[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56238-56263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22215]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[NRC-2012-0246]
RIN 3150-AJ20
Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its
generic determination regarding the environmental impacts of the
continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's licensed
life for operation and prior to ultimate disposal. The NRC prepared a
final generic environmental impact statement that provides a regulatory
basis for this final rule. The Commission concludes that the generic
environmental impact statement generically determines the environmental
impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed
life for operation of a reactor. The final rule also clarifies that the
generic determination applies to license renewal for an independent
spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), reactor construction permits,
and early site permits. The final rule clarifies how the generic
determination will be used in future NRC environmental reviews, and
makes changes to improve readability. Finally, the final rule makes
conforming amendments to the determinations on the environmental
effects of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant to
address issues related to the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel and
offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 20, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0246 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this final rule. You may
access publicly-available information related to this final rule by any
of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search
[[Page 56239]]
for Docket ID NRC-2012-0246. Address questions about NRC dockets to
Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422; email:
[email protected]. For technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this final rule.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this final
rule (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first
time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. In
addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession
numbers are provided in a table in the ``Availability of Documents''
section of this document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merri Horn, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9167; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
A. Need for the Regulatory Action
The purpose of this final rule (rule) is to preserve the efficiency
of the NRC's licensing process by adopting into the NRC's regulations
the Commission's generic determinations of the environmental impacts of
the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel (spent fuel) beyond the
licensed life for operations of a reactor (continued storage). The NRC
has prepared a final generic environmental impact statement that
addresses the environmental impacts of continued storage and provides a
regulatory basis for this rule. This rule codifies the results of the
analyses from the generic environmental impact statement in Sec. 51.23
of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
``Environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel
beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor.'' The NRC's
licensing proceedings for nuclear reactors and ISFSIs have historically
relied upon the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23 to satisfy the
agency's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
with respect to the narrow area of the environmental impacts of
continued storage. Environmental impact statements for future reactor
and spent-fuel-storage facility licensing actions will not separately
analyze the basis for the environmental impacts of continued storage
and, as discussed in 10 CFR 51.23, the impact determinations from the
generic environmental impact statement are deemed to be incorporated
into these environmental impact statements. Environmental assessments
for future reactor and spent-fuel-storage facility licensing actions
will consider the environmental impacts of continued storage, if the
impacts of continued storage of spent fuel are relevant to the proposed
action.
B. Major Provisions
The major changes to the rule are summarized as follows:
The heading of 10 CFR 51.23 is revised to ``Environmental
impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed
life for operation of a reactor.''
Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.23 is revised to provide the
Commission's generic determination regarding the continued storage of
spent nuclear fuel. The amendments state that the Commission has
generically determined that the environmental impacts of continued
storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of
a reactor are those impacts identified in NUREG-2157, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear
Fuel'' (GEIS).
Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.23 is revised to clarify that
license renewals for ISFSIs, reactor construction permits, and early
site permits are included in the scope of the generic determination.
The rule also makes changes to improve readability and to clarify that
applicants do not need to address continued storage in their
environmental reports. The rule also clarifies that the NRC shall deem
the impact determinations in NUREG-2157 regarding continued storage of
spent fuel to be incorporated into environmental impact statements
(EIS) and that the impact determinations shall be considered in
environmental assessments (EA), if the impacts of continued storage are
relevant to the proposed action.
Conforming changes are made to 10 CFR 51.30, 51.50, 51.53,
51.61, 51.75, 51.80, 51.95, and 51.97 to clarify that ISFSI license
renewals, construction permits, and early site permits are included in
the scope of the generic determination, improve readability, clarify
that applicants do not need to address continued storage in their
environmental reports, clarify that the NRC shall consider the impact
determinations in certain EAs, and clarify that the impact
determinations are deemed incorporated into EISs.
In Table B-1 in appendix B of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51,
``Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plants,'' the ``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste disposal'' issue is reclassified as a
Category 1 issue with no impact level assigned and the finding column
entry is revised to address existing radiation standards.
In Table B-1 in appendix B of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51,
the finding column entry for the ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear
fuel'' issue is revised to include the impacts during the license
renewal term and the impacts from the continued storage period.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Discussion
A. General Information
A1. What action is the NRC taking?
A2. What is the waste confidence proceeding?
A3. Why is the NRC doing this now?
A4. Whom will this action affect?
A5. How can the NRC conduct a generic review when spent fuel is
stored at specific sites?
A6. What types of wastes are addressed by the GEIS and rule?
A7. What activities are not covered by the GEIS and rule?
A8. How does this rulemaking relate to the licensing of future
away-from-reactor ISFSIs?
A9. Will the rulemaking authorize the storage of spent fuel at
the operating reactor site near me?
A10. How will the rule and GEIS be used in site-specific
licensing actions?
A11. Why is there not a separate waste confidence decision
document?
A12. What is the status of the extended storage effort?
A13. How can the NRC proceed with this rulemaking while research
on the extended storage of spent fuel is ongoing?
A14. How frequently does the NRC plan to revisit the GEIS and
rule?
B. Rulemaking
B1. What is the purpose of this rulemaking?
B2. What is meant by the phrase ``licensed life for operation of
a reactor?''
B3. What timeframes are considered in the GEIS?
[[Page 56240]]
B4. What are the key assumptions used in the GEIS?
B5. How will significant changes in these assumptions be
addressed under the NRC's regulatory framework?
B6. What is the significance of the levels of impact in the GEIS
(SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE)?
B7. What are the environmental impacts of at-reactor continued
storage?
B8. What are the environmental impacts of away-from-reactor
continued storage?
B9. Does a potentially LARGE impact or a range of impacts affect
the generic determination in the GEIS?
B10. How does the rule address the impacts from continued
storage of spent fuel?
B11. What clarifying changes are addressed in the rule?
B12. What changes in this rulemaking address continued storage
for license renewal?
C. Repository and continued storage conclusions
C1. What is the basis of the NRC's conclusion that a geologic
repository is feasible?
C2. What is the basis for the NRC's conclusion that a repository
will be available?
C3. Does the rule address the feasibility and timing of a
repository?
C4. What is the basis for the NRC's conclusion regarding safe
storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools?
C5. What is the basis for the NRC's conclusion regarding safe
storage of spent fuel in dry casks?
C6. How does the regulatory framework factor into the continued
safe storage of spent fuel?
C7. Does the rule address the safety of continued storage of
spent fuel?
