[Federal Register: August 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 45167-45171]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02au10-123]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0267]
Notice of Public Workshop on a Potential Rulemaking for Spent
Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facilities
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of Public Workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to conduct
two public workshops to solicit public input on major issues associated
with the development of a regulatory basis document that, if necessary,
will form the basis of a potential rulemaking for spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing facilities. The public workshops are intended to solicit
the views of representatives of interests that may be affected by a
potential rulemaking for reprocessing facilities. Members of the public
are invited to provide written
[[Page 45168]]
comments on the issues presented in this notice and to attend the
workshops to provide feedback on the issues associated with the
development of a regulatory basis for a potential rulemaking. The
public workshops will be held in Rockville, Maryland on September 7-8,
2010 and in Albuquerque, New Mexico, during the week of October 4,
2010.
DATES: Members of the public may provide feedback at the transcribed
public workshops or may submit written comments on the issues
discussed. The comment period closes on November 5, 2010. NRC plans to
consider these stakeholder views in the development of a regulatory
basis for a potential rulemaking on reprocessing. Written comments may
be sent to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Questions about
participation in the round table discussion at the public workshops
should be directed to the facilitator at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Members of the public planning to attend the
workshops are invited to RSVP at least ten (10) days prior to each
workshop. Replies should be directed to the points of contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The public workshops will
be held in Rockville, Maryland on September 7-8, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m. and in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the week of October 4, 2010,
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The September 7-8, 2010 workshop will be held at
the Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center,
located at 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The exact dates
and location for the October 2010 workshop in Albuquerque, NM will be
noticed no fewer than ten (10) days prior to the workshop on the NRC's
electronic public workshop schedule at http://www.nrc.gov/
publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm. In addition, the final agenda
for both public workshops will also be noticed at the above referenced
website address. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for additional information on the issues proposed for discussion at the
public workshops.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop TWB 5B01M, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice, or by
fax at 301-492-3446. Comments may also be submitted electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket
ID NRC-2010-0267. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail Carol.Gallagher@nrc.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.
Questions regarding participation in the roundtable discussions
should be submitted to the facilitator, Francis Cameron, by telephone
at 240-205-2091, or by e-mail at fxcameo@gmail.com.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose Cuadrado, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-492-3287; e-mail
Jose.Cuadrado@nrc.gov, or Jeannette Arce, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-492-3411; e-mail Jeannette.Arce@nrc.gov.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee, publicly
available documents at the Public Document Room, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents
created or received at 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 the NRC's Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.
If you do not have access to ADAMS, contact the Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.0 Background
The NRC has the authority under the Atomic Energy Act to license
commercial spent fuel reprocessing facilities. Currently, 10 CFR Part
50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,''
provides the licensing framework for production and utilization
facilities. Although a reprocessing facility is one type of production
facility, its industrial processes are more akin to fuel cycle
processes. This framework was established in the 1970's to license the
first US reprocessing facilities. The policy decision by the Carter
Administration to cease reprocessing initiatives was based, in part, on
the proliferation risks posed by the early reprocessing technology.
This policy ultimately halted NRC licensing activities for commercial
reprocessing facilities. While that policy was reversed during the
Reagan Administration, there was no longer any commercial interest in
reprocessing and thus no need to update the existing reprocessing
regulatory framework in Part 50.
Although commercial reprocessing interest waned, the Department of
Energy (DOE) continued to pursue reprocessing technology development
through the National Laboratories. DOE has sought to decrease
proliferation risk and spent fuel high level waste through developing
more sophisticated reprocessing technology.
During the Bush Administration, the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) rekindled the interest in commercial reprocessing.
GNEP sought to expand the use of civilian nuclear power globally and
close the nuclear fuel cycle through reprocessing spent fuel and
deploying fast reactors to burn long-lived actinides. In response to
these initiatives, the Commission, in Staff Requirements Memorandum
(SRM) to SECY-07-0081, ``Regulatory Options for Licensing Facilities
Associated with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,'' dated June 27,
2007 (ADAMS ML071800084), directed the staff to complete an analysis of
10 CFR Chapter I to identify regulatory gaps for licensing an advanced
reprocessing facility and recycling reactor.
