[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48828-48832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23791]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 50, 51, and 52

[Docket No. PRM-52-2]


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) is publishing for 
public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated 
July 18, 2001, which was filed with the Commission by the Nuclear 
Energy Institute (NEI). The petition was docketed by the NRC on July 
24, 2001, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-52-2. The petition 
requests that the NRC eliminate the requirement that an early site 
permit applicant evaluate, and that the NRC review, alternative sites, 
and remove provisions regarding the siting, construction, and operation 
of nuclear power plants which require applicants and licensees to 
analyze, and the NRC to evaluate, alternative sites, alternative energy 
sources, and the need for power.

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 can only be given to comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
    Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
    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.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site allows you to upload 
comments as files in any format, if your web browser supports the 
function. The petition and any public comments received are available 
on the site. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, 
contact Carol Gallagher at (301) 415-5905 or via e-mail at [email protected].
    The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected, and 
copied for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, (first floor) 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll-free: 1-800-368-5642. 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 (the petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on 
July 24, 2001, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-52-2.

The Petitioner

    The petitioner (the Nuclear Energy Institute or NEI) claims 
representational responsibility for coordinating the combined efforts 
of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear 
power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all 
matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and regulatory 
aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the 
nuclear power industry.

The Petitioner's Request

    The petitioner believes that the NRC, in implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), has imposed requirements on 
the content of environmental impact reviews that are unnecessary under 
the statute, unduly burdensome to both industry and the NRC, and 
outside the scope of the agency's mission. Specifically, the petitioner 
requests that the NRC amend part 52, subpart A, Early Site Permits, 
Secs. 52.17(a)(2) and 52.18, to remove provisions that the petitioner 
believes are more appropriately dealt with through the application of 
10 CFR part 51, National Environmental Policy Act--Regulations 
Implementing Sec. 102(2). The petitioner further requests that the NRC 
amend 10 CFR part 51 and revise associated NRC regulations and guidance 
regarding the siting, construction, operation, and license renewal of 
nuclear power plants (e.g., 10 CFR part 51, appendix A to subpart A) to 
remove the requirement for applicants and licensees to conduct an 
analysis of and for the NRC to evaluate alternative sites, alternative 
sources of energy, and the need for power. The petitioner emphasizes 
that its proposed amendments would not affect any other required 
reviews of matters pertinent to

[[Page 48829]]

the NRC's responsibilities (e.g., seismology, hydrology, meteorology, 
endangered species, water use, thermal discharges).
    The petitioner contends that although NEPA requires consideration 
of ``alternatives'' to proposed actions, it does not specifically 
require alternative site reviews. The petitioner cites several NRC 
regulations that specify that an alternative site review must be 
conducted, including 10 CFR 2.101(a)(3)(ii), 2.101(a-1)(1), 
2.603(b)(1), 2.605(b)(1), 52.17(a)(2), and 52.18; 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix Q.2 and 7; 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix Q.2 and 7. Similarly, the 
petitioner claims that NEPA does not specifically require an analysis 
of alternative sources of energy or of the need for power. However, the 
NRC's implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 51 currently require that 
those matters be addressed. General guidance on how environmental 
reviews are to be conducted is provided in Regulatory Guide 4.2, 
``Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants'' (July 
1976), and in NUREG-1555, ``Environmental Standard Review Plan'' (March 
2000), which, the petitioner notes, also call for a review of 
alternative sites, alternative energy sources, and need for power.
    The petitioner contends that the NRC has the statutory authority to 
revise its regulations to eliminate the NRC's review of such issues. 
The petitioner also cites a February 28, 2001, letter from NRC Chairman 
Meserve to Senator Domenici, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which 
states that the evaluation of alternative sites, alternative sources of 
power, and the need for generating capacity are matters ``that are 
distant from NRC's mission.'' The petitioner argues that the Commission 
can and should conclude that, because of the fundamental changes that 
have occurred in the electricity market, these reviews are no longer 
required in the NRC's implementation of NEPA.

