Criteria To Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations
| Published date | 06 May 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 24362 |
| Record Number | 2021-09607 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 86 (Thursday, May 6, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 86 (Thursday, May 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24362-24364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09607]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 24362]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52
[Docket No. PRM-50-117; NRC-2019-0063]
Criteria To Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a
petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated December 26, 2018, submitted by
George Berka (petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on
February 19, 2019, and was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-117. The
petitioner requested that the NRC allow the owner or operator of a
nuclear power reactor an opportunity to return a retired facility to
full operational status, even if the operating license for the facility
had previously been surrendered. The NRC is denying the petition
because the issue does not involve a significant safety or security
concern and the existing regulatory framework may be used to address
the issue raised by the petitioner. In addition, the nuclear industry
has not expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to
operational status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new
regulatory framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of
resources.
DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking PRM-50-117 is closed
on May 6, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0063 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0063. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301-415-3407;
email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737,
or by email to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
Attention: The Public Document Room (PDR), where you may
examine and order copies of public documents is currently closed. You
may submit your request to the PDR via email at [email protected] or
call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Fields, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 630-829-9570; email:
[email protected]; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. The Petition
II. Public Comments on the Petition
III. Public Meeting on the Petition and Other Topics
IV. Reasons for Denial
V. Availability of Documents
VI. Conclusion
I. The Petition
Section 2.802 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), ``Petition for rulemaking--requirements for filing,'' provides an
opportunity for any interested person to petition the Commission to
issue, amend, or rescind any regulation. On December 26, 2018, the NRC
received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) from George Berka
(petitioner). The petitioner requested that the NRC revise 10 CFR part
52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power
Plants,'' to establish criteria that would allow retired nuclear power
reactors return to operation after their licenses no longer authorize
operation. This circumstance could occur either after the NRC has
docketed a licensee's certifications that it has permanently ceased
operations and permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel or when
a final legally effective order to permanently cease operations has
come into effect.
The petitioner requested ``a fair, reasonable, and unobstructed
opportunity to return a retired facility to full operational status,
even if the operating license for the facility had previously been
surrendered.'' The petitioner requested that facilities ``only have to
meet the safety standards that had been in place at the time the
facility had last operated, and not the latest standards.''
Specifically, the petitioner requested that a nuclear power reactor be
allowed to return to operational status, if ``the facility had been in
an operational condition at the time of retirement, had last operated
no more than twenty-one (21) calendar years prior to the retirement
date,'' the facility ``remains intact,'' and the facility passes a
``general safety inspection.'' Alternatively, the petitioner proposes,
if the nuclear power reactor ``had not been in an operational condition
at the time of retirement, had last operated more than twenty-one (21)
calendar years prior to the retirement date, is not intact, and/or has
had significant decommissioning and/or dismantling activities
commence,'' then the nuclear power reactor must be repaired or rebuilt
``to the safety standards that had been in place at the time the
facility had last operated,'' and pass a safety inspection
``appropriate to the degree of repairs or reconstruction that had been
performed,'' which would be, ``[a]t the very least . . . a general
safety inspection.''
The petitioner stated that this proposal would be `` `pennies on
the dollar,' compared to building new nuclear, or trying to replace the
same capacity with wind or solar sources.'' The petitioner also stated
that through this proposal, ``several gigawatts of ultra-clean, and
very low-carbon, electrical generating capacity could be restored to
the electrical grid, which would help to reduce carbon dioxide levels
in the atmosphere.'' The petitioner provided a calculation comparing
the cost and time of the
[[Page 24363]]
proposal to the cost and time required for replacing similar electrical
generating capacity with renewables or new nuclear builds. The
petitioner referenced the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and
the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., to
support the petitioner's statements regarding reducing carbon dioxide
emissions.