In mid-2008, two nuclear industry companies informed the agency of
their intent to seek a license for a reprocessing facility in the U.S.
An additional company expressed its support for updating the regulatory
framework for reprocessing, but stopped short of stating its intent to
seek a license for such a facility. At the time, NRC staff also noted
that progress on some Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
initiatives had waned and it appeared appropriate to shift the focus of
the staff's efforts from specific GNEP-facility regulations to a more
broadly applicable framework for commercial reprocessing facilities.
In SECY-08-0134, titled, ``Regulatory Structure for Spent Fuel
Reprocessing,''
[[Page 45169]]
dated September 12, 2008 (ADAMS ML082110363), the staff discussed the
shift in its approach to developing the regulatory framework
development for commercial reprocessing facilities. The staff noted
that it would defer additional work on regulatory framework development
efforts for advanced recycling reactors and focus on the framework
revisions necessary to license a potential application for commercial
reprocessing. As a result of this shift, the staff indicated that an
additional review of the initial gap analysis was warranted.
NRC staff performed a regulatory gap analysis and summarized it in
SECY-09-0082, ``Update on Reprocessing Regulatory Framework--Summary of
Gap Analysis,'' dated May 28, 2009 (ADAMS ML091520243). The staff's gap
analysis identified 14 ``high'' priority gaps that must be resolved to
establish an effective and efficient regulatory framework. The
regulatory gaps broadly cover four main areas: (1) Reprocessing waste-
related issues, (2) physical protection and material control and
accounting, (3) risk, and (4) licensing issues. The NRC staff's
regulatory gap analysis considered several documents in its analysis,
including: NUREG-1909, a white paper authored by the Advisory Committee
on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) titled ``Background, Status and
Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle
Facilities,'' issued June 2008; correspondence from the Union of
Concerned Scientists titled, ``Revising the Rules for Materials
Protection, Control and Accounting;'' and an NEI white paper titled,
``Regulatory Framework for an NRC Licensed Recycling Facility.''
Building on the gap analysis, efforts are currently underway to
develop a regulatory (technical) basis to pursue rulemaking that would
enable the effective licensing and regulation of reprocessing
facilities. The status of the regulatory basis development and
estimated schedule for completing the reprocessing regulatory
development are summarized in a May 14, 2010, memorandum to the
Commission (ADAMS ML101110444).
In advance of NRC staff's development of the regulatory basis
document for reprocessing facility licensing, and, if necessary, a
possible rulemaking, the NRC will conduct public workshops inviting
representatives of interested stakeholders in a ``roundtable'' format.
At these workshops, NRC plans to discuss with stakeholders the issues
to be considered in the development of the regulatory basis document
for reprocessing facility licensing, which, in turn, will serve as the
basis for possible rulemaking. NRC plans to consider these stakeholder
views in the development of the regulatory basis document. In order to
have a manageable discussion, the number of participants around the
table will be limited. The NRC, through the workshop facilitator, will
attempt to ensure broad participation by the spectrum of interests
affected by the rulemaking, including citizen and environmental groups,
nuclear industry interests, state, and local governments, and experts
from academia and other federal agencies. Other members of the public
are welcome to attend. Those not seated at the tables, including
individual members of the public, will have the opportunity to provide
feedback on each of the issues slated for discussion by the roundtable
participants. Questions about participation in the roundtable
discussion may be directed to the facilitator.
Section 2.0 describes issues associated with the regulatory gaps in
SECY-09-0082 and will broadly cover four main areas: (1) Reprocessing
waste-related issues, (2) physical protection and material control and
accounting, 3) risk, and (4) licensing issues.
2.0 Issues for Discussion
During the public workshops, the NRC plans to solicit stakeholder
comments and feedback during four separate discussion sessions. During
each session, the NRC plans to discuss one of the four major categories
of regulatory gaps for reprocessing facilities, as discussed in SECY-
09-0082 (ADAMS ML091520243). The NRC will use a roundtable discussion
format for all four discussion sessions. The four main categories of
regulatory gaps are: (1) Reprocessing waste related gaps, (2) physical
protection and material control and accounting gaps, (3) risk gaps, and
(4) licensing gaps. Below is a brief discussion of the individual gaps
in each category.