Justification for the Petition

NEPA Requirements

    The petitioner begins by reviewing the provisions of NEPA and their 
application in NRC proceedings concerning the siting, construction, and 
operation of nuclear power plants. The petitioner notes that Section 
102(2)(C) of NEPA requires Federal agencies, as part of the decision-
making process, to prepare an analysis weighing the environmental costs 
and benefits of all ``major Federal actions significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.'' The ``detailed statement'' that the 
agency is required to prepare and publicly disclose must evaluate: the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action; any adverse environmental 
effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; 
alternatives to the proposed action; the relationship between local 
short term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement 
of long term productivity; and any irreversible and irretrievable 
commitments of resources that would be involved if the proposed action 
were to be implemented.
    The petitioner further notes that the environmental report 
submitted with an application requesting NRC action serves as the basis 
for the NRC's evaluation of the environmental impacts of major agency 
decisions--e.g., to issue or deny a permit or license as applied for, 
or to impose terms or conditions upon a permit or license in light of 
the NEPA review.

The Role of State and Local Governments

    The petitioner then addresses the relative jurisdictions of the NRC 
and State and local governments with respect to the location, 
construction, and operation of electric power plants. The petitioner 
points out that the NRC's licensing process does not change the 
division of authority between the Federal Government and the States 
over the siting of electric generating facilities. The petitioner 
argues that an NRC license or permit constitutes approval of a site or 
plant only under the Federal statutes and regulations administered by 
the NRC, not under other applicable laws. By way of example, the 
petitioner notes that individual State laws may require a State 
determination of the need for power and an evaluation of alternative 
energy sources, or may require the issuance of a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity, as well as various environmental permits. 
The petitioner further notes that local zoning laws may control how a 
potential site is used.
    Legal and Regulatory Basis of State Primacy. The petitioner claims 
that Section 271 of the Atomic Energy Act explicitly preserves State 
authority over the generation, sale, and transmission of electric power 
produced by nuclear plants (42 U.S.C. sec. 2018). The petitioner says 
that, based on this provision and clear Congressional intent, the 
Supreme Court has held that States have jurisdiction over ``the need 
for additional generating capacity, the type of generating capacity to 
be licensed, land use, ratemaking, and the like'' (Pacific Gas & 
Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development 
Comm., 461 U.S. 190, 1983).
    According to the petitioner, the NRC itself explicitly recognized 
the limited extent of its authority in the evaluation of alternatives 
in Footnote 4 to 10 CFR 51.71(e), Preliminary Recommendation, which 
reads: ``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.''
    Persistent State Concerns about the License Renewal Process. The 
petitioner claims that many States nonetheless expressed concern that 
the NRC's findings in license renewal proceedings, even though not 
legally dispositive, would establish an official Federal position that 
would be difficult to rebut in State proceedings. Specifically, the 
States expressed concern that the NRC's consideration of the need for 
power and alternative energy sources in the license renewal Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG 1437, Chapters 8 and 9), and 
associated proposed amendments to part 51, would infringe on State 
jurisdiction over economic regulation of electric utilities.
    The NRC's Response to State Concerns. The petitioner states that 
the NRC issued a supplement to its proposed license renewal rule in 
order to address the States' concerns and respond to questions raised 
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Council for 
Environmental Quality. The petitioner says that this supplement 
addressed whether, under NEPA, the NRC could and should remove from its 
consideration issues over which States have primary jurisdiction. The 
petitioner claims that in the supplement the NRC, having reconsidered 
its NEPA responsibilities with respect to license renewal, correctly 
(1) recognized the primacy of State regulatory decisions regarding 
future energy options, (2) acknowledged that the choice of energy 
options will be made by the electricity generating company, and (3) 
stated that the purpose of the major Federal action in license renewal 
proceedings is ``* * * to preserve the option of continued operation of 
the nuclear power plant for State regulatory and utility officials in 
their future energy planning decisions.''

