[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66537-66554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31945]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
RIN 3150-AD63
Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations
on the environmental review of applications to renew the operating
licenses of nuclear power plants to make minor clarifying and
conforming changes and add language inadvertently omitted from Table B-
1 of the rulemaking published June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467). This final
rule also presents an analysis of the comments received and the staff
responses to the comments requested in the final rule published June 5,
1996. After reviewing the comments received, the NRC has determined
that no substantive changes to the final rule are warranted.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule shall be effective on January 17, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of comments received and all documents cited in the
supplementary information section of 61 FR 28467 may be examined at the
NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW, (Lower Level) Washington,
DC, between the hours of 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6263; e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Commission has amended its environmental protection regulations
in 10 CFR Part 51 to improve the efficiency of the process of
environmental review for applicants seeking to renew a nuclear power
plant operating license for up to an additional 20 years. The final
rule containing these amendments was published in the Federal Register
on June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467). The amendments are based on the analyses
reported in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996). At several stages
in the development of the rule the Commission sought public comment by
means of notices in the Federal Register and public workshops. The
history of this rulemaking is summarized in the June 5, 1996 notice (61
FR 28469). Prior to the final rule becoming effective, the Commission
believed it appropriate to seek comments on the treatment of low-level
waste storage and disposal impacts, the cumulative radiological effects
from the uranium fuel cycle, and the effects from the disposal of high-
level waste and spent fuel. In a supplemental notice published on July
18, 1996 (61 FR 37351), the Commission extended the comment period for
these issues to August 5, 1996, and indicated that the final rule would
become effective on September 5, 1996, absent notice from the
Commission to the contrary. The Commission has reviewed the comments
submitted and finds no need to amend the substantive provisions of the
rule.
This final rule amends the June 5, 1996 rule with minor
nonsubstantive changes. The changes are: addition of five Ground-water
Use and Quality issues inadvertently left out of Table B-1 in the June
5, 1996 notice (see, 61 FR 29278, July 29, 1996); minor conforming
changes to reflect recent amendments to Secs. 51.53 and 51.95 effected
by a separate rulemaking (``Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39278)); substitution of one sentence
under Findings for the issue ``Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel
and high-level waste disposal)'' in Table B-1, in order to more
accurately represent a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulatory position; a word substitution in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M),
in order to clarify the information on the environmental effect of
transportation of fuel and waste to and from a nuclear power plant that
is to be submitted with a license renewal application; and minor
clarifying changes to the text in Table B-1 concerning chronic effects
of electromagnetic fields.
II. Analysis of Public Comments
A. Commenters.
In response to the Federal Register notice for the final rule
published on June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), 11 organizations and 1 private
citizen submitted written comments. The 11 organizations included the
EPA; the States of Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont; the Nuclear
Energy Institute, and 6 licensees. Commenters expressed concerns about
specific aspects of the rule and several commenters referred to
material in NUREG-1437 which they believe to be inaccurate or
ambiguous. Other than one State, the commenters expressed that the rule
should be revised to address their concerns. The seven commenters from
the nuclear power industry stated that their concerns should be
addressed by supplemental rulemaking and should not delay the effective
date of the rule as published in 61 FR 28467. The Commission assumes
that EPA, two States, and the private individual intend for their
concerns to be addressed by revising the final rule and final GEIS now
rather than by supplemental rulemaking. These specific concerns and how
and when they should be resolved are addressed below.
B. Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal, and Cumulative Radiological
Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle
Comment. The two commenting States expressed concern over the
prospect of long-term storage of high-level waste (HLW) at reactor
sites. One State also expressed concern over the prospect of long-term
storage of low-level waste (LLW) at reactor sites. This State believes
that ``the Commission should establish a policy which would condition
license renewal to a resolution of radioactive waste disposal issues.''
One State believes that provisions in NRC's regulations for addressing
significant new information and the 10-year cycle for reviewing the
continued appropriateness of the conclusions codified by the rule are
not adequate with respect to the issues of on-site storage and disposal
of HLW; and, therefore, site-specific environmental review should be
required for these issues, i.e., these issues should be designated
Category 2. A third State believes that a Category 1 designation is
appropriate for these issues, i.e., findings for the issue codified in
the rule may be adopted in site-specific license renewal reviews,
[[Page 66538]]
and supports the provision in the rule for periodic evaluation of these
issues.
Response. As stated at 61 FR 28477, the Commission acknowledges
that there is uncertainty in the schedule of availability of disposal
facilities for LLW and HLW. The Commission understands the continuing
concern of the States and of the public over the prospects for timely
development of waste disposal facilities. The uncertainty in the
schedule of availability of disposal facilities is especially of
concern because of the waste currently being generated during the
initial licensing term of power reactors. The Commission, however,
continues to believe that there is sufficient understanding of and
experience with the storage of LLW and HLW to conclude that the waste
generated at any plant as a result of license renewal can be stored
safely and without significant environmental impacts prior to permanent
disposal. The Commission believes that conditioning individual license
renewal decisions on resolution of radioactive waste disposal issues is
not warranted because the Commission has already made a generic
determination, codified in 10 CFR 51.23, that spent fuel generated at
any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental
impacts for at least 30 years beyond a license renewal term and that
there will be a repository available within the first quarter of the
twenty-first century. The waste confidence decision is discussed in
Chapter 6 of NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal for Nuclear Plants,'' May 1996. The Commission
similarly believes that enough is known regarding the effects of
permanent disposal to reach the generic conclusion in the rule. The
rule is not based on the assumption that Yucca Mountain will be
licensed. Also from a regulatory policy perspective, the Commission
disagrees with the view of one state that each renewal applicant should
come forward with an analysis of the HLW storage and disposal
environmental effects. This is a national problem of essentially the
same degree of complexity and uncertainty for every renewal application
and it would not be useful to have a repetitive reconsideration of the
matter.
The Commission further believes that the provisions in the present
rule and elsewhere in the Commission's regulations adequately provide
for the introduction and consideration of new significant information
in license renewal reviews, and that the 10 year review cycle for the
rule and the GEIS adequately provides for Commission reassessment of
the status of LLW and HLW disposal programs. The Commission recognizes
that the possibility of significant unexpected events remains open.
Consequently, the Commission will review its conclusions on these waste
findings should significant and pertinent unexpected events occur (see
also, 49 FR 34658 (August 31, 1984)). In view of the Commission's
favorable conclusions regarding prospects for safe and environmentally
acceptable waste disposal, it sees no need for conditioning licenses as
recommended. The Category 1 designations for these three issues [low-
level waste storage and disposal, offsite radiological impacts (spent
fuel and high-level waste disposal), and on-site spent fuel] in the
final rule has not been changed in response to these comments.
Comment. Six industry organizations specifically commented on the
treatment of the LLW and HLW issues in 61 FR 28467 and in the GEIS.
Except for the treatment of the environmental impacts of transportation
of radiological material to and from the plant, the industry commenters
agree with the Commissions findings on waste issues. Transportation
(radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts) is designated
Category 2 in the final rule. This designation requires some additional
review of the environmental impacts of transportation.
The industry commenters argue that the requirements for the review
of transportation impacts for license renewal described in the final
rule are unclear, and that there are good reasons to change the
transportation issue from a Category 2 to a Category 1 designation. The
requirements for the review of transportation issues in the final rule
were found by the commenters to be unclear with respect to (1) the use
and legal status of 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, in the plant-specific
license renewal review; (2) the conditions that must be met before an
applicant may adopt Table S-4; and (3) the extent to which the
``generic'' effects of transporting spent fuel to a high-level waste
repository should be considered in a plant-specific license renewal
review. In addition, several commenters suggested that DOE should have
the responsibility of considering the cumulative environmental impacts
from transportation.