I. Reprocessing Waste Related Gaps
a. Gap 2--Independent Storage of High-Level Waste
No independent waste storage options are available under 10 CFR
Part 72, ``Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater
Than Class C Waste,'' to accommodate interim, commercial independent
storage of solidified high-level waste (HLW) from reprocessing
facilities. NRC staff is developing a technical basis to establish the
regulatory framework necessary for both the onsite storage and
commercial independent storage of solidified HLW. Without this basis,
there are no viable regulatory options for interim storage of
solidified HLW from reprocessing facilities.
b. Gap 3--Waste Incidental to Reprocessing
The NRC lacks regulations defining certain waste streams resulting
from spent fuel reprocessing as waste incidental to reprocessing, or
incidental waste, rather than HLW. If the NRC does not develop an
incidental waste rule, then an applicant for a reprocessing facility
would face regulatory uncertainty with regard to differentiating HLW
from incidental wastes produced at its facility.
c. Gap 16--Waste Classification
The waste classification tables in 10 CFR 61.55 include many
radionuclides that would be associated with reprocessing waste streams.
However, a few waste streams that contain radionuclides (e.g., krypton-
85 separated from gaseous effluent, noble metals and some lanthanides)
were not considered in the development of 10 CFR 61.55, and are not
listed in either Table 1 or Table 2. If the gap is not addressed, some
wastes associated with reprocessing facilities could be classified as
Class A, but they may not be suitable for near-surface disposal at some
sites.
d. Gap 15--Waste Confidence
The waste confidence decision published in the Federal Register on
August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34658) discusses waste from reprocessing
facilities in the first and third finding. The generic waste confidence
rule in 10 CFR 51.23, ``Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel after Cessation
of Reactor Operation--Generic Determination of No Significant
Environmental Impact,'' applies only to waste from reactor facilities.
Therefore, in their environmental report, applicants for reprocessing
facility licenses will need to address long-term storage of their
waste. If the regulatory basis supports expansion of the waste
confidence rule to include HLW, and if the rule is amended, then
consideration of the environmental impacts of interim HLW storage will
be considered generically. If, on the other hand, the waste confidence
rule is not amended to include HLW generated from spent fuel
reprocessing facilities, then the environmental impacts of interim HLW
storage will need to be analyzed on a
[[Page 45170]]
site-specific basis (by the applicant in its environmental report and
then by the staff in its National Environmental Policy Act
environmental analysis).
II. Physical Protection and Material Control and Accounting Gaps
a. Gap 4--Exclusion of Irradiated Fuel Reprocessing Facilities in 10
CFR 74.51
The regulation in 10 CFR 74.51, ``Nuclear Material Control and
Accounting for Strategic Special Nuclear Material,'' currently excludes
irradiated fuel reprocessing facilities from Category I material
control and accounting (MC&A) requirements. Category I reprocessing
facilities would not have the same MC&A requirements as other Category
I facilities if the exclusion is not removed, yet comparable
requirements may be needed to protect against theft and diversion of
separated special nuclear material and other materials. Accordingly, it
is necessary to remove this exclusion to ensure the security of
material in any proposed Category I reprocessing facility.
b. Gap 8--Risk-Informing 10 CFR Part 73 and 10 CFR Part 74
The current type and quantity-based categorization scheme in the
existing regulations may pose an undue regulatory burden in operating a
reprocessing facility. Current requirements for facility processes and
reprocessed fuel assemblies may result in excessive security and
safeguards measures for relatively unattractive materials. Risk-
informing 10 CFR Part 73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and
Materials,'' and 10 CFR Part 74, ``Material Control and Accounting of
Special Nuclear Material,'' is needed to prevent unintended
consequences associated with a type and quantity-based material
categorization scheme for potential materials resulting from a
reprocessing operation.