III. Rulemaking Procedure
IV. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
V. Discussion of Final Amendments by Section
VI. Availability of Documents
VII. Agreement State Compatibility
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
X. Record of Decision
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Regulatory Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XIV. Plain Writing
XV. Backfitting and Issue Finality
XVI. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
In the late 1970s, a number of environmental groups and States
challenged the NRC regarding issues related to the storage and disposal
of spent fuel. In 1977, the Commission denied a petition for rulemaking
(PRM), PRM-50-18, filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
that asked the NRC to determine whether radioactive wastes generated in
nuclear power reactors can be disposed of without undue risk to public
health and safety and to refrain from granting pending or future
requests for reactor operating licenses until the NRC made such a
determination. The Commission stated in its denial that, as a matter of
policy, it ``. . . would not continue to license reactors if it did not
have reasonable confidence that the wastes can and will in due course
be disposed of safely'' (42 FR 34391, 34393; July 5, 1977, pet. for
rev. dismissed sub nom., NRDC v. NRC, 582 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1978)).
At about the same time, interested parties challenged license
amendments that permitted expansion of the capacity of spent fuel pools
at two nuclear power plants: Vermont Yankee and Prairie Island. In
1979, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
in Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979), did not stay or
vacate the license amendments, but remanded to the Commission the
question of whether an offsite storage or disposal solution would be
available for the spent fuel at the two facilities at the expiration of
their licenses--at that time scheduled for 2007 and 2009-and, if not,
whether the spent fuel could be stored safely at those reactor sites
until an offsite solution became available.
In 1979, the NRC initiated a generic rulemaking proceeding that
stemmed from these challenges and the Court's remand in Minnesota v.
NRC. At that time, the purpose of the Waste Confidence rulemaking was
to generically assess whether the Commission could have reasonable
assurance that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power plants
``can be safely disposed of, to determine when such disposal or offsite
storage will be available, and to determine whether radioactive wastes
can be safely stored onsite past the expiration of existing facility
licenses until offsite disposal or storage is available'' (44 FR 61372,
61373; October 25, 1979). On August 31, 1984, the Commission published
the Waste Confidence Decision (Decision) (49 FR 34658) and a final rule
(49 FR 34688), codified at 10 CFR 51.23. This Decision provided an EA
and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to support the rule. In
the 1984 Decision the Commission made five findings (Findings):
1. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe disposal of
radioactive waste and spent fuel in a mined geologic repository is
technically feasible;
2. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that one or more mined
geologic repositories for commercial high-level radioactive waste and
spent fuel will be available by the years 2007--2009Sec. \1\ and that
sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond
the expiration of any reactor operating license to dispose of existing
commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel originating in
such reactor and generated up to that time;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The original dates by which the licenses for the facilities
at issue in Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979) would
have expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that high-level
radioactive waste and spent fuel will be managed in a safe manner until
sufficient repository capacity is available to assure the safe disposal
of all high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel;
4. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary,
spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without
significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the
expiration of that reactor's operating license at that reactor's spent
fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs; and
5. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe independent
onsite or offsite spent fuel storage will be made available if such
storage capacity is needed.
The rule, 10 CFR 51.23, codified the analysis in the Decision and found
that for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of a reactor operating
license, no significant environmental impacts would result from the
storage of spent fuel and expressed the Commission's reasonable
assurance that a repository was likely to be available by 2007-2009.
The rule also stated that, as a result of this generic determination,
the agency did not need to assess the site-specific impacts of
continuing to store the spent fuel in either an onsite or offsite
storage facility in new reactor licensing EISs or EAs beyond the
expiration dates of reactor licenses (10 CFR 51.23(b)). The rulemaking
also amended 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic licensing of production and
utilization facilities,'' to require operating nuclear power reactor
licensees to submit their plans for managing spent fuel at their site
until the fuel is transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
for disposal (see 10 CFR 50.54(bb)).
The Commission conducted its first review of the Decision and rule
in 1989-1990. This review resulted in the revision of the second and
fourth Findings to reflect revised expectations for the date of
availability of the first repository, and to clarify that the
expiration of a reactor's licensed life for operation referred to the
full 40-year initial license for operation and an
[[Page 56241]]
additional 30 years (which may include the term of a revised or renewed
license). On September 18, 1990, the Commission published the revised
Decision (55 FR 38474) and the associated final rule (55 FR 38472). The
revised Findings 2 and 4 in the 1990 revised Decision were:
Finding 2: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that at least
one mined geologic repository will be available within the first
quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository capacity
will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for
operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license)
of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive
waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up until
that time.
Finding 4: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if
necessary, spent fuel generated at any reactor can be stored safely and
without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond
the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a
revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage
basin or at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs.
The Commission also amended 10 CFR 51.23(a) to reflect the revised
timing of the availability of a geologic repository to the first
quarter of the twenty-first century. The rule was also revised to
reflect that the licensed life for operation may include the term of a
revised or renewed license.
The Commission conducted its second review of the Decision and rule
in 1999 and concluded that experience and developments after 1990 had
confirmed the Findings and made a comprehensive reevaluation of the
Decision and rule unnecessary (64 FR 68005; December 6, 1999).
In 2007, the NRC amended 10 CFR 51.23 to indicate that the generic
determination provisions applied to combined licenses (72 FR 49352;
August 28, 2007).
In 2008, the Commission decided to conduct its third review of the
Decision and rule as part of an effort to enhance the efficiency of
upcoming combined license application proceedings. The Commission
determined that it would be more efficient to resolve certain combined-
license-proceeding issues generically, including those related to Waste
Confidence. This review resulted in a revision of the second and fourth
Findings to reflect revised expectations for the date of availability
of the first repository and that spent fuel can be stored safely for at
least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation.
In December 2010, the Commission published its revised Decision (75
FR 81032; December 23, 2010) and associated final rule (75 FR 81037;
December 23, 2010). The revised Findings 2 and 4 in the 2010 Decision
were:
Finding 2: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that
sufficient mined geologic repository capacity will be available to
dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel
generated by any reactor when necessary.
Finding 4: The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if
necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and
without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond
the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a
revised or renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage
in its spent fuel storage basin and either onsite or offsite ISFSIs.
Section 51.23(a) of 10 CFR was amended to reflect revised Findings
2 and 4. The changes reflected that spent fuel could be safely stored
for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation of a
reactor and that sufficient mined geologic repository capacity would be
available when necessary.
In response to the 2010 Decision and rule, the States of New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont; several public interest groups;
and the Prairie Island Indian Community filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that challenged
the Commission's compliance with NEPA. On June 8, 2012, the Court ruled
that some aspects of the 2010 proceeding did not satisfy the NRC's NEPA
obligations and vacated and remanded the Decision and rule (New York v.
NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (ADAMS Accession No. ML12191A407).
The Court concluded that the Waste Confidence rulemaking is a major
federal action necessitating either an EIS or an EA that results in a
FONSI. In vacating the 2010 Decision and rule, the Court identified
three specific deficiencies in the analysis:
1. Related to the Commission's conclusion that permanent disposal
will be available ``when necessary,'' the Court held that the
Commission needed to examine the environmental effects of failing to
establish a repository;
2. Related to continued storage of spent fuel, the Court concluded
that the Commission had not adequately examined the risk of spent fuel
pool leaks in a forward-looking fashion; and
3. Also related to the continued storage of spent fuel, the Court
concluded that the Commission had not adequately examined the
consequences of potential spent fuel pool fires.
In response to the Court's decision, on August 7, 2012, the
Commission stated in Commission Order CLI-12-16 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12220A094) that it would not issue reactor or ISFSI licenses
dependent upon the Waste Confidence Decision and rule until the Court's
remand is appropriately addressed. The Commission stated, however, that
this determination extends only to final license issuance and that all
licensing reviews and proceedings should continue to move forward.
In the September 6, 2012, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM),
``Staff Requirements--COMSECY-12-0016--Approach for Addressing Policy
Issues Resulting from Court Decision to Vacate Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12250A032), the Commission
directed the staff to develop a generic EIS to support an updated Waste
Confidence Decision and rule. In response, the NRC formed the Waste
Confidence Directorate in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards (NMSS) to oversee the development of the generic EIS and an
update that would replace the previous Waste Confidence Decision and
rule.
II. Discussion
This discussion section has been divided into three subsections to
better present information on the rule and the proceeding. Section A
provides general information related to the proceeding. Section B
provides information related to the rule changes. Lastly, Section C
provides information on the technical feasibility and availability of
safe storage and a repository. Sections A, B, and C present information
in a question and answer format.
A. General Information
A1. What action is the NRC taking?
The NRC is issuing a rule to codify its generic determinations
regarding the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent fuel
at-reactor, or away-from-reactor sites beyond a reactor's licensed life
for operation. The analysis in NUREG-2157, ``Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel'' (GEIS)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14196A105) provides a regulatory basis for the
rule.
A2. What is the waste confidence proceeding?
Historically, the Commission's Waste Confidence proceeding
represented the
[[Page 56242]]
Commission's generic determination and generic environmental analysis
that spent fuel could be stored safely and without significant
environmental impacts for a period of time past the licensed life for
operation of a reactor. This generic environmental determination was
reflected in 10 CFR 51.23, which addressed the NRC's NEPA obligations
with respect to the continued storage of spent fuel.
This rule and GEIS represent a change in the format of the
Commission's Waste Confidence proceeding. Because the Commission has
prepared a generic EIS, which provides a detailed analysis of the
environmental impacts associated with continued storage, it is no
longer necessary to make a ``finding of no significant impact,'' or
``FONSI,'' as that term is used in NEPA. This final rule codifies the
environmental impact determinations reflected in the GEIS. This is
discussed in more detail in Question A.11.
A3. Why is the NRC doing this now?
On June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated the Commission's 2010 Waste Confidence
rulemaking, and remanded the rulemaking to the NRC to address
deficiencies related to the NRC's NEPA analysis. On September 6, 2012,
the Commission instructed NRC staff to proceed with a generic EIS to
analyze the environmental impacts of continued storage, address the
issues raised in the Court's decision, and update the rule in
accordance with the analysis in the EIS. The GEIS and this final rule
implement the Commission's direction.
A4. Whom will this action affect?
This rule will affect any nuclear power reactor applicant and
licensee seeking issuance or renewal of an operating license or
construction permit for a nuclear power reactor under 10 CFR parts 50
or 54, ``Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear
power plants;'' issuance of a combined license or early site permit for
a nuclear power reactor under 10 CFR part 52, ``Licenses,
certifications, and approvals for nuclear power plants;'' or some
amendments of a license under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52. This rule will
also affect the issuance of an initial, amended, or renewed license for
storage of spent fuel at an ISFSI under 10 CFR part 72, ``Licensing
requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, and reactor-related greater than Class C
waste.'' The rule could also affect participants in any proceeding
addressing these licensing actions.
A5. How can the NRC conduct a generic review when spent fuel is stored
at specific sites?
Since 1984, the NRC has generically addressed the environmental
impacts of continued storage though a generic NEPA analysis and rule.
Without a generic environmental impact analysis, site-specific
consideration of the environmental impacts of continued storage would
be necessary. In remanding the 2010 Waste Confidence rule to the NRC
for additional analysis, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit continued the long history of federal courts approving
a generic approach to the analysis of the environmental impacts of
nuclear power reactor operation. In New York v. NRC, the Court of
Appeals endorsed the NRC's generic approach, stating that there is ``no
reason that a comprehensive general analysis would be insufficient to
examine on-site risks that are essentially common to all plants.'' (New
York, 681 F.3d at 480). After conducting the analysis in the GEIS, the
NRC concludes that the impacts of continued storage will not vary
significantly across sites, despite variations in site-specific
characteristics. Accordingly, the NRC believes that a generic approach
is appropriate for this proceeding.
The NRC has determined in the GEIS that the direct and indirect
environmental impacts of continued storage at reactors can be analyzed
generically. This means that, for each of the resource areas analyzed
in the GEIS, the NRC has reached a generic determination (SMALL,
MODERATE, LARGE, or a range) that is appropriate for all sites. As
discussed in the GEIS, these impact determinations are not expected to
differ from those that would result from individual site-specific
reviews for the continued storage period.
