[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64169-64170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18364]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 51

[Docket No. PRM-51-10]


Massachusetts Attorney General; 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 
August 25, 2006, which was filed with the Commission by Diane Curran on 
behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General. The petition was docketed by 
the NRC on September 19, 2006, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-51-
10. The petitioner requests that the NRC revoke certain regulations in 
their entirety, and revoke other regulations to the extent that these 
regulations, in the petitioner's view, state, imply, or assume that the 
environmental impacts of storing spent nuclear fuel in high-density 
pools are not significant; issue a generic determination to clarify 
that the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage of spent 
fuel, will be considered significant; and require that any NRC 
licensing decision concerning high-density pool storage of spent 
nuclear fuel be accompanied by an environmental impact statement that 
addresses the environmental impacts of this storage and alternatives 
for avoiding or mitigating any environmental impacts. The petitioner is 
seeking the generic treatment of spent fuel pool hazards because he 
believes that a pool accident at any operating nuclear power plant in 
the New England and Mid-Atlantic states could significantly affect the 
health, environmental, and economic well-being of Massachusetts.

DATES: Submit comments by January 16, 2007. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this petition by any one of the 
following methods. Please include PRM-51-10 in the subject line of your 
comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic 
form will be made available for public inspection. Because your 
comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact 
information, the NRC cautions you against including any

[[Page 64170]]

information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed.
    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us 
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's 
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions 
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail 
[email protected]. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 
(301) 415-1966).
    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 
(301) 415-1101.
    Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor 
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, 
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web 
site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 
or by e-mail to [email protected].
    A copy of the petition can be found in ADAMS under accession number 
ML062640409. A paper copy of the petition may be obtained by contacting 
Betty Golden, Office of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC, 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-6863, toll-free 1-800-368-
5642, or by e-mail [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 1-800-
368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The petitioner states that this petition for rulemaking is a 
companion to the contentions filed by the Massachusetts Attorney 
General on May 26, 2006, before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board (ASLB) in the license renewal proceedings for the Pilgrim and 
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants, and raises the same substantive 
concern as those contentions, namely, that spent fuel stored in high-
density fuel storage pools is much more vulnerable to fire than the 
NRC's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 
Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996) (GEIS) concludes. The petitioner 
states that the petition relies on and incorporates by reference the 
legal and technical assertions made in the Massachusetts Attorney 
General's contentions. The Massachusetts Attorney General's Request for 
a Hearing and Petition to Intervene With Respect to Entergy Nuclear 
Operations Inc.'s Application for Renewal of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Plant Operating License can be found in NRC's ADAMS system at accession 
number ML061640032.
    The petitioner has filed this petition in the event that the ASLB 
rules that certain NRC regulations render the petitioner's contentions 
inadmissible.

Petitioner's Request

    The petitioner requests that the NRC:
     Revoke 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 51.95(c), and Table B-1 of 
appendix A to 10 CFR part 51; and revoke 10 CFR 51.23(a) and (b), 
51.30(b), 51.53, 51.61, and 51.80(b) to the extent that these 
regulations state, imply, or assume that the environmental impacts of 
high-density pool storage are insignificant and therefore need not be 
considered in any National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
analysis. The petitioner assets that the revocation of these 
regulations, which according to the petitioner, ``codify'' the use of 
the GEIS by the NRC, is necessary to ensure compliance with NEPA in the 
Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal cases. In this regard, the 
petitioner asserts that new and significant information, provided by 
the petitioner, shows that spent nuclear fuel stored in high-density 
fuel storage pools is much more vulnerable to fire than the GEIS 
concludes.
     Issue a generic determination that the environmental 
impacts of high-density pool storage of spent fuel, including the 
environmental impacts of accidents arising from this storage, are 
significant.
     Amend its regulations concerning severe accident 
mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). The petitioner requests that the body 
of SAMAs that must be discussed in an environmental impact statement or 
related supplement or in an environmental assessment, under 10 CFR 
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) and Table B-1 appendix A to 10 CFR part 51 
(Postulated Accidents: Severe Accidents) must include alternatives to 
avoid or mitigate the impacts of high-density pool fires.
     Require that any NRC licensing decision that approves 
high-density pool storage of spent fuel at a nuclear power plant or any 
other facility must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement 
that addresses the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage 
of spent fuel at that nuclear plant or facility, and presents a 
reasonable array of alternatives for avoiding or mitigating those 
impacts.

Conclusion

    The petitioner asserts that a generic rulemaking would be the most 
effective means to ensure broad protection of public health and the 
environment. The petitioner states that NRC's conclusion regarding the 
degree of vulnerability of high-density spent fuel storage pools to 
fire is contained in numerous NEPA and other licensing documents, and 
affects many licensing decisions. Consequently, the petitioner asserts 
that this NRC conclusion should be revoked ``across the board'' to 
ensure that future NRC licensing decisions are not based on inadequate 
consideration of environmental risks or measures for avoiding or 
reducing those risks. Moreover, the petitioner asserts he has an 
interest in seeking generic treatment of spent fuel pool hazards 
because he believes that a pool accident at any one of the operating 
nuclear power plants in the New England or Mid-Atlantic states could 
have a significant effect on the health, environmental, and economic 
well-being of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-18364 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P