[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48832-48836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23790]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. PRM-52-1]


Nuclear Energy Institute; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and 
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the 
Nuclear Energy Institute. The petition has been docketed by the NRC and 
has been assigned Docket No. PRM-52-1. The petitioner is requesting 
that the NRC

[[Page 48833]]

regulations governing early site permits and combined license 
applications at existing reactor sites be amended to improve the 
efficiency of the application and review process for companies seeking 
early site permits or combined licenses at licensed facilities. The 
petitioner believes that its proposed amendments would enhance the 
focus and efficiency of the early site permit and combined license 
process. The petitioner proposes to eliminate the need for what it 
believes is duplicate applicant production and NRC review of existing 
information relating to a licensed facility that has been previously 
approved by the NRC and subject to a public hearing.

DATES: Submit comments by November 8, 2001. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance 
of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or 
before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications staff.
    Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website through the NRC home page (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov). At this 
site, you may view the petition for rulemaking, this Federal Register 
notice of receipt, and any comments received by the NRC in response to 
this notice of receipt. Additionally, you may upload comments as files 
(any format), if your web browser supports that function. For 
information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol 
Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail: [email protected]).
    For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Documents related to this action are available for public 
inspection at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for 
rulemaking dated July 18, 2001, submitted by the Nuclear Energy 
Institute (petitioner). The petitioner is requesting that the 
regulations in 10 CFR part 52 governing early site permits and combined 
license applications at existing reactor sites be amended. 
Specifically, the petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 
52, subpart A, Early Site Permits, to add proposed Sec. 52.16 and amend 
10 CFR part 52, subpart C, Combined Licenses, to add proposed 
Sec. 52.80.
    The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold 
sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 
2.802. The petition has been docketed as PRM-52-1. The NRC is 
soliciting public comment on the petition for rulemaking.

Discussion of the Petition

    The petitioner expects that new power reactors will be ordered by 
existing licensees in the near future and that the new reactors will 
use many of the programs currently being used by those licensees. 
Additionally, the petitioner anticipates that many of the new reactors 
will be located on existing reactor sites. The petitioner believes 
that, to avoid needless expenditure of NRC and licensee resources, 
proposed Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 would use existing information as a 
baseline and would provide for NRC review and an opportunity for a 
hearing to account for changed circumstances, such as new regulations 
and significant new information.
    The petitioner notes that subpart A to part 52 contains provisions 
governing issuance of early site permits (ESPs). The petitioner 
proposes that a new Sec. 52.16 be added to subpart A to allow an ESP 
applicant to incorporate by reference all or portions of the current 
licensing basis for an existing reactor site to the extent that they 
are valid and applicable to one or more additional nuclear power plants 
that fit within the ESP environmental envelope. Proposed Sec. 52.16 
would also require that any information incorporated by reference be 
augmented to include:
     Significant new safety or environmental information that 
materially affects the ability of the site to support the proposed 
additional nuclear facility
     Information regarding the cumulative radiological and 
environmental impacts of the existing facility and the facility as 
described in the ESP application
     An analysis of the potential safety impacts of the 
existing facility on the suitability of the site for the facility as 
described in the ESP application
     An analysis of the potential safety impacts on the 
existing facility from the facility as described in the ESP application
     Information that addresses regulations applicable to 
siting issues that became effective after licensing of the current 
facility, to the extent that these regulations are not addressed in the 
current licensing basis
    The petitioner states that under proposed Sec. 52.16, the NRC would 
treat as resolved those matters incorporated by reference, except to 
the extent that those matters are subject to augmentation with new 
information described above. The petitioner also states that proposed 
Sec. 52.16 would allow the NRC to impose a change in the application 
with respect to the information incorporated by reference to the extent 
that the change satisfies the principles underlying 10 CFR 50.109, 
Backfitting. The petitioner believes that in preparing the 
environmental impact statement for the early site permit, the NRC would 
adopt the applicable portions of the existing environmental impact 
statement associated with the site, modified or supplemented as 
necessary to reflect the NRC's review of the new environmental 
information described above.
    The petitioner notes that subpart C to part 52 contains provisions 
governing issuance of combined construction permits and operating 
licenses (COLs). The petitioner states that proposed Sec. 52.80 would 
be added to subpart C and would contain provisions similar to those 
proposed in Sec. 52.16. The petitioner also states that proposed 
Sec. 52.80 would allow a COL applicant to incorporate by reference 
programmatic information identified in the current licensing basis of 
an existing licensed facility located at the same site or owned or 
operated by the same licensee. Proposed Sec. 52.80 would require this 
programmatic information to be augmented to include information that 
addresses applicable regulations that became effective after the 
existing facility was licensed, to the extent that these regulations 
are not addressed by the current licensing basis for the existing 
facility. The petitioner states that under proposed Sec. 52.80, the NRC 
would treat as resolved those matters incorporated by reference from 
the existing facility, except to the extent that those matters are 
subject to new information as identified above. The petitioner believes 
that the NRC could direct that a change be made in the COL application 
with respect to the information incorporated by reference,