c. Gap 17--Diversion Path Analysis Requirements
There are no existing regulations for a diversion path analysis
requirement under 10 CFR Part 74. Establishing diversion path analysis
requirements would make 10 CFR Part 74 more risk-informed and would
provide an effective detection and response program to mitigate
potential safeguards vulnerabilities and system weaknesses. Under this
requirement, affected reprocessing facilities would develop a more
risk-informed safeguards program that considers a wide range of
malevolent activities that might involve overt or covert adversaries. A
burden would be imposed upon such facilities to conduct a diversion
path analysis and address any identified vulnerability.
d. Gap 18--Approaches Toward Material Accounting Management
NRC staff is considering different changes and improvements to
material inventory requirements for reprocessing facilities. Currently,
10 CFR 74.59(f) gives predefined quantity limits and timeliness
requirements for Category I facilities, which must perform physical
inventories every 6 months. Predefined limits on inventory difference
determinations and the restriction on inventory periods could pose a
regulatory challenge for reprocessing facilities, due to their large
throughputs and inventories. Modern technology that has been developed
or is being developed will help reprocessing facilities to meet the
existing timeliness and quantity goals. Improved technology, such as
near real time accounting, has been used at certain overseas
reprocessing plants. This and other technologies can provide a more
frequent inventory analysis without a facility shut-down, and will
facilitate meeting the current timeliness and quantity goals.
Additionally, incorporating a material holdup management program
requirement into 10 CFR Part 74 to minimize the impact of material
holdup could facilitate more accurate inventory accounting.
e. Gap 20--Advanced Fuel Cycles and Transuranic Special Nuclear
Material (SNM) Classification
Certain fissile elements such as americium (Am), neptunium (Np),
and others, which are constituents of spent nuclear fuel, are currently
not regulated or treated as other fissile or SNM material. Some
advanced fuel cycle separation methods have the ability to separate
these actinides, resulting in separated and pure fissile products.
However, existing regulations do not address security risks for these
types of fissile material. Although such advanced fuel cycle separation
methods are not industrially mature and are still being researched, if
advanced fuel cycles that separate these fissile elements receive
commercial interest, the Commission may consider revisiting its policy
of excluding these elements as SNM.
III. Risk Gaps
a. Gap 5--Risk Considerations for a Production Facility Licensed Under
10 CFR Part 70
Reprocessing facilities handle larger amounts of radioactive
material than other fuel cycle facilities. These higher amounts
increase the relative risk of these facilities. The NRC revised 10 CFR
Part 70 in 2000 based on a limited number of lower risk fuel cycle
facilities, and the revision did not consider higher risk reprocessing
facilities. These higher risks are not adequately addressed in the
methodology established in 10 CFR Part 70. Therefore, if left
unchanged, the requirements for reprocessing facilities licensed under
10 CFR Part 70 will be the same as those for the lower risk fuel cycle
facilities. The NRC is considering various qualitative and quantitative
approaches for establishing new risk assessment requirements for
reprocessing facilities.
b. Gap 9--Baseline Design Criteria (BDC)/General Design Criteria (GDC)
The existing baseline design criteria (BDC) in 10 CFR Part 70 do
not comprehensively address hazards posed by the operation of a
reprocessing facility. Although Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria
for Nuclear Power Plants,'' to 10 CFR Part 50 provides general design
criteria (GDC) for nuclear power plants, none of these GDC are specific
to reprocessing facilities. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 70 have a
few BDC directed more toward lower risk fuel cycle facilities. The NRC
will consider multiple sources in establishing appropriate BDC or GDC
for reprocessing facilities. The NRC will use the terms BDC and GDC
interchangeably during its discussions.
c. Gap 11--Technical Specifications
The provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 require technical specifications
for reprocessing facilities. Such requirements may not be compatible
with 10 CFR Part 70. For incorporation into 10 CFR Part 70, revisions
will be needed to clarify the division between items relied on for
safety (IROFS), which are derived from an integrated safety analysis
(ISA), and technical specifications. Additionally, changes to technical
specifications would require a license amendment, whereas similar
changes under 10 CFR Part 70 licensed facilities could proceed under
the facility change process in 10 CFR 70.72, ``Facility Changes and
Change Process,'' if the changes meet these requirements.