Response. The Commission does not believe that changes to the rule
in response to industry comments are warranted at this time. However,
in order to clarify the rule's requirements, the following guidance is
provided on the issue of transportation impacts. As a result of this
rulemaking, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) requires applicants to review the
environmental effects of transportation in accordance with Sec. 51.52
(Table S-4) and to discuss the generic and cumulative impacts
associated with transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of a
high-level waste repository site. The candidate site at Yucca Mountain
should be used for the purpose of impact analysis as long as that site
is under consideration for licensing. The amendments to 10 CFR Part 51
in this rulemaking do not alter the existing provisions of Sec. 51.52.
If an applicant's reactor meets all the conditions in Sec. 51.52(a) the
applicant may use the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel
and waste to and from the reactor set forth in Summary Table S-4 to
characterize the transportation impacts from the renewal of its
license. However, because Table S-4 does not take into account the
generic and cumulative (including synergistic) impacts of
transportation infrastructure construction and operation in the
vicinity of the Yucca Mountain repository site, such information would
have to be provided by these applicants.
For reactors not meeting the conditions of Sec. 51.52(a), the
applicant must provide a full description and detailed analysis of such
environmental effects associated with transportation in accordance with
Sec. 51.52(b). Industry commenters pointed out that the conditions in
paragraph (a) are not likely to be satisfied by many plants now using
higher burn-up fuel. In such cases, applicants may incorporate in their
analysis the discussion presented in the GEIS in Section 6.2.3
``Sensitivity to Recent Changes in the Fuel Cycle,'' and Section 6.3
``Transportation.'' This category of applicants also would have to
consider the generic and cumulative impacts of transportation operation
in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain repository site. These impacts
may be attributed to an individual plant on a reactor-year basis.
As part of its efforts to develop regulatory guidance for this
rule, the Commission will consider whether further changes to the rule
are desirable to generically address: (1) The issue of cumulative
transportation impacts and (2) the implications that the use of higher
burn-up fuel have for the conclusions in Table S-4. After consideration
of these issues, the Commission will determine whether the issue of
transportation impacts should be changed to Category 1.
As to the NRC's duty to consider the cumulative transportation
impacts of license renewal, the Commission
[[Page 66539]]
continues to believe that such analysis is appropriate. The fact that
DOE rather than an applicant will have title to spent-fuel and high-
level waste when it is transported to a repository and that ultimately
DOE must consider the environmental impacts of transportation does not
relieve the Commission of the responsibility under the National
Environmental Policy Act to consider the impacts of transportation in
its environmental review for renewal of an operating license.
Finally, regarding the attribution of transportation impacts
between the initial operating license and the renewed license, the
allocation of environmental data in Sec. 51.51 and environmental
impacts in Sec. 51.52 on the bases of a reference reactor year sets the
precedence for allocating generic (common) impacts.
Comment. EPA states that the discussion of the radiological impacts
of the uranium fuel cycle (61 FR 28478) requires clarification
regarding the collective effects, over time, on human populations.
Response. The Commission believes that the discussion adequately
summarizes the potential collective health impacts of the uranium fuel
cycle. The following is provided to clarify the specific elements of
that discussion. First, an estimate is provided of the 100-year dose
commitment to the U. S. population and the estimated cancer fatalities
from the uranium fuel cycle that are attributable to each 20-year
license renewal. It is then explained that much of the dose to
individuals is ``tiny'' and is attributed to radon releases from mines
and tailing piles. Second, it is explained that the dose calculation
could be extended to cover populations outside of the U. S. over
thousands of years, and that such a calculation would estimate
thousands of cancer fatalities. Third, the uncertainty that would be
involved in this computation and the conservative nature of the
estimates of fatalities are discussed. Views of the scientific
community about the possible overestimation of fatalities resulting
from the assumptions used are developed in Appendix E, Section E.4.1,
of the GEIS. Finally, the discussion points out that no standards exist
that can be used to reach a conclusion as to the significance of the
magnitude of the collective radiological health effects.
Comment. EPA maintains that natural background radiation should not
be used comparatively to judge the significance of additional doses of
radiation.
Response. The statement referred to by EPA (61 FR 28478), is
intended to provide perspective only on the magnitude of the additional
dose, not on its significance.
Comment. EPA believes that the GEIS is unclear as to whether
occupational doses are measured as the dose received by the average
worker or the maximally exposed worker. The NRC should clarify what
significance these two distinct measures have with respect to the NRC's
regulatory regime for reactor licensing.
Response. Occupational dose limits and the requirement to achieve
exposures which are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) are
codified in the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. The dose
limits and measured doses correspond to the individual. However, the
overall effectiveness of the licensee's ALARA programs are reflected by
the average doses received by the population of workers. A detailed
discussion of the Commission's radiation protection limits and
protection measures is provided in Appendix E of the GEIS. These
regulations apply to license renewal activities. The estimates in the
GEIS of occupational doses due to license renewal assume continued
compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, including both the dose limits and the
ALARA requirement.
Comment. EPA disagrees with the Commission's definition of
``small'' relative to radiological impacts. The Commission's definition
is, ``For the purpose of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission
has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels
in the Commission's regulations are considered small.'' EPA points out
that the Commission's regulations permit an upper limit that would
exceed the range of 10E-6 to 10E-4, established under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, for negligibly
small lifetime risk. EPA believes that risks falling above this range
should not be designated as small or insignificant.
Response. The definition of ``small'' used for assessing
radiological impacts in the GEIS is not synonymous with ``negligibly
small,'' which implies that an impact is so insignificant as to be
unworthy of consideration. The Commission promotes licensee programs to
bring doses below the regulatory limits to ``as low as reasonably
achievable'' (ALARA) through its regulations, 10 CFR 50.36(a), Appendix
I to 10 CFR Part 50, and provisions in 10 CFR Part 20. Because ALARA
programs continue to be effective, actual doses are far below the
regulatory limits, limits that represent a small risk. As the
Commission's dose limits are based on radiation protection standards
established by interagency committees and reflects international
scientific consensus on the adequacy of protection standards, the
Commission chooses to define radiological risk resulting from these
standards as being ``small.''
Comment. EPA takes issue with the Commission's assumptions, in
Section 6.2.2.2 of the GEIS, about regulatory limits for off-site
releases of radionuclides for the candidate repository at Yucca
Mountain. EPA stated that the Commission should not presume that EPA
will adopt the National Academy of Science recommendation regarding a
100 millirem annual dose limit. Further, EPA believes that the GEIS
should assume a smaller dose limit as a more conservative bounding
estimate, consistent with the stated objective of Table S-3 to
represent the worst case or bounding estimate of the potential release
from the uranium fuel cycle [GEIS page 6-1].
Response. The Commission does not assume that EPA will adopt a 100
millirem annual dose limit. The discussion in Section 6.2.2.2 is clear
that this limit is recommended by the Academy as a starting point for
consideration, and that there is some measure of consensus among
national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction
of the 100 mrem/year. At this time, the Commission is not prepared to
speculate as to what the final limit will be.
Comment. EPA states: ``The NRC has mis-stated the Agency's
expectations regarding the performance of a high-level waste
repository, and in doing so has used an inappropriate benchmark for its
discussion of acceptable doses to the general public from the disposal
of reactor fuel. Table B-1 * * * states that EPA's cumulative release
limits (from 40 CFR Part 191) are based on a population impact goal of
1,000 premature cancer deaths in the first 10,000 years after closure
of a repository. The table mistakenly equates EPA's standard for
releases from a high-level waste repository--an extreme upper limit
that would result in 1,000 premature cancer deaths--with EPA's goal or
expectation for the performance of such repositories. EPA stated in the
promulgation of its high-level waste regulation that a repository for
100,000 metric tonnes of reactor fuel would cause between 10 and 100
such deaths, on the assumption that the repository complies with the
NRC's enforceable requirements for engineered barriers
[[Page 66540]]
found at 10 CFR Part 60. The Commission should not use 1,000 fatal
cancers as a benchmark for repository performance and instead should
consider the Agency's stated expectation that a well-constructed, well-
sited repository should out-perform this level by ten or one-hundred-
fold. The same discussion appears in Section 6.2.2.2 of the GEIS on
page 6-20 and should also be corrected there.''
