ML14196A464
| ML14196A464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/18/2014 |
| From: | Chris Miller NRC/FSME/DILR |
| To: | Schlueter J Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Young T | |
| References | |
| NRC-2014-0118 | |
| Download: ML14196A464 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 18, 2014 Janet R. Schlueter, Senior Director Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004
SUBJECT:
DOCKET NO.: NRC-2014-0118 (79 FR 34641) DRAFT REGULATORY BASIS FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND 10 CFR PARTS 26 AND 73, ENHANCED SECURITY AT FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES; SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION
Dear Ms. Schlueter:
By letter dated June 20, 2014, you requested an extension to the comment period on the draft regulatory basis on Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 26 and 73, Enhanced Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities; Special Nuclear Material Transportation. You submitted this request to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). You requested an extension of the period to comment from 45 days to 120 days from the date of the Federal Register notice (FRN) (79 Federal Register (FR) 34641 posted on June 18, 2014) thereby extending it from August 4, 2014, to on or about October 18, 2014. You also requested one or more additional public meetings. To accommodate your request, the NRC will publish a notice in the FR extending the comment period and will hold an additional public meeting during the extended comment period.
The NRC staff desires to provide the additional time for stakeholders to answer the specific questions posed in the FRN. The staff would also like to obtain the cost impact information that is needed to support the development of the regulatory analyses for the proposed Part 26 rulemaking and the proposed Part 73 rulemaking. The staff believes the extended comment period will provide ample opportunity for stakeholders to provide the NRC staff with input on the potential impacts from these two rulemaking efforts.
In your letter you also raised two regulatory process issues. Your first issue stated that the NRC needs to determine and communicate with licensees regarding if, when and how security orders and confirmatory action letters currently in place at licensed facilities would be rescinded and how potential inconsistencies between the two sets of requirements would be resolved.
The NRC expects to make certain provisions of the security orders generically applicable in the Part 73 rulemaking. After a final rule is issued, the NRC plans to rescind the security orders if all of the requirements are incorporated in the rule, or to relax portions of these security orders if only a portion of the security orders are addressed by the rule. Some requirements of the security orders, because of their sensitive nature, would continue to be carried out by security order or included in Classified Regulatory Guidance. The NRC would resolve the potential
J. Schlueter inconsistencies during the proposed rule phase and the final rule phase of the rulemaking process. As for the mechanism used to rescind any or portions of any security orders issued to licensees, it is expected that the NRC would inform stakeholders via publishing a notice in the Federal Register and informing licensees via a letter that the security order requirements are captured in the regulations and that the security orders are all or in part rescinded.
Your second issue pertains to the timing of the Part 73 rulemaking relative to the ongoing rulemaking to amend the NRCs material control and accounting regulations for special nuclear material in 10 CFR Part 74. The NRC published a proposed rule to amend the material control and accounting requirements on November 8, 2013, in 10 CFR Part 74 (78 FR 67225). The NRC does not foresee a problem with proceeding with the Part 74 rulemaking while considering material attractiveness issues and developing the regulatory basis for the Part 73 rulemaking.
The staff does not currently anticipate that a future Part 73 rulemaking with a scope similar to that presented in the draft regulatory basis will require other than future conforming changes to Part 74. Both the draft regulatory basis for Part 73 and the published proposed rule for Part 74 refer to the material categories and quantities currently existing in the regulations. The Part 73 regulatory basis further considers the possibility that a licensee may voluntarily designate diluted material within an approved security plan; however, this would not significantly affect the Part 74 regulations. The staff recognizes the interdependence between Part 73 and Part 74; thus, as these rulemakings progress, we will monitor the activities to ensure appropriate coordination.
Thank you for contacting the NRC to request an extension of the public comment period and for raising the two regulatory process issues.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Thomas Young at 301-415-5795 or via e-mail at Thomas.Young@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/George Wilson RA for/
Christopher G. Miller, Director Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs
J. Schlueter inconsistencies during the proposed rule phase and the final rule phase of the rulemaking process. As for the mechanism used to rescind any or portions of any security orders issued to licensees, it is expected that the NRC would inform stakeholders via publishing a notice in the Federal Register and informing licensees via a letter that the security order requirements are captured in the regulations and that the security orders are all or in part rescinded.
Your second issue pertains to the timing of the Part 73 rulemaking relative to the ongoing rulemaking to amend the NRCs material control and accounting regulations for special nuclear material in 10 CFR Part 74. The NRC published a proposed rule to amend the material control and accounting requirements on November 8, 2013, in 10 CFR Part 74 (78 FR 67225). The NRC does not foresee a problem with proceeding with the Part 74 rulemaking while considering material attractiveness issues and developing the regulatory basis for the Part 73 rulemaking.
The staff does not currently anticipate that a future Part 73 rulemaking with a scope similar to that presented in the draft regulatory basis will require other than future conforming changes to Part 74. Both the draft regulatory basis for Part 73 and the published proposed rule for Part 74 refer to the material categories and quantities currently existing in the regulations. The Part 73 regulatory basis further considers the possibility that a licensee may voluntarily designate diluted material within an approved security plan; however, this would not significantly affect the Part 74 regulations. The staff recognizes the interdependence between Part 73 and Part 74; thus, as these rulemakings progress, we will monitor the activities to ensure appropriate coordination.
Thank you for contacting the NRC to request an extension of the public comment period and for raising the two regulatory process issues.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Thomas Young at 301-415-5795 or via e-mail at Thomas.Young@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/George Wilson RA for/
Christopher G. Miller, Director Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs DISTRIBUTION:
DILR R/F DMendiola ML14196A464 OFC RPMB/DILR RPMB/DILR NMSS NSIR FSME/DILR JDanna MBailey MThaggard CMiller NAME TYoung (RMacDougall for) (email) (email) (GWilson for)
DATE 7/15/14 7/18/14 7/10/14 7/17/14 7/18/14 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY