[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9884-9888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4809]



[[Page 9883]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Nuclear Regulatory Commission





_______________________________________________________________________



10 CFR Part 51



_______________________________________________________________________



Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear 
Power Plant Operating Licenses; Availability of Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement; Proposed Rule and Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 9884]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 51

RIN 3150-AG05


Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of 
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
its regulations on the environmental information required in 
applications to renew the operating licenses of nuclear power plants. 
This amendment would expand the generic findings that are currently 
codified in the regulations to include the cumulative environmental 
impacts of transporting spent fuel to the proposed repository at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada and account for the environmental impacts of 
transportation attributable to use of higher enriched fuel and higher 
burnup during the renewal term. This action would reduce the regulatory 
burden on applicants for license renewal by replacing with a generic 
review the requirements that these topics be addressed in individual 
plant renewal reviews. Also, this amendment would add the requirement 
to address local traffic impacts attributable to continued operation of 
the plant during the license renewal term. This requirement was 
inadvertently omitted from the current rule.

DATES: Submit comments by Apri1 27, 1999. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to consider them, but the 
Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, Mail Stop O16-C1.
    Deliver comments to: One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal 
workdays.
    Copies of comments received may be examined at: NRC Public Document 
Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
    You may also submit comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). From the home 
page, select ``Rulemaking'' from the tool bar. The interactive 
rulemaking website can then be accessed by selecting ``New Rulemaking 
Website.'' This site provides the ability to upload comments as files 
(any format), if your web browser supports that function. For 
information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol 
Gallagher, telephone: 301-415-5905; e-mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3903; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), the Commission published in the 
Federal Register a final rule amending 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 
rulemaking was based on the analyses reported in NUREG-1437, ``Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' 
(May 1996). The rulemaking was initiated with the objective of 
improving the efficiency of the license renewal process drawing on the 
considerable experience of operating nuclear power reactors to 
generically assess many of the environmental impacts, to report the 
analyses and findings in NUREG-1437, and to codify the findings in the 
Commission's environmental protection regulations so that repetitive 
reviews of those impacts that are well understood could be avoided. In 
the statement accompanying the final rule, the Commission stated that 
before the final rule became effective the Commission was seeking 
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. A number of commenters argued that the requirements for the 
review of transportation of high-level waste in the rule were unclear 
with respect to (1) the use and legal status of 10 CFR 51.52, 
``Environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste--Table S-
4,'' in plant-specific license renewal reviews; (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.
    After considering the comments received on the rule, the Commission 
republished the rule in the Federal Register on December 18, 1996 (61 
FR 66537). The rule at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(M) continued to require, 
``The environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste shall 
be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.52.'' However, in accordance 
with comments received, added to that paragraph was the requirement 
that:

    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.

    Also in response to the comments, the Commission stated that:

    As part of its effort 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. 1

    \1\  In NUREG-1437 and in the rule, Category 1 issues are those 
environmental issues for which the analysis and findings have been 
determined to be applicable to all nuclear power plants or to plants 
with specific types of cooling systems or other common plant or site 
characteristics. Absent new information that significantly changes 
the finding, these generic findings may be adopted in plant license 
renewal reviews. Category 2 issues are those environmental issues 
for which the analysis did not result in a finding common to all 
plants or to plants with common characteristics. Plant-specific 
reviews are required for Category 2 issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SECY-97-279, dated December 3, 1997, the NRC staff informed the 
Commission that it was the NRC staff's preliminary view that the NRC 
staff's supplemental analyses of the generic and cumulative impacts of 
the transportation of HLW and of the implications of higher fuel burnup 
for transportation impacts support a reasonable technical and legal 
determination that transportation of HLW is a Category 1 issue and may 
be generically adopted in a license renewal application. The 
supplemental analyses are reported in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 
Plants: Main Report Section 6.3--`Transportation,' Table 9.1 `Summary 
of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power 
plants,' Draft for Comment'' (February 1999). In a Staff Requirements

[[Page 9885]]

Memorandum (SRM) dated January 13, 1998, the Commission directed the 
NRC staff to proceed with rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) 
to categorize the impacts of transportation of high-level waste (HLW) 
as a Category 1 issue. In a memorandum dated July 1, 1998, the NRC 
staff informed the Commission of its plans for amending 10 CFR Part 51.
    In that memorandum the NRC staff also proposed, as an 
administrative amendment, to add to the rule the requirement to include 
in license renewal reviews the environmental impacts of transportation 
on local services in the vicinity of the plant during the renewal term. 
This issue was identified as a Category 2 issue in NUREG-1437, Section 
4.7.3.2 and the overall issue of transportation was designated as 
Category 2 in the rule (see 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, 
``Public Services, Transportation''). However, the specific issue of 
impacts on local services during the renewal term was inadvertently 
omitted from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and its inclusion in Table B-1 
is not explicitly stated. This rule would correct that omission.