The NRC's evaluation of the environmental impacts of continued
storage builds upon substantial operating experience over the licensed
life of the reactor. The environmental impacts associated with spent
fuel storage during the licensed life for operation are addressed
during the NRC's review of license applications and license renewal
applications. The environmental impacts associated with spent fuel
storage in an at-reactor ISFSI during the licensed life for operation
of a reactor are addressed through the 1989 environmental assessment
supporting the final rule for 10 CFR part 72 general licenses, in the
environmental assessments prepared to support rules approving
Certificates of Compliance for dry cask systems, in a site-specific
environmental assessment for specifically licensed ISFSIs, or during
the NRC's review of license renewal applications. Site-specific
analyses capture the characteristics that most obviously vary from site
to site, such as seismic activity, land use, ecosystem, and local
population variations. During operation, facility operators and the NRC
gain significant additional experience with site-specific issues,
including those related to issues of site configuration and maintenance
history. During the licensed life of a facility, many factors ensure
that operational impacts, including those from accidents or off-normal
releases, are within regulatory limits at any given site. These factors
include the plant's operating experience, licensee compliance with NRC
regulations, site-specific mitigation and controls informed by the
licensing reviews, and ongoing regulatory oversight and enforcement
actions. In the continued storage period, many of the environmental
impacts related to storage of spent fuel are not expected to vary
beyond the range experienced during operations. Changes in the
environment during the continued storage periods examined in the GEIS
are expected to be gradual and predictable. There are inherent
uncertainties in determining impacts for the long-term and indefinite
timeframes, and, with respect to some resource areas, those
uncertainties could result in impacts that, although unlikely, could be
larger than those that are to be expected at most sites and have
therefore been presented as ranges rather than as a single impact
level. Those uncertainties exist, however, regardless of whether the
impacts are analyzed generically or site-specifically. Despite
variations in site-specific characteristics, a generic analysis is
capable of determining and expressing the environmental impacts that
may result from continued storage.
The reasonableness of NRC's determinations about continued storage
is supported by numerous environmental reviews of spent fuel storage.
Spent fuel storage during the period of operations has been considered
in site-specific licensing of new reactors (for spent fuel pools only),
ISFSIs, and license renewals. Finally, concerned parties who meet the
waiver criteria in 10 CFR 2.335 will be able to raise site-specific
issues related to continued storage at the time of a specific license
application.
[[Page 56243]]
A6. What types of wastes are addressed by the GEIS and rule?
The environmental analysis in the GEIS and the rule covers low and
high burn-up spent fuel generated in light-water nuclear power
reactors. It also covers mixed oxide (MOX) fuel,\2\ since MOX fuel is
substantially similar to existing light-water reactor fuel and is, in
fact, being considered for use in existing light-water reactors in the
United States. It also covers spent fuel from small modular light-water
reactors. Small modular light-water reactors being developed will use
fuel very similar in form and materials to the existing operating
reactors and will not, therefore, introduce new technical challenges to
the storage of spent fuel. The environmental analysis in the GEIS also
covers the spent fuel from one high-temperature gas-cooled reactor
(HTGR) built and commercially operated: Fort Saint Vrain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mixed oxide fuel (often called MOX fuel) is a type of
nuclear power reactor fuel that contains plutonium oxide mixed with
either natural or depleted uranium oxide in ceramic pellet form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A7. What activities are not covered by the GEIS and rule?
The GEIS and rule do not consider disposal of spent fuel or storage
of spent fuel during the licensed life for operation of the power
reactor. Additionally, the GEIS and rule do not address foreign spent
fuel, non-power reactor spent fuel (e.g., fuel from research and test
reactors), defense waste, Greater-than-Class C low-level waste,
reprocessing of commercial spent fuel, or the need for nuclear power
(see also question A9).
A8. How does this rulemaking relate to the licensing of future away-
from-reactor ISFSIs?
The GEIS and rule do not satisfy the NRC's obligations under NEPA
to analyze the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage during the
term of a facility's license. The NRC must conduct a site-specific
environmental analysis to support the licensing of any future away-
from-reactor ISFSI. The NRC cannot use the rule and GEIS as a
substitute for the environmental analysis associated with constructing
and operating an away-from-reactor ISFSI. The site-specific NEPA
analysis for an away-from-reactor ISFSI can only rely on the analysis
in the GEIS and the requirements in the rule to satisfy the NRC's NEPA
obligations with respect to the storage of spent fuel during the
applicable continued storage period.
A9. Will the rulemaking authorize the storage of spent fuel at the
operating reactor site near me?
No, the rule does not authorize the storage of spent fuel at any
site. The rule reflects only the generic environmental analysis for the
period of spent fuel storage beyond a reactor's licensed life for
operation and before disposal in a repository. This proceeding is not a
substitute for licensing actions that typically include site-specific
NEPA analysis and site-specific safety analyses (see also question
A10).
In addition, the NRC's GEIS and final rule do not pre-approve any
particular waste storage or disposal site technology, nor do they
require that a specific cask design be used for storage. Individual
licensees and applicants, including any applicant for a high-level
radioactive waste repository, are required to have a license from the
NRC before storing or disposing of any spent fuel. Separately, every 10
CFR part 50 or part 52 nuclear power reactor licensee, by virtue of 10
CFR part 72, subpart K, has a general license authorizing storage of
spent fuel in cask designs that are approved by the NRC.
A10. How will the rule and GEIS be used in site-specific licensing
actions?
The rule, which adopts the generic impact determinations regarding
continued storage from the GEIS, satisfies the NRC's NEPA obligations
with respect to continued storage for initial, renewed, and amended
licenses for reactors and ISFSIs, as well as for construction permits
and early site permits. The rule does not satisfy the NRC's obligation
to assess the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage during a
facility's licensed life for operation. The impacts of storage during a
proposed license term at a specific site, as distinct from the
timeframes of continued storage covered by the rule, would be subject
to the safety and environmental review as part of other licensing
reviews.
The GEIS (NUREG-2157) only satisfies a portion of the NRC's NEPA
obligations related to the issuance of a reactor or spent fuel storage
facility license by generically evaluating the environmental impacts of
continued storage. These generic determinations will not be revisited
and may not be challenged in individual licensing proceedings without
the grant of a waiver under 10 CFR 2.335. Taken together, the GEIS, the
site-specific environmental review, and other applicable environmental
reviews will provide the decision-maker in a licensing proceeding with
a complete environmental analysis of the impacts associated with spent
fuel storage prior to disposal in a geologic repository.
Under final 10 CFR 51.23, the impact determinations in NUREG-2157
are deemed incorporated into an EIS that is prepared to support a
licensing action for a power reactor or ISFSI. For a licensing action
supported by an EA, the NRC will consider the impact determinations in
NUREG-2157 in the EA, if the impacts of continued storage of spent fuel
are relevant to the proposed action. This means that NUREG-2157
provides the determinations of the environmental impacts of continued
storage to be used in site-specific environmental reviews. No
additional analysis of the impacts of continued storage is required.
The findings of the site-specific environmental review may be
challenged during the initial licensing of a facility and at license
renewal. As a result of this rulemaking, what may not be considered in
those proceedings--due to the generic determination in 10 CFR
51.23(a)--are the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent
fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of the reactor contained in
NUREG-2157. The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 2.335, however, allow
participants in NRC's licensing proceedings to request that a rule,
including 10 CFR 51.23, not be applied, or be waived, in a particular
proceeding because special circumstances are present that would prevent
the application of the rule from satisfying the purpose of the rule.