[[Page 48830]]

    The Major Federal Action in License Renewal Proceedings. The 
petitioner emphasizes that the NRC concluded in this supplement that 
the proposed major Federal action in license renewal proceedings does 
not involve deciding whether the plant seeking license renewal is at 
the best possible site or whether there is or will be a need for the 
power generated by the plant. The petitioner says that the NRC's 
definition of the proposed Federal action in the supplement accurately 
reflects what is really at issue in license renewal proceedings, 
namely, the establishment of a stable and predictable regulatory 
approach to determining whether the option of nuclear power as a source 
of generating capacity at a given site can be considered in future 
State energy planning decisions. The petitioner concludes that the NRC 
can reasonably consider only two basic alternatives in such 
proceedings: the agency may either renew the license and preserve the 
nuclear option at that particular site, or decline to renew the license 
(59 FR 37725; July 25, 1994).
    The petitioner concedes that the NRC decided to examine alternative 
sources of future generating capacity as part of its NEPA review in the 
license renewal context. The petitioner believes that the NRC should 
reconsider that decision on the grounds that it is fundamentally 
inconsistent with related NRC decisions.

Application of NEPA to the Siting, Construction, and Operation of 
Nuclear Power Plants

    The petitioner believes that future plants will be licensed under 
Part 52, but stresses that the elimination of NRC requirements 
concerning need for power, alternative sources and alternative sites is 
appropriate regardless of whether plants are licensed under Part 52 or 
Part 50, and asks that its analysis be read accordingly.
    The Role of Early Site Permits. The provisions of Subpart A of 10 
CFR part 52 apply to applicants seeking an early site permit (ESP) 
separate from an application for a construction permit or a combined 
license for a nuclear power plant. According to the petitioner, the 
basic purpose of Subpart A, consistent with all of Part 52, is to 
resolve all site suitability issues in a licensing proceeding as early 
as possible, before large commitments of resources are made. The 
petitioner states that the importance of raising and resolving all 
environmental issues as part of the ESP proceeding is recognized in 10 
CFR 52.39(a)(2), Finality of early site permit determinations, which 
reads in part: ``In making the findings required for the issuance of a 
construction permit, operating license, or combined license, or the 
findings required by Sec. 52.103 of this part, if the application for 
the construction permit, operating license, or combined license 
references an early site permit, the Commission shall treat as resolved 
those matters resolved in a proceeding on the application for issuance 
or renewal of an early site permit * * *'' (emphasis added by the 
petitioner).
    NEPA Review in 10 CFR Part 52. The petitioner states that, at the 
time Part 52 was promulgated, the NRC staff felt it was necessary to 
include language that further refined its interpretation of the scope 
of the agency's NEPA review. The petitioner says that the first change 
clarified that a need-for-power analysis need not be included in the 
environmental report that is part of the early site permit (ESP) 
application, but could be deferred until the combined license (COL) 
stage. The second change related to performing an alternative site 
analysis. According to the petitioner, because early site permitting is 
a siting decision, the NRC revised Part 52 to state explicitly that an 
alternative site analysis was necessary at the ESP stage to determine 
if there is an ``obviously superior'' (Sec. 52.18) alternative to the 
site proposed. As a result, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2) and 52.18 provide that 
the environmental report for an ESP need not include an assessment of 
the need for power, but must include an evaluation of alternative 
sites.
    The petitioner contends that the provisions of Part 52 relative to 
alternative site reviews are based on an interpretation of NEPA that is 
neither necessary, nor desirable, nor reflective of the evolving 
electricity marketplace.
    Definition of the Major Federal Action in ESP and COL Proceedings. 
The petitioner notes that, in the context of an ESP, the proposed 
``major Federal action'' is the granting of a permit for a site for one 
or more nuclear power plants. To actually build and operate one or more 
nuclear plants on that site, an applicant must also obtain a combined 
license (COL). In a COL proceeding, the petitioner says, the proposed 
``major Federal action'' is the approval to build and subsequently 
operate a particular nuclear plant at a specified site. If the COL 
references an ESP, the site approval is already established, and the 
site suitability issue reduces to whether the proposed nuclear power 
plant(s) fit within the ESP's environmental envelope. The petitioner 
claims that, if the COL applicant does not reference an ESP, the 
``major Federal action'' with respect to approving the specified site 
is the same as for an ESP. The petitioner emphasizes that in none of 
these cases (i.e., ESP or COL with or without a referenced ESP) is the 
proposed action a matter of deciding whether there is a need for power, 
whether an applicant should select a different site, or which of 
various possible sources of electric generating capacity best meets the 
State's or the region's needs, provides the most economic electricity 
to ratepayers, or is environmentally most benign.
    The Applicant's Goal. The petitioner contends that its proposal to 
eliminate consideration of such alternatives by the NRC is based on a 
fundamental principle of NEPA law, namely, that an agency need only 
consider alternatives that will accomplish the applicant's goal. The 
petitioner says that the ESP applicant's goal is to determine whether 
the proposed site satisfies statutory and NRC regulatory requirements 
as a suitable location for a nuclear power plant. Similarly, the 
petitioner says, the goal of a COL applicant is to determine whether 
the proposed plant satisfies applicable safety and environmental 
requirements, including the criteria established in any referenced ESP. 
The petitioner therefore concludes that the only site suitability issue 
before the NRC in either an ESP or COL proceeding is whether that site 
is suitable for one or more nuclear facilities. Thus, alternative sites 
are not ``reasonable alternatives'' under NEPA and need not be 
addressed in ESP and COL applications.
    Under NEPA, the NRC must consider the no-action alternative and any 
actions that could mitigate the environmental impact of the proposed 
plant. The petitioner argues that, beyond this, the NRC must consider 
only those alternatives that serve the purpose for which an applicant 
is seeking approval, and, according to the petitioner, there are none. 
ESP and COL applicants, the petitioner reiterates, seek to obtain a 
determination on whether the proposed site and facilities meet all 
applicable NRC requirements, not a decision as to whether one or more 
nuclear facilities should, or will, be built, nor how or how much or 
where electricity should be generated in the future. In the 
petitioner's view it is unnecessary and inappropriate both for the NRC 
to require applicants to conduct a NEPA analysis of such issues, and 
for the agency to expend its own limited resources to evaluate possible 
alternative sources of electricity, alternative sites, or the need for 
power.
    Agency Discretion under NEPA. The petitioner maintains that each 
Federal