Proposed Action

    Addendum 1 alters Section 6.3 and Table 9.1 of NUREG-1437 by 
supplementing the analysis, amending the findings, and changing the 
designation from Category 2 to Category 1 for the issue of 
transportation. These changes to NUREG-1437 would be codified in 10 CFR 
Part 51 by this rulemaking. Specifically, the requirement for an 
applicant to ``discuss the generic and cumulative impacts associated 
with transportation operation in the vicinity of a high-level waste 
repository site'' would be removed and the following language would be 
added:

    The environmental impacts presented in Summary Table S-4 of 
Sec. 51.52 may be adopted in individual nuclear power plant license 
renewal reviews. In addition, the cumulative impacts of shipments to 
a single repository must be addressed. To do so, the conclusions 
regarding the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to 
a single repository in Appendix B to subpart A of this part may be 
adopted as long as the candidate site at Yucca Mountain is under 
consideration for licensing. The contribution to impacts of 
transportation of higher enrichment and higher burnup fuel need be 
assessed only when the fuel to be used during the license renewal 
term is enriched to greater than 5 percent uranium-235 or average 
burnup for the peak rod will be greater than currently approved by 
the NRC up to 62,000 MWd/MTU. If the applicant anticipates exceeding 
these values for enrichment or burnup during the renewal term and 
has received or applied for a license amendment for the values 
anticipated and an environmental assessment has been prepared by the 
NRC, which considers transportation of that fuel to and from the 
reactor, then that environmental assessment may be cited in the 
renewal application and no further information is required.

    An amendment to the rule is also proposed to correct the 
inadvertent omission of a requirement to consider possible increases in 
traffic in the vicinity of the plant during the license renewal term. 
This is a Category 2 issue as found in NUREG-1437.

Discussion

Introduction

    The current regulations require applicants for license renewal to 
review the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.52, and to discuss the generic and cumulative 
impacts associated with transportation operation in the vicinity of the 
candidate high-level waste (HLW) repository site at Yucca Mountain (see 
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M)). However, the NRC staff has now assessed 
these generic and cumulative impacts. Because only Yucca Mountain has 
been identified as a potential HLW repository site, this analysis would 
be applicable to all license renewal applicants. The Commission 
proposes to codify this analysis. In addition, the NRC staff has 
generically considered the potential impacts of transporting higher 
enriched and higher burnup fuel than is currently covered in 10 CFR 
51.52 and would codify these findings. Therefore, the Commission 
proposes to amend the rule to change the issue of transportation of 
fuel and waste from Category 2 to Category 1 thereby allowing the 
adoption of the environmental impacts shown in Summary Table S-4 of 
Sec. 51.52 without further analysis. If a candidate repository site 
other than Yucca Mountain is considered for licensing than the generic 
and cumulative impacts associated with transportation operation in the 
vicinity of that site would have to be assessed.

Cumulative Impacts in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain

    The analysis of potential cumulative health risks from radiation 
exposure and highway accidents associated with spent nuclear fuel 
transport within Clark County, Nevada is presented in NUREG-1437, Vol. 
1, Addendum 1. 2 For the purposes of this rulemaking to 
assess the potential impacts of the transportation of spent fuel to a 
single repository at Yucca Mountain, it is assumed that all spent fuel 
generated by all commercial power reactors during both their initial 
40-year operating license and a renewed operating term of 20 years will 
be disposed of at Yucca Mountain, a total of up to 126,000 metric ton 
heavy metal (MTHM). 3 Although a portion of the shipments of 
spent fuel are expected to be by rail, it is assumed that all shipments 
will be by truck. Truck transport will result in higher population 
doses than rail transport because of the greater number of shipments 
required and the proximity of highways to larger populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\  Las Vegas and vicinity, Clark County, Nevada is taken to be 
``the vicinity of Yucca Mountain.''
    \3\  Currently, the U.S. Department of Energy is authorized by 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to dispose of up to 70,000 MTHM. Ninety 
percent (63,000 MTHM) of this material is expected to be spent 
nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis was designed to be conservative, that is, 
intentionally structured to overestimate the likely impacts. This 
approach is used in situations where the impacts are expected to be of 
little significance to avoid unproductive analytical effort and because 
it shows that the conclusions are robust.
    In Addendum 1, analyses of potential radiation doses were performed 
using the HIGHWAY routing computer code and the RADTRAN 4 risk 
assessment computer code. The HIGHWAY code was used to generate 
population density estimates within 0.8 km [0.5 mile] of the highway 
routes that would be used for spent fuel transport within Clark County, 
Nevada. The code uses current and projected demographic data and data 
on existing and planned highways. Two highway scenarios were analyzed: 
the current freeway system and the proposed beltway around the city of 
Las Vegas. Because the beltway is expected to be complete before the 
year 2005 and because regulations require that spent fuel shipments 
avoid high population concentrations where possible, analysis of 
transportation on the route through downtown on the current interstate 
system yields higher exposure estimates than would actually occur. The 
RADTRAN 4 code was used to estimate potential radiation doses related 
to the SNF transport crew and the public from incident-free transport, 
and to the public from a potential transport accident with radiological 
releases. The calculations account for the estimated radiation levels 
per shipment, number of shipments, package dimensions, route distance 
within Clark County, vehicle speed, population densities along the 
routes and, for various accident scenarios, the radiological inventory, 
dispersibility, accident severity, probability of occurrence, and