The GEIS and rule are applicable only to future NRC licensing
actions and do not apply to completed licensing actions.
A11. Why is there not a separate waste confidence decision document?
Historically, the Waste Confidence Decision contained five
``Findings'' that addressed the technical feasibility of a mined
geologic repository, the degree of assurance that disposal would be
available by a certain time, and the degree of assurance that spent
fuel and high-level waste could be managed safely without significant
environmental impacts for a certain period beyond the expiration of
plants' operating licenses. Preparation of and reliance upon a GEIS is
a fundamental departure from the approach used in past proceedings. The
GEIS acknowledges the uncertainties inherent in a prediction of
repository availability and provides an environmental analysis of three
timeframes, including one where a repository does not become available.
The relationship between the prior
[[Page 56244]]
``Findings'' and the technical feasibility analyses in the current GEIS
is discussed in greater detail in Section D.2.4.1. As noted in the
GEIS, the former ``Findings'' were outputs of previous Waste Confidence
proceedings, which included an environmental assessment and finding of
no significant impact. In contrast, the current GEIS provides a
detailed analysis under NEPA and provides an analysis of specific
impacts.
To support the analysis in the GEIS and the rule, the underlying
assumptions in the GEIS address the issues assessed in the previous
five ``Findings'' as conclusions regarding the technical feasibility
and availability of a repository and conclusions regarding the
technical feasibility of safely storing spent fuel in an at-reactor or
away-from-reactor storage facility. The issue of the technical
feasibility of a geologic repository was historically addressed in
Finding 1 and is now discussed in Section B.2.1 of the GEIS and the
availability of a repository was addressed in Finding 2 and is now
discussed in Section B.2.2. The regulatory framework for spent fuel
storage was previously addressed in Findings 3 and 5 and is now
addressed in Section B.3.3. The safe storage of spent fuel pending
ultimate disposal at a repository was previously addressed in Finding 4
and is now addressed in Sections B.3.1 and B.3.2. Thus, the GEIS
fulfills the NRC's NEPA obligations for analyzing the environmental
impacts of continued storage in a more traditional NEPA format.
A12. What is the status of the extended storage effort?
The extended storage effort is an activity that is separate from
this proceeding and that focuses on technical and regulatory
considerations for the continued effective regulation of spent fuel
storage and subsequent transportation over extended periods (up to 300
years). Presently, the NRC believes that the existing regulatory
framework used to renew current licenses can be extended to regulate
the management of spent fuel for multiple renewal periods. The staff is
examining technical areas associated with multiple renewals of fixed-
term, dry storage licenses and certificates to address age-related
degradation of dry cask storage systems, structures, and components.
The NRC acknowledges that current licensing practices may evolve over
time in response to improved understanding, operational experience, and
Commission policy direction. As technical, regulatory, and policy
issues are resolved, the NRC will revise guidance and staff
qualification and training accordingly. Completion of the Extended
Storage effort is planned for the end of the decade. The NRC will
evaluate any new information that is developed during the Extended
Storage effort to determine whether it is necessary to update the GEIS
or 10 CFR 51.23.
A13. How can the NRC proceed with this rulemaking while research on the
extended storage of spent fuel is ongoing?
Development of the GEIS and the NRC's ongoing research are two
separate efforts that are not dependent on each other. This rulemaking
updates the NRC's environmental rules in 10 CFR part 51. The GEIS,
NUREG-2157, which was prepared to satisfy the NRC's NEPA obligations,
provides a regulatory basis for the rule. Under NEPA, an EIS, such as
the one prepared to support this rulemaking, need only consider
currently available information. As the Commission recently stated,
``NEPA requires that we conduct our environmental review with the best
information available today. It does not require that we wait until
inchoate information matures into something that later might affect our
review.'' (Luminant Generation Co. LLC (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power
Plant, Units 3 and 4), et al., CLI-12-7, 75 NRC 379, 391-92 (2012)).
Further, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit explained that ``creating [the agency's] models with
the best information available when it began its analysis and then
checking the assumptions of those models as new information became
available, was a reasonable means of balancing competing
considerations, particularly given the many months required to conduct
full modeling with new data.'' (Village of Bensenville v. Federal
Aviation Administration, 457 F.3d 52, 71-72 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). The
United States Supreme Court held that ``an agency need not supplement
an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is
finalized. To require otherwise would render agency decision making
intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new
information outdated by the time a decision is made.'' (Marsh v. Oregon
Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989)).
In the GEIS, the NRC has concluded that sufficient information
exists to perform an analysis of continued storage impacts for the
three timeframes analyzed. Nonetheless, the NRC continues to identify
and resolve potential issues associated with the storage and
transportation of spent fuel for periods beyond an ISFSI's initial
licensing and first renewal. The ongoing research into the extended
storage of spent fuel is part of the NRC's effort to continuously
evaluate and update its safety regulations. The NRC is not aware of any
deficiencies in its current regulations that would challenge the
continued safe storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools or dry cask
systems.
If, at some time in the future, the NRC were to identify a concern
with the safe storage of spent fuel, the NRC would evaluate the issue
and take whatever action or make whatever change in its regulatory
program necessary to protect public health and safety. The NRC will
continue to monitor the ongoing research into spent fuel storage. When
warranted by significant events that may call into question the
appropriateness of the rule, the NRC will review the GEIS and rule to
determine if revisions are necessary.
A14. How frequently does the NRC plan to revisit the GEIS and rule?
The Commission has reviewed the rule and supporting analysis four
times since 1984; in 1990, 1999, 2010, and now in 2014. The NRC does
not have a schedule for revisiting the GEIS and rule after this current
update. The NRC will review the GEIS and rule for possible revision
when warranted by significant events that may call into question the
appropriateness of the rule.
B. Rulemaking
B1. What is the purpose of this rulemaking?
Historically, the NRC and license applicants have relied on 10 CFR
51.23 to conclusively address the environmental impacts of continued
storage in environmental reports, EISs, and EAs. The NRC's use of 10
CFR 51.23 to satisfy its NEPA obligations with respect to continued
storage will enhance efficiency in individual licensing reviews by
incorporating the determinations from the generic analysis of the
environmental impacts of continued storage into environmental impact
statements that need to address continued storage. For EAs that need to
address continued storage, the NRC will consider the environmental
impacts of continued storage, as provided in 10 CFR 51.23. Having
confirmed that the environmental impacts of continued storage can be
analyzed generically, the Commission has decided to codify the GEIS
impact determinations in a revised rule, 10 CFR 51.23. Because the
impacts of continued storage have been generically assessed in the
GEIS, NEPA
[[Page 56245]]
analyses for relevant future reactor and spent fuel storage facility
licensing actions will not need to separately determine the
environmental impacts of continued storage. The analysis in the GEIS
constitutes a regulatory basis for the rule at 10 CFR 51.23.
