5. Identification of readily-available, pre-staged equipment.
6. Training on integrated fire response strategy.
7. Spent fuel pool mitigation measures.
Actions to minimize release to include consideration of:
1. Water spray scrubbing.
2. Dose to onsite responders.
The NRC considered specifically including these 14 strategies in
the text of proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)(2). However, the NRC decided that
the more general performance-based language in proposed Sec.
50.54(hh)(2) was a better approach to account for future reactor
facility designs that may contain features that preclude the need for
some of these strategies. New reactor licensees would also be required
to employ similar strategies to address core cooling, spent fuel pool
cooling, and fission product barrier integrity. The strategies would
need to account for, as appropriate, the specific features of the plant
design, or any design changes made as a result of an aircraft
assessment performed per proposed Sec. 52.500 (aircraft impact
assessment proposed rule, 72 FR 56287; October 3, 2007).
The Commission issued guidance (Safeguards Information) to current
reactor licensees on February 25, 2005, and additionally endorsed NEI
06-12, Revision 2, by letter dated December 22, 2006. These two sources
of guidance provide an acceptable means for developing and implementing
the above strategies. The Commission is currently developing a draft
Regulatory Guide that consolidates this guidance and addresses new
reactor designs.
IV. Relationship of Proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)(2) to Aircraft Impact
Assessment Proposed Rule
The proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) would be applicable to both current
reactor licensees and new applicants for and holders of reactor
operating licenses under either part 50 or part 52. Current reactor
licensees have already developed and implemented procedures that would
comply with the proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)(2) requirements, and would not
require any additional action to comply with these proposed rule
provisions. New applicants for and new holders of operating licenses
under part 50 and combined licenses under part 52 would be required to
develop and implement procedures that would employ mitigating
strategies similar to those now employed by current licensees to
maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool
cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of
large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire. The requirements
described in the proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) relate to the development of
procedures for addressing certain events that are the cause of large
fires and explosions that affect a substantial portion of the nuclear
power plant, and are not limited or directly linked to an aircraft
impact. The rule contemplates that the initiating event for such large
fires and explosions could be any number of design basis threat or
beyond design basis threat events. In addition, the NRC regards the
proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) as necessary for reasonable assurance of
adequate protection to public health and safety and common defense and
security; this is consistent with the NRC's designation of the orders
on which Sec. 50.54(hh) is based as being necessary for reasonable
assurance of adequate protection.
In a separate rulemaking, the NRC has proposed to require designers
of new nuclear power plants (e.g., applicants for standard design
certification under part 52, and applicants for combined licenses under
part 52) to conduct an assessment of the effects of the impact of a
large commercial aircraft on the nuclear power plant. (72 FR 56287,
October 3, 2007). Based upon the insights gained from this assessment,
the applicant must include a description and evaluation of design
features and functional capabilities to avoid or mitigate, to the
extent practical and with reduced reliance upon operator actions, the
effects of the aircraft impact. New reactor applicants would be subject
to both the proposed requirements of the aircraft impact rule, and the
proposed requirements Sec. 50.54(hh). The overall objective of the NRC
is to enhance a nuclear power plant's capabilities to withstand the
effects of a large fire or explosion, whether caused by an aircraft
impact or other event, from the standpoints of both design and
operation. The impact of a large aircraft on the nuclear power plant
would be regarded as a beyond design basis event. In light of the NRC's
view that effective mitigation of the effects of events causing large
fires and explosions (including the impact of a large commercial
aircraft) should be provided through operational actions, the NRC
believes that the mitigation of the effects of such impacts through
design should be regarded as a safety enhancement which is not
necessary for adequate protection. Therefore, the aircraft impact
rule--unlike the proposed Sec. 50.54(hh)--would be regarded as a
safety enhancement which is not necessary for adequate protection.