[[Page 9886]]

estimated radiological risk assessment for each scenario.
    In Addendum 1, it is shown that estimated cumulative person-Sievert 
(Sv) [person-rem], of exposure and resulting estimated cumulative 
lifetime risk of fatal cancer (LRFC) that may result from the 
transportation of all commercially generated spent fuel through the Las 
Vegas area are extremely small. Assuming that the spent fuel generated 
during the current operating license term and a 20-year renewed term 
from all currently operating reactors is shipped on highways through 
Las Vegas, the cumulative radiation exposure is estimated to be 3.309 
person-Sv [331 person-rem] for the truck crews, 1.27 person-Sv [127 
person-rem] for the public, and 2.46 person-Sv [246 person-rem] for the 
public from transport accidents. These cumulative doses would be 
expected to result in cumulative LRFC of 0.13 for crews, 0.06 for the 
public, and 0.12 for the public from transport accidents. Far less than 
1 fatal cancer within the population of Clark County, Nevada is 
estimated to be caused from transporting the spent fuel that could be 
generated over 60 years by all currently operating nuclear power 
plants.
    For perspective, the natural incidence of lifetime fatal cancer in 
the U.S. is 0.20 [20 percent]. Assuming a Las Vegas population of about 
300,000 and an average life expectancy of 70 years, this lifetime 
incidence of fatal cancer would correspond to about 900 LRFC/year. In 
the Las Vegas area, the average radiation exposures resulting from 
cosmic and naturally occuring terrestrial gamma radiation are 0.75 to 
0.77 mSv/year [75 to 77 mrem/year].5 Assuming a Las Vegas 
population of about 300,000, this natural radiation leads to a risk 
estimate of about 11 LRFC/year. The average annual excess risk to the 
Las Vegas area population from SNF transport is about 0.0031 LRFC/year 
which is a risk estimate of 3,000 times less than the estimate for 
background radiation and 300,000 times less than the normal incidence 
of fatal cancer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This outdoor dose rate estimate was provided by Harold L. 
Beck (Harold L. Beck, Director, Environmental Sciences Division, 
Environmental Measurements Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 
New York, personal communication via electronic mail to Alan K. 
Roecklein, NRC, Rockville, Md., Nov. 4, 1998) and based on extensive 
background radiation measurements summarized, in part, in NCPP 
Report No. 94, Exposure of the Population in the United States and 
Canada from Natural Background Radiation, National Council on 
Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Md. Dec. 30, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dose estimates currently displayed in the Table S-4 account for 
the total population exposed by the transport of both high-level and 
low-level waste for one reactor-year of operation. These estimates 
represent total population exposure from both high-level and low-level 
waste over the transportation routes from individual nuclear power 
plants to multiple destinations. The NRC staff has reviewed the 
documents reporting on the data and methods used to develop Table S-4 
and finds that the environmental values contained therein continue to 
be valid. These documents are WASH-1238, ``Environmental Survey of 
Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power 
Plants'' (December 1972 and NUREG-75/038, Supplement 1 to WASH-1238, 
``Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to 
and from Nuclear Power Plants Supplement 1'' (April 1975).
    An estimate of total cumulative dose can be developed from Table S-
4 for comparison with the cumulative dose estimate in Addendum 1. It 
should be noted that the cumulative doses are comprised of annual doses 
to individuals that are well below the regulatory limits set by the NRC 
and the Department of Transportation. Multiplying the ``per reactor-
year'' values in Table S-4 X 100 reactors X 60 years of operation gives 
a total cumulative dose of 240 person-Sv [24,000 person-rem] to 
transportation workers and 180 person-Sv [18,000 person-rem] to the 
general public. The total cumulative dose during incident-free 
transport that transport crews would receive while within Clark County 
is then about 1 percent of the total cumulative dose received by all 
exposed transportation workers estimated from Table S-4. In addition, 
the total cumulative dose during incident-free transport that the 
general public within Clark County would receive is also less than 1 
percent of the total cumulative dose received by the exposed population 
nationwide estimated from Table S-4. The NRC estimates that the 
cumulative dose of 2.46 person-Sv [246 person-rem] to the public from 
accidents for the Las Vegas area translates into 0.12 LRFC, which is a 
small fraction (1/100,000) of the annual risk from natural background 
radiation to the general population.
    Addendum 1 also addresses nonradiological risk of vehicle 
accidents. On the bases of national truck accident statistics, about 
0.035 traffic fatality can be expected on Las Vegas area highways from 
transport of all spent fuel generated from current operation and 
operation during renewed license. This adds little to the total of 60 
traffic fatalities that can be derived from the data in Table S-4: 1 
fatal injury in 100 reactor years X 60 years of operation per reactor.