[[Page 48834]]

to the extent that the change satisfies the principles underlying 10 
CFR 50.109.
    The petitioner proposes that 10 CFR part 52 be amended to add 
Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 as follows:

Section 52.16  Early site permits for licensed sites.

    (a) If an application for an early site permit is filed for a 
site for which a license or construction permit has been issued, the 
application may incorporate by reference all or part of the current 
licensing basis for the site to the extent that it pertains to the 
siting issues specified in Sec. 52.17.
    (b) Information incorporated by reference shall be supplemented 
to include, to the extent applicable:
    (1) Significant new information that materially affects the 
ability of the site to support the additional nuclear facility as 
described in the early site permit application;
    (2) Information regarding the cumulative radiological impacts of 
the existing facility and the facility as described in the early 
site permit application;
    (3) An analysis of the potential safety impacts of the existing 
facility on the suitability of the site for the facility as 
described in the early site permit application;
    (4) An analysis of the potential safety impacts on the existing 
facility from the facility as described in the early site permit 
application; and
    (5) Information that addresses regulations applicable to siting 
issues that became effective after licensing of the existing 
facility, to the extent that such regulations are not addressed by 
the current licensing basis.
    (c) Environmental information incorporated by reference shall be 
supplemented to include, to the extent applicable:
    (1) Significant new information relevant to environmental 
concerns bearing on the ability of the site to support the 
additional nuclear facility as described in the early site permit 
application; and
    (2) Information regarding the cumulative environmental impacts 
of the existing facility and the facility as described in the early 
site permit application.
    (d) The Commission shall treat as resolved the environmental 
information incorporated by reference under paragraph (a) of this 
section, except to the extent that those matters are subject to new 
information under paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, the 
Commission may impose changes with respect to the information 
incorporated by reference pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 
to the extent that each such change satisfies the criteria in 10 CFR 
50.109.
    (e) The Commission also shall treat as resolved the 
environmental information incorporated by reference under paragraph 
(a) of this section, except to the extent that those matters are 
subject to new information under paragraph (c) of this section. In 
preparing its environmental impact statement for the early site 
permit, the Commission will adopt the applicable portions of the 
existing environmental impact statement associated with the site 
(including any supplements), modified or supplemented as necessary 
to reflect the Commission's review of the new information identified 
under paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *

Section 52.80  Combined licenses for sites with existing licensed 
facilities or for applicants holding licenses for other facilities.

    (a) If an application is filed for a combined license for a 
facility located at a site with an existing licensed facility or by 
an applicant that holds a license for an existing facility at 
another site, the application may incorporate by reference the type 
of information described in Sec. 52.16, subject to the requirements 
of that section.
    (b) The application may also incorporate by reference all or 
part of the type of information identified in 10 CFR 50.33(g); 
50.34(b)(6)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v); 50.34(c); 50.34(d); 
50.34(f)(2)(ii); and 50.34(f)(3)(i), (ii), and (vii), to the extent 
such information is contained in the current licensing basis of an 
existing facility located at the same site or at a site owned or 
operated by the same licensee or an affiliate of that licensee. The 
information incorporated by reference shall be supplemented to 
include:
    (1) Information that addresses regulations applicable to the 
incorporated information that became effective after licensing of 
the existing facility, to the extent that such regulations are not 
addressed by the current licensing basis for the existing facility.
    (c) The Commission shall treat as resolved those matters 
incorporated by reference under paragraph (a) of this section, 
except to the extent that those matters are subject to new 
information under paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, the 
commission may direct that changes be made with respect to the 
information incorporated by reference pursuant to paragraph (a) of 
this section to the extent that each such change satisfies the 
criteria in 10 CFR 50.109.

    The petitioner believes that proposed Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 are 
consistent with and promote the NRC's performance goals to: Maintain 
safety; protection of the environment, and the common defense and 
security; increase public confidence; make NRC activities and decisions 
more effective, efficient, and realistic; and reduce unnecessary burden 
on stakeholders. The petitioner states that the proposed amendments not 
only are consistent with NRC's mission to ensure adequate protection of 
the public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the 
environment; but also, would focus NRC reviews on new information and 
what the petitioner believes would be an incremental impact of an 
additional unit at an existing site. The petitioner states that even in 
the absence of new information, the proposed regulations would provide 
the NRC with the authority to impose new requirements on previously 
approved information if required to ensure adequate protection of the 
public health and safety and the environment.
    The petitioner states that the proposed amendments would serve to 
enhance the efficiency of the regulatory process by eliminating 
duplicate reviews of matters resolved in previous proceedings by 
focusing agency resources on new and material information and the 
impact of potential new units on the site. The petitioner also states 
that proposed Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 would ensure that the public has an 
opportunity for a hearing on all material issues, including significant 
new information that would warrant further NRC review. The petitioner 
believes that proposed Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 would reduce regulatory 
burden by focusing attention on matters that have not been previously 
decided in other proceedings.
    The petitioner notes that 10 CFR 51.29(a)(3) provides that the NRC 
may exclude issues that have been subject to a previous environmental 
review. The petitioner believes that its proposed amendments support 
NRC initiatives to place emphasis on the early identification of 
regulatory issues and process improvements to handle new license 
applications. The petitioner states that because the costs of a new 
facility are affected by application preparation expenses, responding 
to requests for additional information (RAIs), and possible hearing 
expenses, ensuring that costs are predictable and commensurate with the 
safety significance of issues associated with ESP and COL applications 
and reducing the time for a new facility to be available will be 
determining factors in business decisions on whether to proceed with 
new nuclear projects.
    The petitioner acknowledges that the NRC has the authority and 
discretion to adopt new regulations under the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (AEA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by 
either rulemaking or adjudication. The petitioner cites Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 
U.S. 519 (1978) in which the Supreme Court held that the NRC is free to 
promulgate rules of procedure and methods for making factual findings 
if they satisfy APA requirements. The petitioner believes that nothing 
in the AEA or APA would preclude adoption of proposed Secs. 52.16 and 
52.80 or prohibit the NRC from promulgating a rule that would treat 
information the NRC reviewed and approved in a previous licensing 
proceeding as resolved. The petitioner emphasizes that proposed 
Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 would require NRC consideration of new

[[Page 48835]]