[[Page 48831]]

agency considering a major proposed action is charged with determining 
what alternatives are reasonable and should be considered under NEPA. 
According to the petitioner, the fact that the NRC modified the scope 
of its NEPA review in license renewal proceedings is evidence that the 
agency also has the authority to determine what matters are pertinent 
to NEPA evaluation of applications to site and build new nuclear power 
plants.
    Limits of NRC's Authority. The petitioner further claims that, if 
the NRC were to deny an application for reasons related to alternative 
sites or alternative energy sources, the applicant would not be 
required to use either the alternative site or the alternative energy 
source recommended by the agency. In fact, the petitioner says, the 
applicant would be free to develop a different alternative energy 
source at another site, which might result in a greater environmental 
impact than the nuclear power plant originally proposed. In such a 
case, the petitioner argues, the NRC's denial of the permit or license 
would, in the name of protecting the environment, actually defeat the 
purpose of NEPA review.
    Summary. In summary, the petitioner maintains that the NRC, as part 
of its NEPA analysis, is not legally obligated, and thus should not 
attempt, to reach any conclusions related to alternative sites, 
alternative sources of power, or the need for power. The petitioner 
believes that the NRC demonstrated the proper use of its discretion 
when it altered its understanding of the ``major Federal action'' in 
the license renewal context, with a consequent, appropriate change in 
NRC's requirements for NEPA analyses. The petitioner argues that the 
NRC should similarly exercise that discretion to circumscribe its NEPA 
analysis requirements in Parts 50 and 52.