Implications of Higher Burnup Fuel

    The environmental consequences of incremental increases in the 
burnup of fuel and the associated use of higher enrichment fuel are 
discussed in Section 6.2.3 of NUREG-1437. Section 6.2.3 addresses the 
sensitivity of the data presented in Table S-3 and Table S-4 to the 
growing use of higher enriched fuel and higher fuel burnup. Table S-3 
summarizes natural resource use and effluents to the environment for 
the uranium fuel cycle, from mining to ultimate disposal of spent fuel. 
The discussion of the implications for the environmental impact data 
reported in Table S-4 was not repeated or referenced, as it should have 
been, in Section 6.3, which addresses the incremental impacts of 
license renewal on the transportation of fuel and radioactive materials 
to and from nuclear power plants. Addendum 1 and this proposed rule 
clarify the public record regarding the NRC findings on the sensitivity 
of values in Table S-4 to the use of higher enrichment fuel and 
extended fuel burnup.
    NUREG-1437 and Addendum 1 draw heavily on existing studies of the 
environmental impacts of the use of higher enriched fuel and higher 
fuel burnup. The analysis in Section 6.2.3 of NUREG-1437 relies heavily 
on NUREG/CR-5009, ``Assessment of the Use of Extended Burnup Fuel in 
Light Water Power Reactors'' (February 1988). Addendum 1 considers 
other available studies that may supplement the information in NUREG-
1437. These other studies include NUREG/CR-2325, ``The Transportation 
of Radioactive Material (RAM) to and from U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, 
Draft Environmental Assessment'' (December 1983); an Atomic Industrial 
Forum study, AIF/NE SP-032, ``The Environmental Consequences of Higher 
Fuel Burnup'' (June 1985); ``Extended Burnup Fuel Used in Commercial 
LWRs; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact'' 
(53 FR 6040), February 29, 1988; and ``NRC Assessment of the 
Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting From Extended Fuel 
Enrichment and Irradiation'' (53 FR 30355), August 11, 1988.
    These studies have assessed the environmental impacts associated 
with fuel enrichment up to 5 percent uranium-235 and fuel burnup to 
60,000 MWd/MTU. The findings have been robust. During the 1990s, the 
NRC has

[[Page 9887]]