II. Public Comments on the Petition
On July 26, 2019, the NRC published a notice of docketing of PRM-
50-117 in the Federal Register in conjunction with a request for public
comment on the PRM. The comment period closed on October 9, 2019; the
NRC received 33 comment submissions on the PRM. A comment submission is
a communication or document submitted to the NRC by an individual or
entity, with one or more individual comments addressing a subject or
issue. All of the comment submissions received on this petition are
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2019-0063.
Given the number of comment submissions and the similarities among
a number of the comments, the NRC addressed those comments in a
separate document, ``NRC Response to Public Comments for PRM-50-117,''
as listed in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this
document. This comment response document includes a table of comment
submissions and ADAMS Accession Nos. for the comment submissions, a
summary of each ``bin'' of similar comments, and the NRC's response to
the comments. A brief summary of the most common comments received and
the general NRC response is included here.
Of the 33 comment submissions received, 30 supported the PRM and 3
opposed it. The comment submissions supporting the petition provided
reasons related to clean energy, environmental considerations, and
climate change; the economic considerations and cost-effectiveness of
restarting a decommissioning nuclear power plant; and plant closures
that occurred solely due to economic factors. The NRC considers these
comments to concern issues outside of NRC regulatory authority.
Several comment submissions supporting the petition also stated
that there is no practical process for returning decommissioning power
plants to operations. The NRC agrees that there is no explicit process
for returning a decommissioning power plant to operations but notes
that power reactor licensees have expressed minimal interest in
pursuing such an option. Furthermore, the NRC may consider requests
from licensees to resume operations under the existing regulatory
framework.
Comment submissions opposing the petition stated that plants should
be required to meet the latest safety standards before resuming
operations, rather than the safety standards in place at the time the
facility last operated, as proposed by the petitioner. If the NRC
receives a request from the licensee for a decommissioning reactor to
resume operations, the NRC would review the request consistent with
applicable regulatory requirements. This review would include
consideration of relevant safety standards to assure adequate
protection of public health and safety.
The comments received do not present additional information
supporting the petitioner's proposal that the NRC amend its
regulations. After considering the public comments, however, the NRC
identified the need to further engage the public to understand the
degree to which the nuclear industry would use a new regulatory process
for reauthorizing operation of decommissioning power reactors.
III. Public Meeting on the Petition and Other Topics
On February 25, 2020, the NRC held a public meeting to collect
public input on potential regulatory frameworks for power reactors,
including the resumption of operation for decommissioning power
reactors, deferred status for operating reactors, and reinstatement of
terminated combined licenses. These topics are broader than but fully
encompass the issue raised by the petitioner, and allow the NRC to
evaluate it in a more holistic context.
The public meeting had a total of 41 individuals in attendance.
Seven participants asked questions or provided feedback; one of these
participants represented a nuclear power plant licensee, one of these
participants was the petitioner for this PRM, and five of these
participants represented four public interest organizations. The
meeting was transcribed, and the full detailed transcript as well as
other documents related to the public meeting are listed in the
``Availability of Documents'' section of this document.
The key insight from the public meeting, as it relates to this PRM,
is that there was little support from the participants for the NRC
undertaking a rulemaking creating a new regulatory process for the
resumption of operations for decommissioning power reactors.
Additionally, the nuclear industry representatives expressed minimal
interest in using such a process.
IV. Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying the petition because the issue raised by the
petitioner does not involve a significant safety or security concern
and the existing regulatory framework may be used to address the issue
raised by the petitioner. In addition, the nuclear industry has not
expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to operational
status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new regulatory
framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of resources. The
following factors were considered by the NRC in making this
determination.
Current Regulatory Processes
Under the current requirements in Sec. Sec. 50.82, ``Termination
of license,'' and 52.110, ``Termination of license,'' once a power
reactor licensee has submitted written certifications to the NRC for
both the permanent cessation of operations and the permanent removal of
fuel from the reactor vessel, and the NRC has docketed those
certifications, the 10 CFR part 50 or part 52 license no longer
authorizes operation of the reactor. No nuclear power plant licensee to
date has requested reauthorization of operation after filing both of
these certifications. There have been instances in which a licensee
submitted to the NRC--and then subsequently withdrew--a certification
of an intent to cease operations under Sec. 50.82(a)(1)(i). In those
cases, the licensee had not submitted the certification of permanent
removal of fuel from the reactor vessel.