The NRC regards the two rulemakings to be complementary in scope
and objectives. The aircraft impact rule focuses on enhancing the
design of future nuclear power plants to withstand large commercial
aircraft impacts, with reduced reliance on human activities (including
operator actions). Proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) focuses on ensuring that
the nuclear power plant's licensees will be able to implement effective
mitigation measures for large fires and explosions
[[Page 19448]]
including (but not explicitly limited to) those caused by the impacts
of large, commercial aircraft. Thus, these revisions to the NRC's
regulatory framework for future nuclear power plants will provide more
regulatory certainty, stability, and increased public confidence.
V. Guidance Supporting Sec. 50.54(hh)
The NRC staff is preparing new regulatory guidance on the
requirements in proposed Sec. 50.54(hh). This guidance is intended to
provide an acceptable method by which current Part 50 licensees, and
future Part 50 and Part 52 applicants and licensees, would be able to
implement and comply with the requirements of proposed Sec. 50.54(hh).
The regulatory guidance will be issued in draft form for comment
following publication of this supplemental proposed rule.
Regarding the guidance supporting Sec. 50.54(hh)(2), the NRC
issued Phase 1 guidance (SGI) to current reactor licensees on February
25, 2005, and additionally endorsed NEI 06-12, Revision 2, by letter
dated December 22, 2006, with regard to Phase 2 and 3 guidance. These
two sources of guidance would provide an acceptable means for
developing and implementing the mitigation strategies. The Commission
is currently developing a draft Regulatory Guide that consolidates this
guidance and is written with a focus on new reactor designs.
VI. Specific Request for Comments
In addition to the general invitation to submit comments on the
proposed rule, the NRC also requests comments on the following
questions:
1. The NRC recognizes that the actions that would be required by
Sec. 50.54(hh) would address beyond-design basis events that in some
cases cannot be bounded (as is typically done for design basis events)
in terms of the event conditions. As a result, the proposed Sec.
50.54(hh) required actions, though beneficial in many cases, may not be
effective for some situations. Given this, the NRC requests specific
comments on whether there should be additional language added to the
proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) requirements that would limit the scope of the
regulation (i.e., language that would constrain the requirements to a
subset of beyond-design basis events such as beyond-design basis
security events).
2. Under the proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) requirements, the NRC would
review applicants' procedures, guidance and strategies related to the
proposed Sec. 50.54(hh) as part of its licensing processes, inspection
processes, or combination thereof, but these proposed requirements
would not be included as part of a new application for a license under
Part 50 or 52. The NRC is considering, however, whether it is also
necessary or appropriate to also require inclusion of the Sec.
50.54(hh)-related activities within the NRC staff's review of a
combined operating license application or operating license
application. This would be accomplished by requiring such materials to
be submitted as part of the applicant's application as required by
Sec. 50.34 or Sec. 52.80, as applicable. The NRC requests specific
comments on what would be the most effective and efficient process to
review the applicants' and licensees' procedures, guidance and
strategies developed and maintained in accordance with Sec.
50.54(hh)(1) and Sec. 50.54(hh)(2).
VII. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located
at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Regulations.gov (Web). These documents may be viewed and downloaded
electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://
www.Regulations.gov, Dockets NRC-2006-0016 and NRC-2008-0019.
NRC's Electronic Reading Room (ERR). The NRC's public electronic
reading room is located at http://www. nrc.gov/reading-rm. html.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ERR (ADAMS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed power reactor security rulemaking notice.... X X ML062000122
Proposed power reactor security rulemaking regulatory X X ML061920112
analysis and supporting appendices. ML061380796
ML061440013
Proposed power reactor security rulemaking OMB X X ML062830016
information collection analysis.
Proposed power reactor security rulemaking X X ML061920093
environmental assessment.
EA-02-026, ``Interim Compensatory Measures (ICM) X X ML020520754
Order'' (67 FR 9792).
EA-06-0137, ``Orders Modifying Licenses'' (71 FR X X ML061600023
36554).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Plain Language
The Presidential memorandum ``Plain Language in Government
Writing'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), directed that the
Government's documents be in clear and accessible language. The NRC
requests comments on the proposed rule specifically with respect to the
clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent
to the NRC as explained in the ADDRESSES caption of this notice.