reviewed and approved vendor topical reports requesting approval for 
higher burnup rates. (Letter from M. J. Virgilio, NRC, to N. J. 
Liparulo, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, ``Acceptance for 
Referencing of Topical Report WCAP-12488, `Westinghouse Fuel Criteria 
Evaluation Process','' dated July 27, 1994; FCF-BAW 10186P-A, 
``Extended Burnup Evaluation,'' June 12, 1997; and Memorandum from T. 
E. Collins to B. W. Sheron, ``Waiver of CRGR Review of EMF-85-74(P), 
Revision O. Supplements 1 and 2 Safety Evaluation,'' dated February 9, 
1998). Approved average burnup for the peak rod now range from 50,000 
MWd/MTHM to 62,000 MWd/MTHM. The higher burnup rates are associated 
with uranium-235 enrichment levels of up to 5 percent by weight. An 
increase in burnup from 60,000 Mwd/MTHM to 62,000 Mwd/MTHM will not 
significantly change dose levels associated with spent fuel 
transportation and may slightly reduce the number of shipments. These 
studies support the finding that the impacts attributable to higher 
burnup and enrichment of fuel are no greater than and likely less than 
the impacts currently in 10 CFR 51.52(c), ``Summary Table S-4--
Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and From 
One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor.'' The analysis in Section 
6.2.3 of NUREG-1437 as supplemented by Addendum 1 is consistent with 
the staff assessment of the environmental effects of transportation 
resulting from extended fuel enrichment and irradiation presented in 53 
FR 30355. This conclusion is applicable to any nuclear power plant 
license renewal application.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The NRC has determined that this proposed 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 prepared for this regulation. This 
action is procedural in nature and pertains only to the type of 
environmental information to be reviewed.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This proposed rule decreases the overall burden on licensees by 
eliminating the requirement that the license renewal applicants address 
the generic and cumulative environmental impacts associated with 
transportation operation in the vicinity of a high-level waste (HLW) 
repository site (-400 hours, -2 responses), and adds a new requirement 
to address local traffic impacts attributable to continued operation of 
the plant during the license renewal term (+20 hours, +2 responses). 
The public burden for these information collections is estimated to 
average a reduction of 200 hours for each of 2 responses for the 
elimination of the above mentioned requirement, and an increase of 10 
hours for each of 2 responses for the new requirement, for a net burden 
reduction of 380 hours. Because the burden for this information 
collection is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget clearance 
is not required. Existing requirements were approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0021.

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.

Regulatory Analysis

    The regulatory analysis prepared for the final rule published on 
June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467) and amended on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 
66537) to make minor clarifying and conforming changes and add language 
unintentionally omitted from the June 5, 1996 rule, is unchanged except 
for an increase in benefits derived from a reduction in the applicant 
burden of 190 hours of effort in preparing an application for renewal 
of a nuclear power plant operating license.
    This change increases the substantial cost saving of the final rule 
estimated in NUREG-1440. NUREG-1440 is available for inspection in the 
NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, 
DC. In addition, copies of NRC final documents cited here may be 
purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office, PO Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are 
also available for purchase from the National Technical Information 
Service, 5285 Port Royal, Springfield, VA 22161.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
proposed rule would reduce the amount of information to be submitted by 
nuclear power plant licensees to facilitate NRC's obligations under the 
National Environmental Policy Act. 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).

Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that these amendments do not involve any 
provisions that 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 to this notice 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; 
and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835, (42 U.S.C. 2243). 
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 51.53, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(J) and (M) are revised to 
read as follows:

[[Page 9888]]

Sec. 51.53  Post-construction environmental reports.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
* * * * *
    (J) All applicants shall assess the impact of the proposed project 
on local transportation during periods of license renewal refurbishment 
activities and during the term of the renewed license.
* * * * *
    (M) The environmental impacts presented in Summary Table S-4 of 
Sec. 51.52 may be adopted in individual nuclear power plant license 
renewal reviews. In addition, the cumulative impacts of shipments to a 
single repository must be addressed. To do so, the conclusions 
regarding the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to a 
single repository in Appendix B in subpart A of this part may be 
adopted as long as the candidate site at Yucca Mountain is under 
consideration for licensing. The contribution to impacts of 
transportation of higher enrichment and higher burnup fuel need be 
assessed only when the fuel to be used during the license renewal term 
is enriched to greater than 5 percent uranium-235 or average burnup for 
the peak rod will be greater than currently approved by the NRC up to 
62,000 MWd/MTU. If the applicant anticipates exceeding these values for 
enrichment or burnup during the renewal term and has received or 
applied for a license amendment for the values anticipated and an 
environmental assessment has been prepared by the NRC, which considers 
transportation of that fuel to and from the reactor, then that 
environmental assessment may be cited in the renewal application and no 
further information is required.
* * * * *
    3. The Transportation issue under the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste 
Management Section of Table B-1, Appendix B to Subpart A to 10 CFR Part 
51 and Footnote 1 to the heading of Table B-1 are revised to read as 
follows:

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal 
of Nuclear Power Plants \1\

* * * * *

                                     Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Issue                       Category                          Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation.............................            1  SMALL. Cumulative impacts of transporting high-level
                                                           waste to a single repository site at Yucca Mountain,
                                                           Nevada and the impacts of transporting spent fuel
                                                           enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with average
                                                           burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by
                                                           NRC up to 62,000 MWd/MTU are found to not appreciably
                                                           change the impact values contained in 10 CFR
                                                           51.52(c), Summary Table S-4--Environmental Impact of
                                                           Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One
                                                           Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. See Sec.
                                                           51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
  Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996) and NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact
  Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3--`Transportation,' Table 9.1 `Summary
  of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,' Draft for Comment'' (February 1999).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of February 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-4809 Filed 2-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P