Part of the environmental analysis for a nuclear power reactor or
storage facility license includes a review of the impacts caused by the
spent fuel generated in the reactor. That analysis must assess the
impacts of the spent fuel from generation through disposal. As
codified, the impact determinations in the GEIS will inform the
decision-makers in licensing proceedings of the reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts of continued storage. These determinations will
be weighed along with other impacts determined by the NRC on a site-
specific basis for the facility or an activity. Thus, in the course of
an individual licensing proceeding, the decision-maker will be able to
compare all the environmental impacts of a proposed licensing action
(e.g., licensing a nuclear power reactor), including continued storage
impacts, to the environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives,
including the no-action alternative.
B2. What is meant by the phrase ``licensed life for operation of a
reactor''?
The phrase ``licensed life for operation of a reactor'' refers to
the term of the license to operate a reactor. The GEIS assumes an
original licensed life of 40 years and up to two 20-year license
extensions \3\ for each reactor, for a total of up to 80 years of
operation. The phrase, ``beyond licensed life for operation of a
reactor,'' refers to the period beyond the initial license term to
operate a reactor and, if the license is extended, beyond the renewed
license term. The date of permanent cessation of operations (shut down)
does not necessarily mark the transition to ``beyond licensed life for
operation.'' Because the continued storage analysis informs the larger
NEPA analysis that occurs before a license is issued, even if a reactor
is shut down years before the end of its initial or extended license
term, ``licensed life for operation'' continues to refer to the initial
or renewed license term, and not the actual operational period of a
reactor. The environmental analysis supporting spent fuel storage
during the licensed life for operation of each reactor covers the full
period for which the license or license renewal was issued, even if
operation of the reactor ended before the license expired. Thus,
continued storage begins at the end of the licensed life for operation
of a reactor. The starting point for continued storage does not depend
on whether the spent fuel is stored in a spent fuel pool, dry casks
under a general license, or dry casks under a specific license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commission's regulations provide that renewed operating
licenses may be subsequently renewed, although no licensee has yet
submitted an application for such a subsequent renewal. The GEIS
assumes two renewals in evaluating potential environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B3. What timeframes are considered in the GEIS?
The NRC has analyzed three timeframes in the GEIS that represent
various scenarios for the length of continued storage that may be
needed before spent fuel is sent to a repository. The first timeframe
is the short-term timeframe, which analyzes 60 years of continued
storage after the end of a reactor's licensed life for operation. The
NRC considers the short-term timeframe to be the most likely scenario
for continued storage; and the GEIS assumes that a repository would
become available by the end of the short-term timeframe. The GEIS also
analyzed two additional timeframes: Long-term and indefinite. The long-
term timeframe considers the environmental impacts of continued storage
for 160 years after the end of a reactor's licensed life for operation.
Finally, the GEIS includes an analysis of an indefinite timeframe,
which assumes that a repository never becomes available.
By the end of the short-term timeframe, some spent fuel could be
between 100 and 140 years old. Short-term storage of spent fuel
includes the following:
Continued storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools (at-
reactor only) and ISFSIs;
Routine maintenance of spent fuel pools and ISFSIs (e.g.,
maintenance of concrete pads); and
Handling and transfer of spent fuel from spent fuel pools
to ISFSIs (all spent fuel is assumed to be removed from the spent fuel
pool by the end of the short-term timeframe).
Long-term storage is continued storage of spent fuel for an
additional 100 years after the short-term timeframe for a total of 160
years beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. The GEIS
assumes that all spent fuel has been transferred from the spent fuel
pool to an ISFSI by the end of the short-term period. The GEIS also
assumes that a repository would become available by the end of the
long-term timeframe. By the end of the long-term timeframe, some spent
fuel could be between 200 and 240 years old. Long-term storage
activities include the following:
Continued storage of spent fuel in ISFSIs, including
routine maintenance;
One time replacement of ISFSIs and spent fuel canisters
and casks; and
Construction, operation, and one replacement of a dry
transfer system (DTS).
The third timeframe analyzed by the GEIS is the indefinite
timeframe, which assumes that a repository does not become available.
The Commission does not believe that this scenario is likely to occur,
but its inclusion in the analysis allows the NRC to fully analyze the
environmental impacts associated with continued storage. The activities
during the indefinite timeframe are the same as those that would occur
for the long-term timeframe; however, without a repository the
replacement activities would occur every 100 years.
B4. What are the key assumptions used in the GEIS?
To guide its analysis, the NRC relied upon certain assumptions
regarding storage of spent fuel. A detailed discussion of these
assumptions is contained in Section 1.8.3 of the GEIS. Key assumptions
used in the GEIS include, but are not limited to the following:
Institutional controls, including the continued regulation
of spent fuel, will continue.
Spent fuel canisters and casks would be replaced
approximately once every 100 years.
A DTS would be built at each ISFSI location for fuel
repackaging and the ISFSIs and DTS facilities would be replaced
approximately once every 100 years.
All spent fuel would be removed from spent fuel pools to
dry storage by the end of the short-term timeframe (60 years after
licensed life).
An ISFSI of sufficient size to hold all spent fuel
generated during licensed life for operation will be constructed before
the end of the reactor's licensed life for operation.
In accordance with NEPA, the NRC's analysis in the GEIS is
based on current technology and regulations.
B5. How will significant changes in these assumptions be addressed
under the NRC's regulatory framework?
The NRC has historically reviewed the rule as the policy and
technological foundations for spent fuel storage and disposal have
evolved. Technological changes that might require revisiting the
assumptions, such as revisions to the NRC's safety regulations that
allow or require a shorter or longer period of
[[Page 56246]]
time before repackaging, are not likely to affect the overall
conclusions in the GEIS that provide a regulatory basis for the rule
and, accordingly, every future change in the assumptions underlying the
GEIS would not necessarily justify an update to the rule. These
technological changes could require licensees to amend their licenses,
which would be accompanied by site-specific safety and environmental
reviews related to the specific amendments. The NRC will continue to
monitor changes in national policy and developments in spent fuel
storage and disposal technology. When warranted by significant events
that may call into question the appropriateness of the rule, the NRC
will review the GEIS and rule to determine if revisions are necessary.