Changes in the Electricity Marketplace Since the 1970's

    The petitioner maintains that, while NEPA has never required these 
analyses, the electric utility structure in the 1970's was such that a 
typical environmental review associated with the siting, construction 
and operation of a nuclear power plant included an evaluation of the 
need for additional generating capacity, alternative sites, and 
alternative sources of energy. The petitioner notes that, in the 
1970's, the typical applicant for a nuclear power plant was an electric 
utility that was regulated by a State public utility commission. As a 
regulated electric utility, the applicant also had the legal authority 
to exercise the power of eminent domain to build generating facilities 
and any necessary supporting infrastructure. In the petitioner's view, 
many licensing decisions and judicial determinations based on the NRC's 
interpretation of its responsibilities under NEPA, and corresponding 
NRC regulations and practices, were adopted in response to this 
particular historical context.
    Effects of Deregulation. The petitioner notes that dramatic changes 
have occurred in the electric power industry over the past thirty 
years, most notably resulting from the passage of the Energy Policy Act 
of 1992 and resultant actions by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission imposing open access transmission requirements on 
electricity transmission providers. Today, the petitioner contends, any 
new nuclear power plant is likely to be constructed and operated by an 
unregulated merchant generator operating in a competitive marketplace. 
The petitioner believes that a merchant generator will not build and 
operate a plant unless there is a need for the proposed additional 
generating capacity or the proposed facility will generate electricity 
at a lower cost than its competitors. The petitioner contends that a 
merchant generator will not build and operate a nuclear power plant if 
there is a superior alternative source of energy. According to the 
petitioner, in States where utilities are still subject to regulation, 
the situation described relative to license renewal will be directly 
applicable. The petitioner argues that, given all of these factors, it 
is not reasonable to believe that a nuclear power plant will be built 
in today's environment absent a need for power or some other benefit.
    The petitioner further maintains that it is not reasonable to 
assume that the NRC would be able to identify an alternative site or 
alternative energy source that is both feasible and preferable to the 
choices made by a merchant generator. Because the consideration of 
alternatives under NEPA is subject to a rule of reason, the petitioner 
believes that NEPA does not compel the NRC to consider these factors in 
today's environment. The petitioner maintains that deregulation at the 
State level has fundamentally altered both the marketplace for 
electricity and the makeup of electricity generating companies, and 
argues that the NRC's regulatory framework for implementing NEPA should 
be revised accordingly.

The Petitioner's Conclusion

    The petitioner concludes that, given the dramatic effect of State 
deregulation on electricity markets and generators, the NRC should 
reevaluate its implementation of NEPA. The petitioner maintains that 
the ``major Federal action'' in NRC proceedings should be described 
solely in terms of evaluating the suitability of siting, constructing 
or operating one or more nuclear power plants at a proposed site in 
accordance with the NRC's responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act. 
The ``reasonable alternatives'' that must be considered under NEPA 
should, in turn, be defined by reference to this circumscribed 
understanding of the major Federal action at issue. The petitioner 
further argues that limited NRC, industry and other stakeholder 
resources should not be expended on matters that are more appropriately 
and effectively dealt with by State and local regulators. Given the 
dictates of NEPA as they apply to the decisions to be made under 10 CFR 
parts 50 and 52, the petitioner believes that the NRC need not, and 
therefore as a matter of policy should not, conduct any evaluation of 
alternative sites, alternative energy sources, or need for power.
    The petitioner contends that the foregoing reasons support its 
request to eliminate the Part 52 requirements for applicants to submit, 
and for NRC to review, information on alternative sites. The petitioner 
maintains that 10 CFR parts 2, 50 and 51 should be similarly modified 
to eliminate provisions which require applicants requesting NRC 
approval to site, build and operate nuclear power plants to submit, and 
the NRC to review, information concerning the need for power, 
alternative sources and alternative sites.
    The petitioner sets out a detailed series of proposed amendments. 
These amendments are presented verbatim in appendix A to this notice of 
receipt.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of September, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

Appendix A to This Notice of Receipt--The Nuclear Energy 
Institute's Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 52 and 10 CFR Parts 
2, 50, and 51

Proposed Modifications to 10 CFR Part 52

    1. 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2) should be amended as follows: A complete 
environmental report as required by 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50 must be 
included in the application, provided, however, that such environmental 
report must focus on the environmental effects of construction and 
operation of a reactor.