d. Gap 7--Licensed Operators and Criteria for Testing and Licensing
Operators
Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (AEA)
requires production facilities to have licensed operators. However, the
current criteria in 10 CFR Part 55, ``Operators'
[[Page 45171]]
Licenses,'' are not applicable, in whole, to operators of reprocessing
facilities. The NRC needs to develop criteria in 10 CFR Part 55,
``Operators' Licenses,'' or in a reprocessing-specific regulation in a
revised 10 CFR Part 70 or new Part 7X, for testing and licensing
operators of reprocessing facilities.
e. Gap 19--Effluent Controls and Monitoring
The requirements of 10 CFR Part 70 do not sufficiently address
effluent controls and monitoring for reprocessing facilities [e.g.,
implementation of EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 190, as required by 10
CFR 20.1301(e)]. Additional requirements for effluent controls and
monitoring may be needed for reprocessing facilities because of the
amounts of radioactive material that are handled in them and greater
potential for emissions. Although the regulations in 10 CFR 50.34a,
``Design Objectives for Equipment To Control Releases of Radioactive
Material in Effluents--Nuclear Power Plants,'' and 10 CFR 50.36a,
``Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors,''
specify requirements for utilization facilities, these would require
modification to address reprocessing and recycling facilities.
IV. Licensing Gaps
a. Gap 1--Regulatory Framework Options, Part 50 or Part 70
Currently, licensing a reprocessing facility under 10 CFR Part 50
would pose a significant hindrance to effective and efficient
licensing. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 70, as currently written, do
not provide a regulatory framework to license a reprocessing facility.
Therefore, the staff is evaluating options for either revising Part 50
or Part 70, or develop regulations in a new Part 5X, or Part 7X.
b. Gap 6--Definition for Reprocessing Related Terms
There are currently no definitions of the terms ``reprocessing,''
``recycling,'' and ``vitrification.'' Existing regulations in 10 CFR
Parts 20, 50, 51, 60, 63, 70 and 72 use the term ``reprocessing''
without a definition. Accordingly, such definitions will need to be
developed to describe both reprocessing and reprocessing facilities for
10 CFR Chapter I.
c. Gap 10--One-Step Licensing and Inspection, Testing and Acceptance
Criteria (ITAAC) Requirements
Currently, regulations for one-step licensing of reprocessing
facilities do not exist. One-step licensing necessitates requirements
to verify that the constructed facility conforms to the approved,
licensed design. For reactors, 10 CFR Part 52 identifies these
requirements as ITAAC. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 52 do not apply
to reprocessing or other production facilities, nor do the requirements
for the approval of applications set forth in 10 CFR 70.23,
``Requirements for the Approval of Applications,'' address reprocessing
facilities. Clarity is needed in 10 CFR Part 70 to provide reasonable
assurance that a reprocessing facility, undergoing a one-step licensing
process, will have been constructed and will operate in conformity with
the license, the AEA, and the Commission's rules and regulations.
d. Gap 12--Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements
(10 CFR Part 140)
A reprocessing facility cannot be licensed without financial
protection and indemnity agreements. Price Anderson protection and
indemnity fees and amounts for reprocessing facilities are currently
not included in 10 CFR Part 140, ``Financial Protection Requirements
and Indemnity Agreements.'' Additionally, several appendices to 10 CFR
Part 140 do not include forms for reprocessing facilities.
e. Gap 13--Schedule of Fees (10 CFR Part 170)
The scope of 10 CFR Part 170, ``Fees for Facilities, Materials,
Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended,'' does not include a production
facility licensed outside 10 CFR Part 50.
f. Gap 14--Annual Fees (10 CFR Part 171)
The regulations in 10 CFR Part 171, ``Annual Fees for Reactor
Licenses and Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, Including
Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality
Assurance Program Approvals and Government Agencies Licensed by the
NRC,'' do not include annual fees for reprocessing facility licenses.
The scope of the regulation, described in 10 CFR 171.3, does not
specifically include reprocessing or production facilities.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of July 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marissa G. Bailey,
Deputy Director, Special Projects and Technical Support Directorate,
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010-18888 Filed 7-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P