Response. The Commission agrees that referring to 1,000 premature
cancer deaths as an EPA population ``impact goal'' is misleading. Until
final repository release standards are promulgated and health impact
estimates are available, the Commission will continue to use 1,000
premature cancer deaths in the first 10,000 years after closure of a
repository as an upper bound estimate of cumulative health effects. The
following sentence has been substituted in the rule for the one with
which EPA disagrees: ``Repository performance standards that will be
required by EPA are expected to result in releases and associated
health consequences in the range between 10 and 100 premature cancer
deaths with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide
for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.''
Comment. EPA states: ``The NRC has not adequately justified certain
assumptions regarding its analysis of risks from the disposal of spent
nuclear (reactor) fuel in the high-level waste repository at Yucca
Mountain. The NRC asserts that analyses in the GEIS of health effects
from disposal of reactor fuel need not extend beyond 1,000 years,
though NRC's own regulations for high-level waste disposal, found at 10
CFR Part 60, contain explicit numerical requirements on releases
occurring after the first 1,000 years. An analysis extending over a
longer period of time would be more appropriate, such as for 10,000
years as required in EPA's high-level waste standard applicable to
sites other than Yucca Mountain.''
Response. This comment refers to an NRC staff response (found at
NUREG-1529, page C7-3) to a comment made by an EPA participant in the
NRC Public Workshop to Discuss License Renewal, held in Arlington,
Virginia, November 4 and 5, 1991 (Session 4, page 26). The EPA
participant pointed out that in the discussion of the uranium fuel
cycle in the draft GEIS, NRC provided estimates of population dose
commitments from open-pit uranium mines and stabilized tailings piles
for 100, 500 and 1,000 years, but didn't provide long-term estimates
for other long-lived materials. The commenter went on to point out that
in the case of the high-level waste repository these calculations are
carried out for 10,000 years, although in his view a calculation of
impact should be carried until there is no more impact. The staff
response to this comment is intended to point out that the likely
radiological impacts attributable to any one nuclear power plant's HLW
generated as a result of license renewal are uncertain and are unlikely
to be significantly altered by consideration of the impacts that may be
attributable to the period from 1,000 to 10,000 years. The basis for
the evaluation of the environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle
for the renewal of an operating license is 10 CFR 51.51--Table S-3, as
supplemented with an evaluation of the contribution of Radon-222 and
Technetium-99 to the environmental impact of the fuel cycle. The
environmental data in Table S-3 and discussion of associated
environmental impacts is expressed on the basis of a reference reactor
year of operation. Discussion of fuel cycle impacts has been further
supplemented in the final GEIS with available information on the status
of regulatory requirements and studies on the possible performance of
the candidate high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
C. Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives
Comment. Three industry commenters disagreed with the designation
of severe accidents as Category 2 in the final rule and the requirement
that severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) must be
addressed by the applicant and staff if SAMDAs had not previously been
addressed in a staff environmental document for the plant. They noted
that efforts to analyze severe accident vulnerabilities and the
opportunities to mitigate the vulnerabilities will be completed for all
plants in the near future. These analyses will provide the bases for a
generic finding on SAMDAs for all plants, including the designation of
Category 1 for severe accidents. One commenter proposed that a generic
Category 1 finding could be made that consideration of SAMDAs is not
required for any plant that has a completed Individual Plant
Examination (IPE) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events
(IPEEE).
Response. It is stated at 61 FR 28481 that upon completion of its
IPE/IPEEE program, the Commission may review the issue of severe
accident mitigation for license renewal and consider, by separate
rulemaking, reclassifying severe accidents as a Category 1 issue.
Completion of an IPE and IPEEE in itself is not sufficient to fulfill
the Commission's responsibility under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). SAMDA alternatives must be addressed within an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or supplement to an EIS, or an
Environmental Assessment. The Commission believes that this can be most
efficiently accomplished generically through a supplement to the GEIS
and rule amendment based on Commission review of all IPEs and IPEEEs.
Prior to successful completion of such a rulemaking an applicant will
have to submit a SAMDA alternatives analysis, based on its IPE and
IPEEE (if available), in its environmental report. Then the Commission
will review that analysis in a supplemental EIS for the plant.
D. Electromagnetic Fields (Chronic Effects)
Comment. Four industry commenters disagreed with the treatment of
chronic health effects of transmission line electromagnetic fields. The
rule contains the finding that the magnitude of effects is uncertain.
No finding is made in the rule as to whether this issue is a Category 1
or Category 2. The commenters note that no submittal is required of an
applicant for this issue until such time as the Commission finds that a
consensus has been reached by the appropriate Federal health agencies
that there are adverse health effects. The commenters believe that the
number of scientific studies performed over a long period of time which
could find no harmful effects is adequate disclosure under the NEPA to
designate this issue Category 1. It is suggested that an alternative to
a Category 1 designation is rewording Footnote 5 to Table B-1 in the
rule to state in a more positive manner that there is no scientific
evidence of chronic biological effects on humans and that this issue
will not be admitted as a contention in any hearing on a renewal
application. One commenter believes that this issue is not related to
refurbishment activities and thus should not be addressed in the
context of license renewal.
Response. The Commission is not inclined at this time to change the
rule relative to the treatment of the chronic human health effects of
transmission line electromagnetic fields. The Commission recognizes
that biological and physical studies of electromagnetic fields have not
found consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures
and that much of the scientific evidence and many experts in the field
arguably would support a
[[Page 66541]]
Category 1 determination for this issue. However, the Commission also
recognizes that research is continuing in this area, and that a
scientific consensus on the issue has not yet emerged. Consequently,
the Commission believes that a more conservative position on the matter
is appropriate at this time. With respect to concern that nonproductive
litigation of this issue will take place in license renewal hearings,
it should be noted that because of the intensive scrutiny given to this
issue within the scientific community, any contention will have to meet
scientific standards for admission.
E. Environmental Justice
Comment. Comments about the treatment of environmental justice in
the rule were offered by EPA and two licensees. EPA stated that as the
Commission further defines its environmental justice requirements it
should consider the draft guidance issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) on May 24, 1996, and the draft guidance
issued by EPA on July 12, 1996. The licensees believe that the rule
should include provisions for the treatment of environmental justice
that take into consideration that most environmental impacts of
relicensing nuclear plants have been found to be small and whether
there is any benefit in conducting an environmental justice review for
an already sited facility.
Response. The Commission is aware of the CEQ and EPA draft guidance
on the treatment of environmental justice in NEPA reviews. This
guidance is being considered as the Commission proceeds with developing
its own requirements for the treatment of environmental justice in NEPA
reviews. As these requirements are developed, the Commission will
consider whether it is appropriate to take a generic rather than a
site-specific approach to this issue for license renewal reviews.
F. Supplemental Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement Versus
Environmental Assessment
Comment. A licensee disagrees with the Commission's decision that a
supplemental EIS will be prepared for license renewal reviews rather
than a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) as proposed in the
proposed rule. The licensee believes that environmental reviews will
show that there will be no significant environmental impact for a
number of license renewal applicants, and therefore preparation of an
environmental assessment should be allowed under the final rule.
Response. Several considerations led to the Commission's decision
to require a supplemental EIS in license renewal reviews. The proposed
rule and supporting GEIS would have included a preliminary conclusion
of a favorable cost-benefit balance. The function of an EA would have
been to consider the impacts associated with a limited set of
environmental issues and whether these impacts would overturn the
favorable preliminary cost-benefit finding in the GEIS and codified in
the rule. Because there was a possibility that the impacts for the
limited set of environmental issues would be found to be nonexistent or
insignificant (no significant impacts), use of an EA was provided for
in the proposed rule. In addition, a finding of no significant impact
and the supporting EA may be issued in draft for comment at the
discretion of the appropriate NRC staff director. The proposed rule was
challenged with respect to preliminary cost-benefit findings and
procedural hurdles to public input to the license renewal review. To
resolve these concerns, the Commission modified the rule to eliminate
the preliminary license renewal finding and to make that finding only
after consideration of all impacts within the plant-specific review.