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is
otherwise impractical. The NRC is not aware of any voluntary consensus
standard that could be used instead of the proposed Government-unique
standards. The NRC will consider using a voluntary consensus standard
if an appropriate standard is identified.
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of
10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not
required.
The determination of this environmental assessment is that there
will be no significant offsite impact to the public from this action.
This determination was made as part of the proposed power reactor
security rulemaking (71 FR 62664; October 26, 2006), and it remains
applicable to this supplemental proposed rulemaking.
[[Page 19449]]
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The proposed rule published on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 62664)
imposed new or amended information collection requirements contained in
10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73 that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These new or amended information
collection requirements were submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for review. The existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0011, 3150-0132
and 3150-0002.
This supplemental proposed rule does not contain new or amended
information collection requirements, but relocate information
collections addressed in the proposed rule published October 26, 2006
(71 FR 62664) from 10 CFR part 73 (3150-0002) to 10 CFR part 50 (3150-
0011). The burden estimated for the relocated information collections
will be included in the revised OMB clearance package prepared for the
final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on
the potential impact of the information collections contained in this
supplemental proposed rule and on the following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated collection techniques?
Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
above issues, by May 12, 2008 to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services
Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV and
to the Desk Officer, Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011; 0132; 0002), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
You may also e-mail comments to Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov or comment
by telephone at 202-395-7345.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
XII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has not prepared a separate regulatory analysis for this
supplemental proposed rule. The regulatory analysis that was prepared
to support the proposed power reactor security rulemaking (71 FR 62664;
October 26, 2006) remains applicable to these provisions.
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and
operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants
do not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities''
set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards
established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
XIV. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the proposed additions are not backfits
as defined by 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), and therefore a backfit analysis is
unnecessary for this supplemental proposed rule. Section 50.109(a)(1)
defines backfitting as ``the modification or addition to systems,
structures, components or design of a facility * * * or the procedures
or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility;
any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the
Commission rules * * *.'' The supplemental proposed rule contains
proposed requirements regarding licensee procedures for responding to
notifications of potential aircraft threats and for the mitigation of
the loss of large areas of their facilities due to large fires or
explosions. Though more specific detail is provided in these proposed
rules, these provisions would impose requirements on current licensees
requirements that are substantially similar to those previously imposed
under section B.5 of ``Interim Compensatory Measures (ICM) Order,''
dated February 25, 2002 (EA-02-026, March 4, 2002; 67 FR 9792)
(Safeguards Information); specifically, the ``B.5.a provision'' and the
``B.5.b provision.'' Further, the proposed requirements are consistent
with the implementing guidance that has been issued to licensees
subsequent to the order. Therefore, these proposed requirements would
not constitute backfits as defined by the rule, and no backfit analysis
has been prepared.
List of Subjects for 10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 50.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846);
sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub.
L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42
U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68
Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-
190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and
50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued
under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a,
50.55a and appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued
under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58,
50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42
U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939
(42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184,
68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued
under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
2. In Sec. 50.54, paragraph (hh) is added to read as follows:
[[Page 19450]]
Sec. 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
* * * * *
(hh)(1) Each licensee shall develop, maintain and implement
procedures that describe how the licensee will address the following
areas if the licensee is notified of a potential aircraft threat:
(i) Verification of the authenticity of threat notifications;
(ii) Maintenance of continuous communication with applicable
entities;
(iii) Notifications to all onsite personnel and applicable offsite
response organizations;
(iv) Onsite protective actions to enhance the capability of the
facility to mitigate the consequences of an aircraft impact;
(v) Measures to reduce visual discrimination of the site relative
to its surroundings or individual buildings within the protected area;
(vi) Pre-staging and dispersal of equipment and personnel, as well
as rapid reentry of onsite personnel and offsite responders into site
protected areas; and
(vii) Recall of site personnel.
(2) Each licensee shall develop and implement guidance and
strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment,
and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances
associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or
fire, to include strategies in the following areas:
(i) Fire fighting;
(ii) Operations to mitigate fuel damage; and
(iii) Actions to minimize radiological release.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of April 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio,
Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. E8-7582 Filed 4-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P