[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