The Commission believes that the sum of all the individual impacts that
are to be considered in the decision whether to renew a nuclear power
plant operating license for an additional 20 years, especially given
the controversy over various aspects of nuclear power, exceeds the
Commission's threshold for a finding of no significant impact. This and
the desire to ensure public access to the license renewal review
process led to the requirement of a supplemental EIS for license
renewal.
G. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Comment. EPA questions the definition of the ``proposed action''
within the context of the discussion of purpose and need at 61 FR
28472.
Response. The definition of ``purpose and need'' is to be applied
to the ``proposed action'' of renewal of a nuclear power plant
operating license. It does not refer to and should not be confused with
the purpose of the GEIS, which is given in the GEIS, Section 1.1
Purpose of the GEIS.
H. Alternatives
Comment. A individual believes that the rule appears to contradict
the Limerick Ecology Action decision, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989). The
commenter states that this decision ``* * * requires the environmental
review to look at non-nuclear design alternatives in context of severe
accidents including non-nuclear alternatives.'' The commenter proceeds
to express concern that the analysis of alternatives consider
``efficiency and conservation'' and that sites considered for
alternatives not be limited geographically because of the ability to
wheel power over long distances. Finally, the individual objects to
eliminating utility economics from the environmental review because
``The real world reason to extend an operating license is that of
utility economics.''
Response. The Limerick decision was concerned with the
consideration of design mitigation alternatives specifically for the
Limerick plant, not with ``non-nuclear design alternatives.'' With
respect to the commenters concerns about the treatment of alternatives
to license renewal, the Commission believes that the final GEIS and
rule adequately accommodate these concerns. The consideration of
alternative energy sources in individual license renewal reviews will
consider those alternatives that are reasonable for the region,
including power purchases from outside the applicant's service area.
Also, in assessing the environmental impacts of new generating capacity
it will not necessarily be assumed that the capacity would be
constructed on the site under review. Finally, consideration of the
economic merits of renewing a plant operating license is eliminated
only from the Commission's decision whether to renew. The decision
about the economic merits of continued operation of a nuclear power
plant will be made by the owners and the State regulators.
III. Procedural Background
Because this rule makes only minor clarifying and conforming
changes and adds language inadvertently omitted from Table B-1 of the
rulemaking published June 5, 1996, and because public comments were
solicited on that rulemaking the NRC is approving this rule without
seeking public comments on proposed amendments. As such, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Commission for good cause finds that a notice and
comment procedure is unnecessary for this rulemaking.
IV. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action
described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore,
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been
[[Page 66542]]
prepared for this regulation. This action is procedural in nature and
pertains only to the type of environmental information to be reviewed.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget, approval number 3150-0021.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 4,200 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records
Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at
BJS[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0021), Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
The regulatory analysis prepared for the final rule published June
5, 1996 (61 FR 28467) is unchanged for this final rule. The analysis
examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the
Commission. The two alternatives considered were:
(A) Retaining the existing 10 CFR Part 51 review process for
license renewal, which requires that all reviews be on a plant-specific
basis; and
(B) Amending 10 CFR Part 51 to allow a portion of the environmental
review to be conducted on a generic basis.
The conclusions of the regulatory analysis show substantial cost
savings of alternative (B) over alternative (A). The analysis, NUREG-
1440, is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120
L Street NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Copies of the analysis are
available as described in Section V.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final
rule states the application procedures and environmental information to
be submitted by nuclear power plant licensees to facilitate NRC's
obligations under NEPA. Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall
within the definition of small businesses as defined in Section 3 of
the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Commission's Size
Standards, April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18344).
VIII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a
``major rule'' and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
IX. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that these amendments do not involve any
provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1); therefore, a backfit analysis need not be prepared.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors,
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; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following
amendments to 10 CFR Part 51.
PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, Sec. 1701, 106
Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,
5842).
Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041.
Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued
under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec.
148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161,
10168). Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as
amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141).
Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42
U.S.C. 10134(f)).
2. Section 51.45 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.45 Environmental report.
* * * * *
(c) Analysis. The environmental report shall include an analysis
that considers and balances the environmental effects of the proposed
action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed
action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse
environmental effects. Except for environmental reports prepared at the
license renewal stage pursuant to Sec. 51.53(c), the analysis in the
environmental report should also include consideration of the economic,
technical, and other benefits and costs of the proposed action and of
alternatives. Environmental reports prepared at the license renewal
stage pursuant to Sec. 51.53(c) need not discuss the economic or
technical benefits and costs of either the proposed action or
alternatives except insofar as such benefits and costs are either
essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative
in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In
addition, environmental reports prepared pursuant to Sec. 51.53(c) need
not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of
the proposed action and alternatives. The analyses for environmental
reports shall, to the fullest extent practicable, quantify the various
factors considered. To the extent that there are important qualitative
considerations or factors that cannot be quantified, those
considerations or factors shall be discussed in qualitative terms. The
environmental report should contain sufficient data to aid the
Commission in its development of an independent analysis.
* * * * *
3. Section 51.53 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 66543]]
Sec. 51.53 Postconstruction environmental reports.
(a) General. Any environmental report prepared under the provisions
of this section may incorporate by reference any information contained
in a prior environmental report or supplement thereto that relates to
the production or utilization facility or any information contained in
a final environmental document previously prepared by the NRC staff
that relates to the production or utilization facility. Documents that
may be referenced include, but are not limited to, the final
environmental impact statement; supplements to the final environmental
impact statement, including supplements prepared at the license renewal
stage; NRC staff-prepared final generic environmental impact
statements; and environmental assessments and records of decisions
prepared in connection with the construction permit, the operating
license, and any license amendment for that facility.
(b) Operating license stage. Each applicant for a license to
operate a production or utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20
shall submit with its application the number of copies specified in
Sec. 51.55 of a separate document entitled ``Supplement to Applicant's
Environmental Report--Operating License Stage,'' which will update
``Applicant's Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage.'' Unless
otherwise required by the Commission, the applicant for an operating
license for a nuclear power reactor shall submit this report only in
connection with the first licensing action authorizing full-power
operation. In this report, the applicant shall discuss the same matters
described in Secs. 51.45, 51.51, and 51.52, but only to the extent that
they differ from those discussed or reflect new information in addition
to that discussed in the final environmental impact statement prepared
by the Commission in connection with the construction permit. No
discussion of need for power, or of alternative energy sources, or of
alternative sites for the facility, or of any aspect of the storage of
spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic
determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b) is
required in this report.
(c) Operating license renewal stage. (1) Each applicant for renewal
of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under part 54 of this
chapter shall submit with its application the number of copies
specified in Sec. 51.55 of a separate document entitled ``Applicant's
Environmental Report--Operating License Renewal Stage.''
(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action,
including the applicant's plans to modify the facility or its
administrative control procedures as described in accordance with
Sec. 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the
modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant
effluents that affect the environment. In addition, the applicant shall
discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives and
any other matters described in Sec. 51.45. The report is not required
to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and
economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the
proposed action except insofar as such costs and benefits are either
essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative
in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. The
environmental report need not discuss other issues not related to the
environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. In
addition, the environmental report need not discuss any aspect of the
storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic
determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b).
(3) For those applicants seeking an initial renewal license and
holding either an operating license or construction permit as of June
30, 1995, the environmental report shall include the information
required in paragraph (c)(2) of this section subject to the following
conditions and considerations:
(i) The environmental report for the operating license renewal
stage is not required to contain analyses of the environmental impacts
of the license renewal issues identified as Category 1 issues in
Appendix B to subpart A of this part.
(ii) The environmental report must contain analyses of the
environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the impacts of
refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal and
the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues
identified as Category 2 issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this
part. The required analyses are as follows:
(A) If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling
ponds and withdraws make-up water from a river whose annual flow rate
is less than 3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x1010m3/year), an
assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the flow of the
river and related impacts on instream and riparian ecological
communities must be provided. The applicant shall also provide an
assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on
alluvial aquifers during low flow.
