[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79165-79166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32697]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Criteria for the Review of Alternative Sites: Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing a public 
meeting to obtain public input, which the agency will consider in 
deciding whether to undertake rulemaking to specifically define the 
criteria for review of candidate and alternative sites for commercial 
nuclear power plants. The NRC has environmental protection 
responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
that lead to a review of alternative sites in connection with a 
decision to grant an early site permit, a construction permit, or a 
combined operating license. In addition to environmental protection 
considerations pertaining to alternative sites, the meeting will cover 
whether and how the NRC should consider emergency planning in reviewing 
alternative sites.

DATES: January 28, 2003 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the TWFN Auditorium in 
the NRC's headquarters at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Banic, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001, e-mail [email protected], telephone (301) 415-2771.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose

    The purpose of the meeting is to obtain public input, which the 
agency will consider in deciding whether to undertake rulemaking to 
specifically define the criteria for review of candidate and 
alternative sites for commercial nuclear power plants. The NRC has 
environmental protection responsibilities under NEPA that lead to a 
review of alternative sites in connection with a decision to grant an 
early site permit, a construction permit, or a combined operating 
license. In addition to environmental protection considerations 
pertaining to alternative sites, the meeting will cover whether and how 
the NRC should consider emergency planning in reviewing alternative 
sites.

Participation

    The meeting will be facilitated to ensure that all participants 
have the opportunity to share their views with the NRC staff. Members 
of the public who wish to speak should contact the cognizant NRC staff 
member listed above under the heading, For Further Information Contact 
to register before the meeting. Provide your name and a telephone 
number where you can be contacted, if necessary, before the meeting. 
Depending on the number of participants, NRC may need to limit the 
amount of time available for presentations. Members of the public will 
also be able to register to speak at the meeting on a first come basis 
to the extent that time is available.

Background

    Under NEPA, Federal agencies must study the impacts of ``major 
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment'' and prepare detailed statements on the environmental 
impacts of a proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. 
Granting an early site permit, a construction permit, or a combined 
operating license qualifies as a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. In addition, Appendix Q 
to 10 CFR part 50 provides a process whereby an applicant may request 
an early review of site suitability issues prior to submitting an 
application. An applicant might request an early review of alternative 
site issues under these provisions. Although NEPA and the NRC's 
regulations contain many elements that shape the NRC's environmental 
reviews, they do not specify in detail the nature and extent of 
alternative site reviews.
    On April 9, 1980, the NRC published in the Federal Register a 
proposed rule to address procedures and performance criteria for 
considering alternative sites (45 FR 24168). On May 28, 1981, the NRC 
published a final rule that addressed alternative site issues in 
operating license proceedings (48 FR 28630). Subsequently, the agency 
suspended work on other aspects of the proposed rule because of reduced 
interest in building new nuclear power plants. More recently, on March 
31, 2000, the NRC published relevant guidance in NUREG-1555,

[[Page 79166]]

``Environmental Standard Review Plan.'' This plan guides the NRC staff 
in reviewing an application for an early site permit, construction 
permit, or combined operating license. However, the guidance is general 
and not binding.
    On July 18, 2001, the Nuclear Energy Institute submitted two 
petitions for rulemaking (Docket Nos. PRM-52-1, PRM-52-2). Among other 
things, PRM-52-1 requested that the NRC treat as resolved certain 
information (including siting information) for a proposed nuclear power 
plant to be built on a site of an existing licensed plant. PRM-52-2 
requested elimination of the requirement to consider alternative sites 
for nuclear power plants. The NRC published a notice of receipt and 
request for comment in the Federal Register on September 24, 2001 (66 
FR 48828). A decision on this petition has not yet been issued by the 
NRC.

Meeting Topics

    The discussions will include the topics discussed below.
    (1) Regulatory options:
    (a) Maintain the status quo. In this case, the suitability of the 
candidate site and whether an ``obviously superior'' alternative site 
exists would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, using the current 
Standard Review Plan as a source of general and non-binding guidance.
    (b) Conduct rulemaking to specifically define the criteria for 
candidate and alternative site reviews. In this case, specific and 
binding criteria would be developed and implemented.
    (c) Issue revised guidance, such as a revised Standard Review Plan. 
In this case, specific criteria might be developed, but they would not 
be binding.
    (2) Criteria for candidate and alternative site reviews might take 
one of two broad forms. One type of criterion would focus on the sites 
selected by the applicant. The other type would focus on the 
applicant's site-selection process.
    (3) The region of interest is the area from which an applicant may 
select candidate and alternative sites. In the past, likely areas were 
the State in which the applicant would locate the proposed site or the 
applicant's service area. Now, deregulation of the electric utility 
industry might affect the region of interest. In a deregulated 
industry, the power purchase agreements of a merchant power producer 
could have considerable reach. It may not be reasonable, however, to 
expand the region of interest to include areas at great distance from 
the proposed site.
    (4) The review of alternative sites might be subject to a numerical 
limit. The 1980 proposed rule would have restricted the review to four 
sites (the proposed site and three alternative sites).
    (5) In the past, the NRC has employed an ``obviously superior'' 
standard. Some of the ideas that have been suggested for making a 
determination on whether an alternative site is obviously superior are 
the following:
    (a) If the proposed site is the site of an existing nuclear power 
plant, the search for reasonable alternatives may be restricted because 
it is unlikely that an alternative site would be obviously superior.
    (b) If the proposed site is the site of an existing nuclear power 
plant and no potentially disqualifying factors are identified, no 
review of alternative sites should be required.
    (c) The 1980 proposed rule would have indicated that the NRC would 
use a sequential two-part analytical test. The first part would give 
primary consideration to hydrology, water quality, aquatic biological 
resources, terrestrial resources, water and land use, socioeconomics, 
and population to determine whether any alternative sites are 
environmentally preferred to the proposed site. If such an 
environmentally preferred site exists, the second part would overlay 
consideration of project economics, technology, and institutional 
factors to determine whether such a site is in fact an obviously 
superior site.
    (6) Emergency preparedness is essentially a safety topic, rather 
than an environmental protection consideration. However, in some 
circumstances emergency preparedness considerations might have an 
effect on the determination of whether an alternative site is obviously 
superior to the proposed site. For example, there might be physical 
characteristics unique to an alternative site that could pose a 
significant impediment to the development of emergency plans. 
Accordingly, an applicant might be required to identify any physical 
characteristics unique to an alternative site, such as egress 
limitations from the area surrounding the site, that could pose a 
significant impediment to the development of emergency plans, i.e., 
similar to what is currently required for an early site permit under 10 
CFR part 52.
    (7) Other topics may be introduced by the participants.
    The agenda schedule is as follows:

9-9:30 a.m.: Introductory Remarks
9-12 p.m.: Background and Discussion of Issues
12-1:30 p.m.: Break
1:30-5 p.m. Discussion Continued and Concluding Remarks*

    *The meeting may end earlier if a full day is not needed to 
discuss the issues.

    The Environmental Standard Review Plan, discussed above, is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. It is also accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Assess and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under the following ADAMS accession number: 
ML003702134. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems 
in accessing the document in Adams, contact the NRC Public Document 
Room (PDR) Reference Staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail 
to [email protected]. You may obtain single copies of the document from the 
contact listed above under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of December, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Thomas,
Acting Program Director, Policy and Rulemaking Program, Division of 
Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-32697 Filed 12-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P