B6. What is the significance of the levels of impact in the GEIS
(SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE)?
The NRC describes the affected environment in terms of resource
areas: land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, air quality,
climate change, geology and soils, surface water, groundwater,
terrestrial resources, aquatic ecology, special status species and
habitats, historic and cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, waste
management, transportation, and public and occupational health. The
GEIS contains analyses of the environmental impacts associated with
each resource area. Additionally, the GEIS considers the impacts on
resource areas caused by postulated acts of terrorism and accidents.
The significance of the magnitude of the impact for most of the
resource areas evaluated is expressed as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The
general definitions of significance levels are:
SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor
that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important
attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological
impacts, the Commission has concluded that radiological impacts that do
not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are
considered small.
MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter
noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the
resource.
LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are
sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The GEIS discussion of each resource area includes an explanation
of how the significance category was determined. For issues in which
the significance determination is based on risk (i.e., the probability
of occurrence as well as the potential consequences), the probability
of occurrence as well as the potential consequences have been factored
into the determination of significance. For some resource areas, the
impact determination language is specific to the authorizing
regulation, executive order, or guidance.
B7. What are the environmental impacts of at-reactor continued storage?
The environmental impacts of continued storage are analyzed in the
GEIS. The GEIS contains a detailed analysis of the impacts for short-
term storage, long-term storage, and indefinite storage. The analysis
considers both at-reactor storage and away-from-reactor storage.\4\
Impacts attributable to at-reactor storage are addressed here and the
impacts from away-from-reactor storage are addressed in question B8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purposes of the GEIS impact analysis, the GEH-Morris
facility and the DOE TMI-2 ISFSI at Idaho Falls, Idaho were
considered under the at-reactor storage evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For at-reactor storage, the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts for each resource area are SMALL for all timeframes with the
exception of waste management impacts, which are SMALL to MODERATE for
the indefinite storage timeframe, and historic and cultural resource
impacts, which are SMALL to LARGE for the long-term and indefinite
storage timeframes. These elevated impact conclusions are influenced,
in part, by the uncertainties regarding the specific circumstances of
continued storage over long timeframes, including site-specific
characteristics that could affect the intensity of potential
environmental impacts, and the resulting analysis assumptions that have
been made by the NRC as documented in detail in Chapter 4 of the GEIS.
The MODERATE waste-management impacts are associated with the volume of
nonhazardous solid waste generated by assumed facility replacement
activities for the indefinite timeframe. The historic and cultural
resource impacts would range from SMALL to LARGE for the long-term and
indefinite timeframes. This range takes into consideration routine
maintenance and monitoring (i.e., no ground-disturbing activities), the
absence or avoidance of historic and cultural resources, and potential
ground-disturbing activities that could impact historic and cultural
resources. In addition, the analysis considers uncertainties inherent
in analyzing this resource area over long timeframes. These
uncertainties include any future discovery of previously unknown
historic and cultural resources; resources that gain significance
within the vicinity and the viewshed (e.g., nomination of a historic
district) due to improvements in knowledge, technology, and excavation
techniques; and changes associated with predicting resources that
future generations will consider significant. A SMALL impact would
occur if replacement activities occur in previously disturbed areas,
there are no historic or cultural resources present, or if historical
and cultural resources can be avoided. A potential MODERATE or LARGE
impact would result if historic and cultural resources are present at a
site and, because they cannot be avoided, are impacted by ground-
disturbing activities during the long-term or indefinite timeframe.
For some resource areas, the impact determination language is
specific to the authorizing regulation, executive order, or guidance.
For special status species, continued storage impacts would be
determined as part of an Endangered Species Act consultation and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Continued at-
reactor storage is not expected to cause disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-
income populations. In addition, as indicated in the Commission's
policy statement, environmental justice impacts would be considered
during site-specific environmental reviews for specific licensing
actions.
Table 1 provides a summary of the environmental impacts of
continued at-reactor storage. Detailed discussion for each resource
area can be found in Chapter 4 of the GEIS. Cumulative impacts are
addressed in Chapter 6 of the GEIS. Chapter 8 of the GEIS provides a
summary of the impacts.
[[Page 56247]]
Table 1--Environmental Impacts of At-Reactor Continued Storage of Spent Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource area Short-term storage Long-term storage Indefinite storage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use............................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Socioeconomics....................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Justice................ Disproportionately high and adverse impacts are not expected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality:
Air Emissions.................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Thermal Release.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Climate Change....................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Geology and Soils.................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Surface Water:
Quality.......................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Consumptive Use.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Groundwater:
Quality.......................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Consumptive Use.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Terrestrial Resources................ SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Aquatic Ecology...................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Status Species and Habitats.. Impacts for Federally threatened and endangered species and Essential
Fish Habitat would be determined as part of consultations for the
Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic and Cultural Resources...... SMALL.................. SMALL to LARGE......... SMALL to LARGE.
Noise................................ SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Aesthetics........................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Waste Management:
LLW.............................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Mixed Waste...................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Nonradioactive Waste............. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL to MODERATE.
Transportation:
Traffic.......................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Health impacts................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Public and Occupational Health....... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Accidents............................ SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Sabotage or Terrorism................ SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B8. What are the environmental impacts of away-from-reactor continued
storage?
The away-from-reactor environmental impacts analyzed in the GEIS
include the impacts from constructing the ISFSI. Although an away-from-
reactor ISFSI would be subject to a site-specific licensing review that
includes an EIS that would assess the environmental impacts due to
construction, the impacts due to construction are included in the GEIS
due to the potential for that construction to occur during the
timeframes analyzed in the GEIS. Inclusion of the away-from-reactor
ISFSI in the GEIS does not mean that the NRC is proposing an interim or
consolidated storage facility.
For away-from-reactor storage, the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts for each resource area is SMALL except for air
quality, terrestrial ecology, aesthetics, waste management, and
transportation where the impacts are SMALL to MODERATE. Socioeconomic
impacts range from SMALL (adverse) to LARGE (beneficial) and historic
and cultural resource impacts could be SMALL to LARGE. The potential
MODERATE impacts on air quality, terrestrial wildlife, and
transportation are based on potential construction-related fugitive
dust emissions, terrestrial wildlife direct and indirect mortalities,
terrestrial habitat loss, and temporary construction traffic impacts.