[[Page 48832]]

    2. 10 CFR 52.18 should be amended as follows: Applications filed 
under this subpart will be reviewed according to the applicable 
standards set out in 10 CFR part 50 and its appendices and part 100 as 
they apply to applications for construction permits for nuclear power 
plants. In particular, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 
impact statement during a review of the application, in accordance with 
applicable provisions of 10 CFR part 51, provided, however, that the 
draft and final environmental impact statements prepared by the 
Commission focus on the environmental effects of construction and 
operation of a reactor, or reactors, which have characteristics that 
fall within the postulated site parameters. The Commission shall 
determine, after consultation with the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, whether the information required of the applicant by 
Sec. 52.17(b)(1) shows that there is no significant impediment to the 
development of emergency plans, whether any major features of emergency 
plan submitted by the applicant under Sec. 52.17(b)(2)(i) are 
acceptable, and whether any emergency plans submitted by the applicant 
under Section 52.17(b)(2)(ii) provide reasonable assurance that 
adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a 
radiological emergency.

Proposed Modifications to 10 CFR Parts 2, 50 and 51

    1. 10 CFR 2.101(a-1)(1) should be amended as follows: Part one 
shall include or be accompanied by any information required by 
Secs. 50.34(a)(1) and 50.30(f) of this chapter which relates to the 
issue(s) of site suitability for which an early review, hearing and 
partial decision are sought, except that information with respect to 
operation of the facility at the projected initial power level need not 
be supplied, and shall include the information required by Secs. 50.33 
(a) through (e) and 50.37 of this chapter. The information submitted 
shall also include: (i) Proposed findings on the issues of site 
suitability on which the applicant has requested review and a statement 
of the bases or the reasons for those findings, and (ii) a range of 
postulated facility design and operation parameters that is sufficient 
to enable the Commission to perform the requested review of site 
suitability issues under the applicable provisions of parts 50, 51 and 
100.
    2. 10 CFR 2.603(b)(1) should be amended as follows: The Director of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation will accept for docketing an application for 
a construction permit for a utilization facility which is subject to 
Sec. 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type specified in 
Sec. 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec. 50.22 or is a testing facility where 
part one of the application as described in Sec. 2.101(a-1) is 
complete. Part one of any application will not be considered complete 
unless it contains proposed findings as required by Sec. 2.101(a-
1)(1)(i). Upon assignment of a docket number, the procedures in 
Sec. 2.101(a)(3) and (4) relating to formal docketing and the 
submission and distribution of additional copies of the application 
shall be followed.
    3. 10 CFR 2.605(b)(1) should be deleted in its entirety.
    4. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Q.2 and 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix Q.2 
(which are essentially identical) should be amended as follows: The 
submittal for early review of site suitability issue(s) must be made in 
the same manner and in the same number of copies as provided in 
Secs. 50.4 and 50.30 for license applications. The submittal must 
include sufficient information concerning a range of postulated 
facility design and operation parameters to enable the Staff to perform 
the requested review of site suitability issues. The submittal must 
contain suggested conclusions on the issues of site suitability 
submitted for review and must be accompanied by a statement of the 
bases or the reasons for those conclusions.
    5. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Q.7(a) and 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix 
Q.7(a) (which are identical) should be deleted in their entirety.
    6. The following sentence should be added to the end of 10 CFR 
51.45(c): No discussion of need for power, alternative energy sources, 
or alternative sites for the facility is required in this report.
    7. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) should be amended as follows: * * * 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 alternative sites, 
alternative energy sources, or 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 * * 
*.
    8. The following sentence should be added after the first sentence 
of 10 CFR 51.71(d): No discussion of need for power, or of alternative 
energy sources, or of alternative sites for the facility will be 
included in the draft environmental impact statement.
    9. 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2) should be amended as follows: The 
supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not 
required to include discussion of alternative sites, alternative energy 
sources, or 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. . . .
    10. 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A.4 should be amended as follows: 
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.
    11. The following sentence should be added to the end of 10 CFR 
part 51, appendix A.5: The consideration of alternatives will not 
include an analysis of alternative sites or alternative energy sources.
    12. Additionally, conforming changes should be made in 10 CFR 
2.101(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.71 footnote 4.
    13. Finally, NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2 and NUREG-1555 should be 
modified to reflect the Commission's determination that alternative 
sites, alternative sources of energy, and need for power are not to be 
evaluated under 10 CFR part 51 provisions pertaining to the siting, 
construction and operation of new nuclear power plants.

[FR Doc. 01-23791 Filed 9-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P