(B) If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or
cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a
copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) determinations and, if
necessary, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or
equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant
can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the
proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat
shock and impingement and entrainment.
(C) If the applicant's plant uses Ranney wells or pumps more than
100 gallons (total onsite) of ground water per minute, an assessment of
the impact of the proposed action on ground-water use must be provided.
(D) If the applicant's plant is located at an inland site and
utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of the impact of the proposed
action on groundwater quality must be provided.
(E) All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment and other license-renewal-related construction activities
on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant
shall assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or
endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
(F) If the applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment
or maintenance area, an assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions
anticipated at the time of peak refurbishment workforce must be
provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as amended.
(G) If the applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or
discharges into a river having an annual average flow rate of less than
3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x1010m3/year), an assessment
of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic
organisms in the affected water must be provided.
(H) If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for
the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system
do not meet the recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code
for preventing electric shock from induced currents, an assessment of
the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from
the transmission lines must be provided.
(I) An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on housing
availability, land-use, and public schools (impacts from refurbishment
activities only)
[[Page 66544]]
within the vicinity of the plant must be provided. Additionally, the
applicant shall provide an assessment of the impact of population
increases attributable to the proposed project on the public water
supply.
(J) All applicants shall assess the impact of the proposed project
on local transportation during periods of license renewal refurbishment
activities.
(K) All applicants shall assess whether any historic or
archaeological properties will be affected by the proposed project.
(L) If the staff has not previously considered severe accident
mitigation alternatives for the applicant's plant in an environmental
impact statement or related supplement or in an environmental
assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe
accidents must be provided.
(M) The environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste
shall be reviewed in accordance with Sec. 51.52. The review of impacts
shall also discuss the generic and cumulative impacts associated with
transportation operation in the vicinity of a high-level waste
repository site. The candidate site at Yucca Mountain should be used
for the purpose of impact analysis as long as that site is under
consideration for licensing.
(iii) The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for
reducing adverse impacts, as required by Sec. 51.45(c), for all
Category 2 license renewal issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this
part. No such consideration is required for Category 1 issues in
Appendix B to subpart A of this part.
(iv) The environmental report must contain any new and significant
information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
which the applicant is aware.
(d) Postoperating license stage. Each applicant for a license
amendment authorizing decommissioning activities for a production or
utilization facility either for unrestricted use or based on continuing
use restrictions applicable to the site; and each applicant for a
license amendment approving a license termination plan or
decommissioning plan under Sec. 50.82 of this chapter either for
unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to
the site; and each applicant for a license or license amendment to
store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the
operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit with its
application the number of copies, as specified in Sec. 51.55, of a
separate document, entitled ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental
Report--Post Operating License Stage,'' which will update ``Applicant's
Environmental Report--Operating License Stage,'' as appropriate, to
reflect any new information or significant environmental change
associated with the applicant's proposed decommissioning activities or
with the applicant's proposed activities with respect to the planned
storage of spent fuel. Unless otherwise required by the Commission, in
accordance with the generic determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and the
provisions in Sec. 51.23(b), the applicant shall only address the
environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the term of the license
applied for. The ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report--Post
Operating License Stage'' may incorporate by reference any information
contained in ``Applicants Environmental Report--Construction Permit
Stage.
4. In Sec. 51.55, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.55 Environmental report--number of copies; distribution.
(a) Each applicant for a license to construct and operate a
production or utilization facility covered by paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) of Sec. 51.20, each applicant for renewal of
an operating license for a nuclear power plant, each applicant for a
license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a production or
utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20, and each applicant for a
license or license amendment to store spent fuel at a nuclear power
plant after expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power
plant shall submit to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation or the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, as appropriate, 41 copies of an environmental report or any
supplement to an environmental report. The applicant shall retain an
additional 109 copies of the environmental report or any supplement to
the environmental report for distribution to parties and Boards in the
NRC proceedings; Federal, State, and local officials; and any affected
Indian tribes, in accordance with written instructions issued by the
Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of
the Office Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 51.71, paragraphs (d) and (e) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.71 Draft environmental impact statement--contents.
* * * * *
(d) Analysis. The draft environmental impact statement will include
a preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental
effects of the proposed action; the environmental impacts of
alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for
reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. Except for
supplemental environmental impact statements for the operating license
renewal stage prepared pursuant to Sec. 51.95(c), draft environmental
impact statements should also include consideration of the economic,
technical, and other benefits and costs of the proposed action and
alternatives and indicate what other interests and considerations of
Federal policy, including factors not related to environmental quality
if applicable, are relevant to the consideration of environmental
effects of the proposed action identified pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section. Supplemental environmental impact statements prepared at
the license renewal stage pursuant to Sec. 51.95(c) need not discuss
the economic or technical benefits and costs of either the proposed
action or alternatives except insofar as such benefits and costs are
either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an
alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to
mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental impact
statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other
issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action
and associated alternatives. The draft supplemental environmental
impact statement for license renewal prepared pursuant to Sec. 51.95(c)
will rely on conclusions as amplified by the supporting information in
the GEIS for issues designated as Category 1 in Appendix B to subpart A
of this part. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement
must contain an analysis of those issues identified as Category 2 in
Appendix B to subpart A of this part that are open for the proposed
action. The analysis for all draft environmental impact statements
will, to the fullest extent practicable, quantify the various factors
considered. To the extent that there are important qualitative
considerations or factors that cannot be quantified, these
considerations or factors will be discussed in qualitative terms. Due
consideration will be given to compliance with environmental quality
standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State,
regional, and local agencies having
[[Page 66545]]
responsibility for environmental protection, including applicable
zoning and land-use regulations and water pollution limitations or
requirements promulgated or imposed pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. The environmental impact of the proposed action
will be considered in the analysis with respect to matters covered by
such standards and requirements irrespective of whether a certification
or license from the appropriate authority has been obtained.3
While satisfaction of Commission standards and criteria pertaining to
radiological effects will be necessary to meet the licensing
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the analysis will, for the
purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Compliance with the environmental quality standards and
requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (imposed by
EPA or designated permitting states) is not a substitute for and
does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all environmental
effects of the proposed action, including the degradation, if any,
of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed
action that are available for reducing adverse effects. Where an
environmental assessment of aquatic impact from plant discharges is
available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the
assessment in its determination of the magnitude of environmental
impacts for striking an overall cost-benefit balance at the
construction permit and operating license stages, and in its
determination of whether the adverse environmental impacts of
license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license
renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable at
the license renewal stage. When no such assessment of aquatic
impacts is available from the permitting authority, NRC will
establish on its own or in conjunction with the permitting authority
and other agencies having relevant expertise the magnitude of
potential impacts for striking an overall cost-benefit balance for
the facility at the construction permit and operating license
stages, and in its determination of whether the adverse
environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that
preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable at the license renewal stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Preliminary recommendation. The draft environmental impact
statement normally will include a preliminary recommendation by the NRC
staff respecting the proposed action. This preliminary recommendation
will be based on the information and analysis described in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section and Secs. 51.75, 51.76, 51.80, 51.85,
and 51.95, as appropriate, and will be reached after considering the
environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable
alternatives,4 and, except for supplemental environmental impact
statements for the operating license renewal stage prepared pursuant to
Sec. 51.95(c), after weighing the costs and benefits of the proposed
action. In lieu of a recommendation, the NRC staff may indicate in the
draft statement that two or more alternatives remain under
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The consideration of reasonable alternatives to a proposed
action involving nuclear power reactors (e.g., alternative energy
sources) is intended to assist the NRC in meeting its NEPA
obligations and does not preclude any State authority from making
separate determinations with respect to these alternatives and in no
way preempts, displaces, or affects the authority of States or other
Federal agencies to address these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In Section 51.75, redesignate footnote 4 as footnote 5.
7. Section 51.95 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.95 Postconstruction environmental impact statements.