information that has not been previously reviewed or subject to a 
hearing.
    The petitioner notes that Secs. 52.39(a)(2), 52.63(a)(4), and 
52.103 treat information the NRC has reviewed and approved in previous 
proceedings as resolved and that the courts have held that these 
provisions do not deprive individuals of rights to a hearing under 
Sec. 189 of the AEA. The petitioner also notes that Sec. 52.73 allows a 
COL application to reference a design certification and that in the COL 
proceeding, Sec. 52.63(a)(4) requires the NRC to treat matters relating 
to issuance of the design certification as resolved, even if the design 
certification proceeding was a different proceeding that may have taken 
place 15 or more years earlier and probably did not involve the parties 
in the COL hearing. (See also, Secs. 52.55 and 52.61.)
    The petitioner indicates that Sec. 52.73 also allows a COL 
application to reference an ESP and that Sec. 52.39(a)(2) requires the 
NRC to treat matters resolved in the ESP proceeding as final, even 
though the ESP decision was a different matter that may have taken 
place at least 20 years earlier and may not have involved the same COL 
hearing parties. (See also, Secs. 52.27 and 52.33.) In Nuclear 
Information & Resource Service v. NRC, 918 F.2d 189, 196-97 n. 14 (D.C. 
Cir. 1990), aff'd on rehearing 969 F.2d 1169, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1992), 
the petitioner notes that the court rejected a challenge to the NRC's 
decision to treat matters approved in the ESP and design certification 
proceedings as resolved in a COL hearing in stating ``that the 
Commission has wide latitude in structuring the scope and timing of its 
hearings.'' The petitioner notes further that this decision found that 
Sec. 189 of the AEA does not contain specific instruction on how the 
hearing is to be conducted or if the NRC must rehear issues already 
settled earlier in the licensing process. The petitioner believes that 
the scope and timing of ESP and COL hearings contemplated in proposed 
Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 are fully consistent with existing provisions and 
court decisions.
    The petitioner also believes that limitations on the scope of 
issues contained in proposed Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 are consistent with 
NRC practice in other areas such as, license renewal and amendments, 
environmental effects associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, spent 
fuel storage casks, quality assurance (QA) programs, and the facility 
and procedure change process. The petitioner notes that the scope of 
issues appropriate for review in operating license renewal proceedings 
is limited under 10 CFR parts 51 and 54 that eliminate matters 
previously considered in prior licensing proceedings or rulemaking 
actions. The petitioner cites Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. 
(Vermont Yankee nuclear Power Station), ALAB-235, 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974) 
and Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-291, 2 
NRC 404, 415 (1975) in stating that the right to intervene and raise 
contentions in license amendment proceedings is limited to issues that 
directly relate to the proposed change and that it is inappropriate to 
revisit issues considered in initial licensing that are not affected by 
the amendment.
    The petitioner also cites Baltimore Gas and Electric Corp. v. NRDC, 
462 U.S. 87 (1983) in which the Supreme Court upheld the NRC's approach 
in the Table S-3 rulemaking proceeding in stating that the generic 
disposition of environmental issues is proper and precludes unnecessary 
and repetitive litigation. The petitioner notes that 10 CFR 72.46(e) 
prohibits review of spent fuel storage cask design issues during 
licensing hearings for a site-specific independent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI) and when a cask was approved in a generic 
proceeding. The petitioner also notes that 10 CFR 72.210 and 72.212 
allow use of generically approved storage casks without providing any 
opportunity for a plant-specific hearing. The petitioner cites Kelly v. 
Selin, 42 F.3d 1501 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 515 U.S. 1159 (1995) 
in which the courts have held that this process does not deprive 
individuals of any hearing rights under Sec. 189 of the AEA.
    The petitioner states that 10 CFR 50.54(a) has been recently 
revised to eliminate the need for prior NRC review and changes to a QA 
program description when the change involves a QA alternative or 
exception previously approved in an NRC safety evaluation for another 
plant. The petitioner also states that 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2)(ii) and NRC 
Regulatory Guide 1.187 permit licensees to adopt evaluation methods 
approved by the NRC for use by other licensees if the method has been 
approved for the intended application and the licensee satisfies the 
applicable terms and conditions for its use. The petitioner believes 
that proposed Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 are fully consistent with 
precedents in which the NRC has treated prior decisions made in 
rulemaking or licensing proceedings as resolved and has not permitted 
further review and litigation of those issues in subsequent 
proceedings.
    The petitioner notes that Sec. 102 of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality 
of the environment and that 10 CFR 52.18 and 52.89 require an EIS for 
an ESP and a COL. However, NEPA does not require the NRC to reconsider 
previously settled issues to assess the environmental impacts of 
approving a license application to locate an additional reactor at an 
existing site. The petitioner cites the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) regulations that became effective in 1979 to standardize 
the NEPA process to reduce delays and eliminate duplication of 
governmental efforts. These regulations allow agencies to use previous 
environmental analyses when drafting a new EIS or to supplement an EIS 
if an agency makes substantive changes in a proposed action or when new 
circumstances or information arise that affect the environment. The 
petitioner acknowledges that the NRC incorporated these regulations 
into 10 CFR Part 51 but cites Deukmejian v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. 
Cir. 1984) in noting that although the NRC gives substantial deference 
to the CEQ's regulations, it is not bound by them.
    The petitioner states that 10 CFR 51.29(a)(3) permits the NRC to 
exclude issues that have been covered by a previous environmental 
review and that an EIS may provide a reference to a prior document that 
settled a particular environmental issue. The petitioner believes that 
although the NRC's regulations specifically refer to adoption of an EIS 
prepared by another Federal agency, nothing prevents the NRC from using 
a previous NRC EIS. The petitioner also believes that proposed 
Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 are consistent with NRC and CEQ guidance on 
referencing and adopting previous EISs.

The Petitioner's Conclusions

    The petitioner has concluded that the NRC requirements governing 
early site permits and the combined license process in 10 CFR Part 52 
should be amended to permit the NRC to treat applicable information 
approved in previous licensing proceedings as resolved. The petitioner 
also has concluded that proposed Secs. 52.16 and 52.80 would accomplish 
this objective and ensure consideration of significant new information 
that could materially affect the NRC's findings. The petitioner has 
also concluded that the proposed amendments are consistent with 
Sec. 189 of the AEA and NRC and court decisions that authorize the NRC 
to limit the scope of licensing proceedings to avoid additional review 
and litigation of previously settled issues. Lastly, the

[[Page 48836]]

petitioner has concluded that the proposed amendments would conserve 
NRC resources and streamline the agency's administrative processes to 
eliminate what it believes are unnecessary costs and burdens on 
applicants for new licenses.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of September, 2001.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-23790 Filed 9-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P