Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

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 petitioners statements regarding reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
II. Public Comments on the Petition On July 26, 2019, the NRC published a notice of docketing of PRM50117 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
NRC20190063.
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 PRM50117, 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 NRCs 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 May 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 petitioners 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
PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

24363

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 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 NRCand then subsequently withdrewa certification of an intent to cease operations under 50.82a1i.
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
E:FRFM06MYP1.SGM

06MYP1