(a) General. Any supplement to a final environmental impact
statement or any environmental assessment prepared under the provisions
of this section may incorporate by reference any information contained
in a final environmental document previously prepared by the NRC staff
that relates to the same production or utilization facility. Documents
that may be referenced include, but are not limited to, the final
environmental impact statement; supplements to the final environmental
impact statement, including supplements prepared at the operating
license stage; NRC staff-prepared final generic environmental impact
statements; environmental assessments and records of decisions prepared
in connection with the construction permit, the operating license, and
any license amendment for that facility. A supplement to a final
environmental impact statement will include a request for comments as
provided in Sec. 51.73.
(b) Initial operating license stage. In connection with the
issuance of an operating license for a production or utilization
facility, the NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the final
environmental impact statement on the construction permit for that
facility, which will update the prior environmental review. The
supplement will only cover matters that differ from the final
environmental impact statement or that reflect significant new
information concerning matters discussed in the final environmental
impact statement. Unless otherwise determined by the Commission, a
supplement on the operation of a nuclear power plant will not include a
discussion of need for power, or of alternative energy sources, or of
alternative sites, or of any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for
the nuclear power plant within the scope of the generic determination
in Sec. 51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b), and will only be
prepared in connection with the first licensing action authorizing
full-power operation.
(c) Operating license renewal stage. In connection with the renewal
of an operating license for a nuclear power plant under part 54 of this
chapter, the Commission shall prepare an EIS, which is a supplement to
the Commission's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996) which is available
in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower Level)
Washington, DC..
(1) The supplemental environmental impact statement for the
operating license renewal stage shall address those issues as required
by Sec. 51.71. In addition, the NRC staff must comply with 40 CFR
1506.6(b)(3) in conducting the additional scoping process as required
by Sec. 51.71(a).
(2) The supplemental environmental impact statement for license
renewal is not required to include discussion of need for power or the
economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or of
alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and
costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion
of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant
to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental impact
statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other
issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action
and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for
the facility within the scope of the generic determination in
Sec. 51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b). The analysis of
alternatives in the supplemental environmental impact statement should
be limited to the environmental impacts of such alternatives and should
otherwise be prepared in accordance with Sec. 51.71 and Appendix A to
subpart A of this part.
(3) The supplemental environmental impact statement shall be issued
as a final impact statement in accordance with Secs. 51.91 and 51.93
after considering any significant new information relevant to the
proposed action contained in the supplement or incorporated by
reference.
(4) The supplemental environmental impact statement must contain
the NRC staff's recommendation regarding the environmental
acceptability of the license renewal action. In order to make its
recommendation and final conclusion on the proposed action, the NRC
staff, adjudicatory officers, and Commission shall integrate the
[[Page 66546]]
conclusions, as amplified by the supporting information in the generic
environmental impact statement for issues designated Category 1 (with
the exception of offsite radiological impacts for collective effects
and the disposal of spent fuel and high level waste) or resolved
Category 2,information developed for those open Category 2 issues
applicable to the plant in accordance with Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii), and
any significant new information. Given this information, the NRC staff,
adjudicatory officers, and Commission shall determine whether or not
the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that
preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
(d) Postoperating license stage. In connection with the amendment
of an operating license authorizing decommissioning activities at a
production or utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20, either for
unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to
the site, or with the issuance, amendment or renewal of a license to
store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the
operating license for the nuclear power reactor, the NRC staff will
prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the post
operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate,
which will update the prior environmental review. The supplement or
assessment may incorporate by reference any information contained in
the final environmental impact statement-operating license stage, or in
the records of decision prepared in connection with the construction
permit or the operating license for that facility. The supplement will
include a request for comments as provided in Sec. 51.73. Unless other
wise required by the Commission in accordance with the generic
determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and the provisions of Sec. 51.23(b), a
supplemental environmental impact statement for the post operating
license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, will
address the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage only for the
term of the license, license amendment or license renewal applied for.
8. In Sec. 51.103, paragraph (a)(3) is revised and paragraph (a)(5)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 51.103 Record of decision--General.
(a) * * *
(3) Discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant
factors, including economic and technical considerations where
appropriate, the NRC's statutory mission, and any essential
considerations of national policy, which were balanced by the
Commission in making the decision and state how these considerations
entered into the decision.
* * * * *
(5) In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant
to Part 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or
not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great
that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
* * * * *
9. In Appendix A to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 redesignate
footnotes 5 through 8 as footnotes 1 through 4.
10. Paragraph 4 of Appendix A to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is
revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart A--Format for Presentation of Material in
Environmental Impact Statements
* * * * *
4. Purpose of and need for action.
The statement will briefly describe and specify the need for the
proposed action. The alternative of no action will be discussed. In
the case of nuclear power plant construction or siting,
consideration will be given to the potential impact of conservation
measures in determining the demand for power and consequent need for
additional generating capacity.
* * * * *
11. Appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is revised to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Subpart A--Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating
License of a Nuclear Power Plant
The Commission has assessed the environmental impacts associated
with granting a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant
to a licensee who holds either an operating license or construction
permit as of June 30, 1995. Table B-1 summarizes the Commission's
findings on the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of
renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant as required
by section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended. Table B-1, subject to an evaluation of those issues
identified in Category 2 as requiring further analysis and possible
significant new information, represents the analysis of the
environmental impacts associated with renewal of any operating
license and is to be used in accordance with Sec. 51.95(c). On a 10-
year cycle, the Commission intends to review the material in this
appendix and update it if necessary. A scoping notice must be
published in the Federal Register indicating the results of the
NRC's review and inviting public comments and proposals for other
areas that should be updated.
Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Category 2 Findings 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts of refurbishment on surface water 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible during
quality. refurbishment because best management practices are
expected to be employed to control soil erosion and
spills.
Impacts of refurbishment on surface water 1 SMALL. Water use during refurbishment will not
use. increase appreciably or will be reduced during plant
outage.
Altered current patterns at intake and 1 SMALL. Altered current patterns have not been found to
discharge structures. be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and
are not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
Altered salinity gradients................. 1 SMALL. Salinity gradients have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal
term.
[[Page 66547]]
Altered thermal stratification of lakes.... 1 SMALL. Generally, lake stratification has not been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants and is not expected to be a problem during the
license renewal term.
Temperature effects on sediment transport 1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a
capacity. problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal
term.
Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 1 SMALL. Scouring has not been found to be a problem at
most operating nuclear power plants and has caused
only localized effects at a few plants. It is not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal
term.
Eutrophication............................. 1 SMALL. Eutrophication has not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal
term.
Discharge of chlorine or other biocides.... 1 SMALL. Effects are not a concern among regulatory and
resource agencies, and are not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor 1 SMALL. Effects are readily controlled through NPDES
chemical spills. permit and periodic modifications, if needed, and are
not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
Discharge of other metals in waste water... 1 SMALL. These discharges have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants with
cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have
been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They
are not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
Water use conflicts (plants with once- 1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a
through cooling systems). problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-
through heat dissipation systems.
Water use conflicts (plants with cooling 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concern at
ponds or cooling towers using make-up nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants
water from a small river with low flow). with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian
communities near these plants could be of moderate
significance in some situations. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refurbishment.............................. 1 SMALL. During plant shutdown and refurbishment there
will be negligible effects on aquatic biota because
of a reduction of entrainment and impingement of
organisms or a reduced release of chemicals.
Accumulation of contaminants in sediments 1 SMALL. Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern
or biota. at a few nuclear power plants but has been
satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy
condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is
not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
Entrainment of phytoplankton and 1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton
zooplankton. has not been found to be a problem at operating
nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
Cold shock................................. 1 SMALL. Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at
operating nuclear plants with once-through cooling
systems, has not endangered fish populations or been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is
not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish.... 1 SMALL. Thermal plumes have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal
term.
Distribution of aquatic organisms.......... 1 SMALL. Thermal discharge may have localized effects
but is not expected to effect the larger geographical
distribution of aquatic organisms.