While current regulations do not specify a particular mechanism for
reauthorizing operation of a nuclear power plant after both
certifications are submitted, there is no statute or regulation
prohibiting such action. Thus, the NRC may address such requests under
the existing regulatory framework. The NRC previously stated this
position in an August 2016 letter responding to similar questions
raised by Mr. David Kraft, Director, Nuclear Energy Information Service
(see NRC response to Question 4). In addition, the NRC previously
discussed this topic in a 2014 letter responding to Mr. Robert Abboud
of RGA Labs, Inc., a member of the public, concerning relicensing
Kewaunee Power Station. These letters are listed in the ``Availability
of Documents'' section of this document.
Safety and Security
This petition does not raise a safety or security concern, nor does
it offer any improvements to safety or security. The
[[Page 24364]]
current regulations and processes provide reasonable assurance of
adequate protection of public health and safety for both operating and
decommissioning power reactors. The lack of a safety or security
concern would contribute to the low priority of this petition, were it
to be considered in rulemaking.
Resources
Based on the complexity of the issue raised by the petitioner, a
rulemaking on this issue would entail a significant expenditure of NRC
resources. Any such rulemaking effort would likely address a wide
variety of technical and regulatory topics including, but not limited
to, decommissioning status, aging management, quality assurance,
equipment maintenance, personnel, license expiration, hearing process,
and appropriate licensing basis.
As discussed in the ``Public Meeting on the Petition and Other
Topics'' section of this document, power reactor licensees expressed
minimal interest in a rulemaking establishing a new process for
reauthorization of operation for decommissioning power reactors. Given
this minimal interest from the nuclear industry, the NRC expects few,
if any, requests for reauthorization. Thus, the benefits of any such
rulemaking would not be expected to outweigh the costs.
V. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No./Federal
Document Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRM-50-117--Petition of George Berka to ML19050A507
Revise the Criteria to Return Retired
Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations,
December 26, 2018.
Federal Register Notice, ``Criteria to 84 FR 36036
Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to
Operations,'' July 26, 2019.
NRC Response to Public Comments for PRM-50- ML20205L311
117.
Public Meeting Notice: Potential ML20043F003
Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors,
February 25, 2020.
Public Meeting Materials: Potential ML20049A021
Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors,
February 25, 2020.
Public Meeting Transcript: Category 3 ML20072H393
Public Meeting Transcript RE: Potential
Regulatory Frameworks for Power Reactors,
February 25, 2020.
Public Meeting Summary: Category 3 Public ML20072H288
Meeting Summary RE: Potential Regulatory
Frameworks for Power Reactors, March 25,
2020.
NRC Letter to Mr. David A. Kraft of ML16218A266
Nuclear Energy Information Service,
August 4, 2016.
Letter from Mr. David A. Kraft of Nuclear ML16175A449
Energy Information Service, June 16, 2016.
NRC Letter to RGA Labs, Inc., October 21, ML14288A407
2014.
Regulatory Analysis for Regulatory Basis ML17332A075
for Regulatory Improvements for Power
Reactors Transitioning to
Decommissioning, January 2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying PRM-50-
117. The NRC's existing regulatory framework may be used to address the
issue raised by the petitioner, who does not raise a significant safety
or security concern, and current requirements continue to provide for
the adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the
common defense and security. In addition, the nuclear industry has not
expressed a strong interest in returning retired plants to operational
status and proceeding with rulemaking to develop a new regulatory
framework that may not be used is not a prudent use of resources.
Dated May 3, 2021.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-09607 Filed 5-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