Premature emergence of aquatic insects..... 1 SMALL. Premature emergence has been found to be a
localized effect at some operating nuclear power
plants but has not been a problem and is not expected
to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)... 1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small
number of operating nuclear power plants with once-
through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily
mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or
cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem
during the license renewal term.
Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge...... 1 SMALL. Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one
nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling
system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not
been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is
not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
Losses from predation, parasitism, and 1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be
disease among organisms exposed to a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are
sublethal stresses. not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
[[Page 66548]]
Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g., 1 SMALL. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been
shipworms). satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power
plant with a once-through cooling system where
previously it was a problem. It has not been found to
be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with
cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected
to be a problem during the license renewal term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of entrainment
life stages. are small at many plants but may be moderate or even
large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-
pond cooling systems. Further, ongoing efforts in the
vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations
may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to
intake effects during the license renewal period,
such that entrainment studies conducted in support of
the original license may no longer be valid. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
Impingement of fish and shellfish.......... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of impingement
are small at many plants but may be moderate or even
large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-
pond cooling systems. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
Heat shock................................. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Because of continuing
concerns about heat shock and the possible need to
modify thermal discharges in response to changing
environmental conditions, the impacts may be of
moderate or large significance at some plants. See
Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 1 SMALL. Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a
life stages. problem at operating nuclear power plants with this
type of cooling system and is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
Impingement of fish and shellfish.......... 1 SMALL. The impingement has not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants with this
type of cooling system and is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
Heat shock................................. 1 SMALL. Heat shock has not been found to be a problem
at operating nuclear power plants with this type of
cooling system and is not expected to be a problem
during the license renewal term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground-water Use and Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts of refurbishment on ground-water 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering during the original
use and quality. construction on some sites will not be repeated
during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant wastes
produced during refurbishment will be handled in the
same manner as in current operating practices and are
not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
Ground-water use conflicts (potable and 1 SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected
service water; plants that use <100 gpm). to cause any ground-water use conflicts.
Ground-water use conflicts (potable and 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Plants that use more than
service water, and dewatering; plants that 100 gpm may cause ground-water use conflicts with
use >100 gpm). nearby ground-water users. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).
Ground-water use conflicts (plants using 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conflicts may
cooling towers withdrawing make-up water result from surface water withdrawals from small
from a small river). water bodies during low flow conditions which may
affect aquifer recharge, especially if other ground-
water or upstream surface water users come on line
before the time of license renewal. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
Ground-water use conflicts (Ranney wells).. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Ranney wells can result in
potential ground-water depression beyond the site
boundary. Impacts of large ground-water withdrawal
for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants
using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of
application for license renewal. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).
Ground-water quality degradation (Ranney 1 SMALL. Ground-water quality at river sites may be
wells). degraded by induced infiltration of poor-quality
river water into an aquifer that supplies large
quantities of reactor cooling water. However, the
lower quality infiltrating water would not preclude
the current uses of ground water and is not expected
to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Ground-water quality degradation (saltwater 1 SMALL. Nuclear power plants do not contribute
intrusion). significantly to saltwater intrusion.
Ground-water quality degradation (cooling 1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may
ponds in salt marshes). degrade ground-water quality. Because water in salt
marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for plants
located in salt marshes.
[[Page 66549]]
Ground-water quality degradation (cooling 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle
ponds at inland sites). cooling ponds may degrade ground-water quality. For
plants located inland, the quality of the ground
water in the vicinity of the ponds must be shown to
be adequate to allow continuation of current uses.
See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrestrial Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refurbishment impacts...................... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Refurbishment impacts are
insignificant if no loss of important plant and
animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known
whether important plant and animal communities may be
affected until the specific proposal is presented
with the license renewal application. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
Cooling tower impacts on crops and 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or
ornamental vegetation. increased humidity associated with cooling tower
operation have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected
to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Cooling tower impacts on native plants..... 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or
increased humidity associated with cooling tower
operation have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected
to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Bird collisions with cooling towers........ 1 SMALL. These collisions have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal
term.
Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 SMALL. Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial
resources. ecological resources are considered to be of small
significance at all sites.
Power line right-of-way management (cutting 1 SMALL. The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on
and herbicide application). wildlife are expected to be of small significance at
all sites.
Bird collision with power lines............ 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be of small
significance at all sites.
Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora 1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic
and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been
honeybees, wildlife, livestock). identified. Such effects are not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
Floodplains and wetland on power line right 1 SMALL. Periodic vegetation control is necessary in
of way. forested wetlands underneath power lines and can be
achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No
significant impact is expected at any nuclear power
plant during the license renewal term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threatened or endangered species........... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant
refurbishment and continued operation are not
expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered
species. However, consultation with appropriate
agencies would be needed at the time of license
renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered
species are present and whether they would be
adversely affected. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality during refurbishment (non- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Air quality impacts from
attainment and maintenance areas). plant refurbishment associated with license renewal
are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust
emissions could be cause for concern at locations in
or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The
significance of the potential impact cannot be
determined without considering the compliance status
of each site and the numbers of workers expected to
be employed during the outage. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F).
Air quality effects of transmission lines.. 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is
insignificant and does not contribute measurably to
ambient levels of these gases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite land use............................ 1 SMALL. Projected onsite land use changes required
during refurbishment and the renewal period would be
a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and
would involve land that is controlled by the
applicant.
Power line right of way.................... 1 SMALL. Ongoing use of power line right of ways would
continue with no change in restrictions. The effects
of these restrictions are of small significance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation exposures to the public during 1 SMALL. During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents
refurbishment. would result in doses that are similar to those from
current operation. Applicable regulatory dose limits
to the public are not expected to be exceeded.
[[Page 66550]]
Occupational radiation exposures during 1 SMALL. Occupational doses from refurbishment are
refurbishment. expected to be within the range of annual average
collective doses experienced for pressurized-water
reactors and boiling-water reactors. Occupational
mortality risk from all causes including radiation is
in the mid-range for industrial settings.
Microbiological organisms (occupational 1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be
health). controlled by continued application of accepted
industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker
exposures.
Microbiological organisms (public 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. These organisms are not
health)(plants using lakes or canals, or expected to be a problem at most operating plants
cooling towers or cooling ponds that except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes,
discharge to a small river). or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without
site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the
effects generically. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).
Noise...................................... 1 SMALL. Noise has not been found to be a problem at
operating plants and is not expected to be a problem
at any plant during the license renewal term.
Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Electrical shock resulting
(electric shock). from direct access to energized conductors or from
induced charges in metallic structures have not been
found to be a problem at most operating plants and
generally are not expected to be a problem during the
license renewal term. However, site-specific review
is required to determine the significance of the
electric shock potential at the site. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H).
Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects \5\ \4\ NA UNCERTAIN. Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz
electromagnetic fields have not found consistent
evidence linking harmful effects with field
exposures. However, research is continuing in this
area and a consensus scientific view has not been
reached.\5\
Radiation exposures to public (license 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public will continue at
renewal term). current levels associated with normal operations.
Occupational radiation exposures (license 1 SMALL. Projected maximum occupational doses during the
renewal term). license renewal term are within the range of doses
experienced during normal operations and normal
maintenance outages, and would be well below
regulatory limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socioeconomics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing impacts............................ 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Housing impacts are
expected to be of small significance at plants
located in a medium or high population area and not
in an area where growth control measures that limit
housing development are in effect. Moderate or large
housing impacts of the workforce associated with
refurbishment may be associated with plants located
in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth
control measures that limit housing development. See
Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
Public services: public safety, social 1 SMALL. Impacts to public safety, social services, and
services, and tourism and recreation. tourism and recreation are expected to be of small
significance at all sites.
Public services: public utilities.......... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. An increased problem with water
shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of
moderate significance on public water supply
availability. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
Public services, education (refurbishment). 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Most sites would experience
impacts of small significance but larger impacts are
possible depending on site- and project-specific
factors. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
Public services, education (license renewal 1 SMALL. Only impacts of small significance are
term). expected.
Offsite land use (refurbishment)........... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. Impacts may be of moderate
significance at plants in low population areas. See
Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
Offsite land use (license renewal term).... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Significant changes in land
use may be associated with population and tax revenue
changes resulting from license renewal. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
Public services, Transportation............ 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transportation impacts are
generally expected to be of small significance.
However, the increase in traffic associated with the
additional workers and the local road and traffic
control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or
large significance at some sites. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).
Historic and archaeological resources...... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant
refurbishment and continued operation are expected to
have no more than small adverse impacts on historic
and archaeological resources. However, the National
Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency
to consult with the State Historic Preservation
Officer to determine whether there are properties
present that require protection. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K).
Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment).......... 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during
refurbishment.
Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term)... 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the
license renewal term.
Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the
(license renewal term). license renewal term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66551]]
Postulated Accidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design basis accidents..................... 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the
environmental impacts of design basis accidents are
of small significance for all plants.
Severe accidents........................... 2 SMALL. The probability weighted consequences of
atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of
water, releases to ground water, and societal and
economic impacts from severe accidents are small for
all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe
accidents must be considered for all plants that have
not considered such alternatives. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offsite radiological impacts (individual 1 SMALL. Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have
effects from other than the disposal of been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of
spent fuel and high level waste). this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts
on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid
releases including radon-222 and technetium-99 are
small.
Offsite radiological impacts (collective 1 The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S.
effects). population from the fuel cycle, high level waste and
spent fuel disposal is calculated to be about 14,800
person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each
additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much
of this, especially the contribution of radon
releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of
tiny doses summed over large populations. This same
dose calculation can theoretically be extended to
include many tiny doses over additional thousands of
years as well as doses outside the U. S. The result
of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer
fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result
assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical
adverse health effect which will not ever be
mitigated (for example no cancer cure in the next
thousand years), and that these doses projected over
thousands of years are meaningful. However, these
assumptions are questionable. In particular, science
cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no
cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For
perspective, the doses are very small fractions of
regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of
natural background exposure to the same populations.
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some
judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implications of
these matters should be made and it makes no sense to
repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking
the uncertainties into account, the Commission
concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that
these impacts would not be sufficiently large to
require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the
option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54
should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the
Commission has not assigned a single level of
significance for the collective effects of the fuel
cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.
Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel 1 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal
and high level waste disposal). component of the fuel cycle, there are no current
regulatory limits for offsite releases of
radionuclides for the current candidate repository
site. However, if we assume that limits are developed
along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) report, ``Technical Bases for Yucca
Mountain Standards,'' and that in accordance with the
Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23,
a repository can and likely will be developed at some
site which will comply with such limits, peak doses
to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per
year or less. However, while the Commission has
reasonable confidence that these assumptions will
prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty
since the limits are yet to be developed, no
repository application has been completed or
reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models
used to evaluate possible pathways to the human
environment. The NAS report indicated that 100
millirem per year should be considered as a starting
point for limits for individual doses, but notes that
some measure of consensus exists among national and
international bodies that the limits should be a
fraction of the 100 millirem per year. The lifetime
individual risk from 100 millirem annual dose limit
is about 310-3.
[[Page 66552]]
Estimating cumulative doses to populations over
thousands of years is more problematic. The
likelihood and consequences of events that could
seriously compromise the integrity of a deep geologic
repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy
in the ``Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive
Waste,'' October 1980. The evaluation estimated the
70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum
individual and to the regional population resulting
from several modes of breaching a reference
repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years,
after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years.
Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies have
expended considerable effort to develop models for
the design and for the licensing of a high level
waste repository, especially for the candidate
repository at Yucca Mountain. More meaningful
estimates of doses to population may be possible in
the future as more is understood about the
performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain
repository. Such estimates would involve very great
uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative
population doses over thousands of years. The
standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum
individual dose. The relationship of potential new
regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and
cumulative population impacts has not been
determined, although the report articulates the view
that protection of individuals will adequately
protect the population for a repository at Yucca
Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards
in 40 CFR part 191 generally provide an indication of
the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to
population that could result from the licensing of a
Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate
standards will be within the range of standards now
under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR part 191
protect the population by imposing ``containment
requirements'' that limit the cumulative amount of
radioactive material released over 10,000 years.
Reporting performance standards that will be required
by EPA are expected to result in releases and
associated health consequences in the range between
10 and 100 premature cancer deaths with an upper
limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for
a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some
judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implications of
these matters should be made and it makes no sense to
repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking
the uncertainties into account, the Commission
concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that
these impacts would not be sufficiently large to
require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the
option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54
should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the
Commission has not assigned a single level of
significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high
level waste disposal, this issue is considered
Category 1.
Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel 1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel
cycle. cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating
license for any plant are found to be small.
Low-level waste storage and disposal....... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are
in place and the low public doses being achieved at
reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the
environment will remain small during the term of a
renewed license. The maximum additional on-site land
that may be required for low-level waste storage
during the term of a renewed license and associated
impacts will be small. Nonradiological impacts on air
and water will be negligible. The radiological and
nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term
disposal of low-level waste from any individual plant
at licensed sites are small. In addition, the
Commission concludes that there is reasonable
assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal
capacity will be made available when needed for
facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC
decommissioning requirements.
Mixed waste storage and disposal........... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the
facilities and procedures that are in place ensure
proper handling and storage, as well as negligible
doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public
and the environment at all plants. License renewal
will not increase the small, continuing risk to human
health and the environment posed by mixed waste at
all plants. The radiological and nonradiological
environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed
waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are
small. In addition, the Commission concludes that
there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed
waste disposal capacity will be made available when
needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent
with NRC decommissioning requirements.
On-site spent fuel......................... 1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent
fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be
safely accommodated on site with small environmental
effects through dry or pool storage at all plants if
a permanent repository or monitored retrievable
storage is not available.
Nonradiological waste...................... 1 SMALL. No changes to generating systems are
anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and
procedures are in place to ensure continued proper
handling and disposal at all plants.
[[Page 66553]]
Transportation............................. 2 Table S-4 of this Part contains an assessment of
impact parameters to be used in evaluating
transportation effects in each case. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decommissioning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation doses............................ 1 SMALL. Doses to the public will be well below
applicable regulatory standards regardless of which
decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses
would increase no more than 1 man-rem caused by
buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the
license renewal term.
Waste management........................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license
renewal period would generate no more solid wastes
than at the end of the current license term. No
increase in the quantities of Class C or greater than
Class C wastes would be expected.
Air quality................................ 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are
expected to be negligible either at the end of the
current operating term or at the end of the license
renewal term.
Water quality.............................. 1 SMALL. The potential for significant water quality
impacts from erosion or spills is no greater whether
decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license
renewal period or after the original 40-year
operation period, and measures are readily available
to avoid such impacts.
Ecological resources....................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning after either the initial
operating period or after a 20-year license renewal
period is not expected to have any direct ecological
impacts.
Socioeconomic impacts...................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning would have some short-term
socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would not be
increased by delaying decommissioning until the end
of a 20-year relicense period, but they might be
decreased by population and economic growth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental justice \6\.................. \4\ NA NONE. The need for and the content of an analysis of
environmental justice will be addressed in plant-
specific reviews.\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996).
\2\ The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:
Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or,
for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site
characteristic;
(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for
collective off site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high level waste and spent fuel
disposal); and
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been
determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to
warrant implementation.
The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.
Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that
one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is
required.
\3\ The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the
significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ``small,'' may be
negligible. The definitions of significance follow:
SMALL--For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing
radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in
the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table.
MODERATE--For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
LARGE--For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important
attributes of the resource.
For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in
determining significance.
\4\ NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.
\5\ If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached
by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the
Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their
license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit
information on this issue.
\6\ Environmental Justice was not addressed in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' because guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 issued on February 11,
1994, was not available prior to completion of NUREG-1437. This issue will be addressed in individual license
renewal reviews.
[[Page 66554]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-31945 Filed 12-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P