The potential MODERATE impacts on aesthetics and waste management are
based on noticeable changes to the viewshed from constructing a new
away-from-reactor ISFSI, and the volume of nonhazardous solid waste
generated by assumed ISFSI and DTS replacement activities for the
indefinite timeframe. The potential LARGE (beneficial) impacts on
socioeconomics are due to local economic tax revenue increases from an
away-from-reactor ISFSI. The potential impacts to historic and cultural
resources during the short-term storage timeframes would range from
SMALL to LARGE. The magnitude of adverse effects on historic properties
and impacts on historic and cultural resources largely depends on where
facilities are sited, what resources are present, the extent of
proposed land disturbance, whether the area has been previously
surveyed to identify historic and cultural resources, and if the
licensee has management plans and procedures that are protective of
historic and cultural resources. Even a small amount of ground
disturbance (e.g., clearing and grading) could affect a small but
significant resource. In most instances, placement of storage
facilities on the site can be adjusted to minimize or avoid impacts on
any historic and cultural resources in the area. However, the NRC
recognizes that this is not always possible. The NRC's site-specific
environmental review and compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) process could identify historic properties,
identify adverse effects, and potentially resolve adverse effects on
historic properties and impacts on other historic and cultural
resources. Under the NHPA, mitigation does not eliminate a finding of
adverse effect on historic properties. The potential impacts to
historic and cultural resources during the long-term and indefinite
storage timeframes would range from SMALL to LARGE. This range takes
into consideration routine maintenance and monitoring (i.e., no
[[Page 56248]]
ground-disturbing activities), the absence or avoidance of historic and
cultural resources, and potential ground-disturbing activities that
could affect historic and cultural resources. The analysis also
considers uncertainties inherent in analyzing this resource area over
long timeframes. These uncertainties include any future discovery of
previously unknown historic and cultural resources; resources that gain
significance within the vicinity and the viewshed (e.g., nomination of
a historic district) due to improvements in knowledge, technology, and
excavation techniques and changes associated with predicting resources
that future generations will consider significant. If construction of a
DTS and replacement of the ISFSI and DTS occurs in an area with no
historic or cultural resource present or construction occurs in a
previously disturbed area that allows avoidance of historic and
cultural resources then impacts would be SMALL. By contrast, a MODERATE
or LARGE impact could result if historic and cultural resources are
present at a site and, because they cannot be avoided, are impacted by
ground-disturbing activities during the long-term and indefinite
timeframes.
Impacts on Federally listed species, designated critical habitat,
and essential fish habitat would be based on site-specific conditions
and determined as part of consultations required by the Endangered
Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Continued storage at an away-from-reactor ISFSI is not
expected to cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. In
addition, as indicated in the Commission's policy statement, should the
NRC receive an application for a proposed away-from-reactor ISFSI, a
site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted, and this analysis would
include consideration of environmental justice impacts.
Table 2 provides a summary of the environmental impacts of away-
from-reactor continued storage. Detailed discussion for each resource
area can be found in Chapter 5 of the GEIS. Cumulative impacts are
addressed in Chapter 6 of the GEIS. Chapter 8 of the GEIS provides a
summary of the impacts.
Table 2--Environmental Impacts of Away-From Reactor Continued Storage of Spent Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource area Short-term storage Long-term storage Indefinite storage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use............................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL
Socioeconomics....................... SMALL (adverse) to SMALL (adverse) to SMALL (adverse) to
LARGE (beneficial). LARGE (beneficial). LARGE (beneficial).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Justice................ Disproportionately high and adverse impacts are not expected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality.......................... SMALL to MODERATE...... SMALL.................. SMALL.
Climate Change....................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Geology and Soils.................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Surface Water:
Quality.......................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Consumptive Use.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Groundwater:
Quality.......................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Consumptive Use.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Terrestrial Resources................ SMALL to MODERATE...... SMALL.................. SMALL.
Aquatic Ecology...................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Status Species and Habitats.. Impacts for Federally threatened and endangered species and Essential
Fish Habitat would be determined as part of consultations for the
Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic and Cultural Resources...... SMALL to LARGE......... SMALL to LARGE......... SMALL to LARGE.
Noise................................ SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Aesthetics........................... SMALL to MODERATE...... SMALL to MODERATE...... SMALL to MODERATE.
Waste Management:
LLW.............................. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Mixed Waste...................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Nonradioactive Waste............. SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL to MODERATE.
Transportation:
Traffic.......................... SMALL to MODERATE...... SMALL to MODERATE...... SMALL to MODERATE.
Health........................... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Public and Occupational Health....... SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Accidents............................ SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
Sabotage or Terrorism................ SMALL.................. SMALL.................. SMALL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B9. Does a potentially LARGE impact or a range of impacts affect the
generic determination in the GEIS?
No, the generic determinations found in the GEIS are not affected
by a potentially LARGE impact or a range of impacts. The NRC has
determined in the GEIS that the direct and indirect environmental
impacts of continued storage can be analyzed generically. This means
that, for each of the resource areas analyzed in the GEIS, the NRC has
reached a generic determination (SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE, or a range)
that is appropriate for all sites. These impact determinations are not
expected to differ from those that would result from individual site-
specific reviews for the continued storage period. There are inherent
uncertainties in determining impacts for the long-term and indefinite
timeframes, regardless of whether the impacts are analyzed generically
or site-specifically. Because the impacts of continued storage are not
expected to vary significantly across sites, despite
[[Page 56249]]
variations in site-specific characteristics, a generic analysis is
appropriate to determine the reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts that may result from continued storage.
B10. How does the rule address the impacts from continued storage of
spent fuel?
The NRC is revising 10 CFR 51.23(a) to reflect the environmental
impact determinations of the GEIS (NUREG-2157). Final 10 CFR 51.23(a)
provides that the Commission has generically determined that the
environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond
the licensed life for operation of a reactor are those impacts
identified in NUREG-2157. The NRC will use the impact determinations in
NUREG-2157 to inform the decision-makers in licensing proceedings of
the impacts of continued storage.
B11. What clarifying changes are addressed in the rule?
Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.23 is revised to clarify that ISFSI
license renewals, reactor construction permits, and early site permits
are included in the scope of the generic determination in 51.23(a).
Additionally, paragraph (b) is revised for readability by restructuring
the paragraph and separating the requirements that apply to an
applicant from those that apply to the NRC. This paragraph is also
revised to provide additional clarity regarding how the generic
determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) will be implemented in future NRC NEPA
reviews. These amendments to 10 CFR 51.23(b) are intended to clarify
how the NRC has interpreted and implemented 10 CFR 51.23 and how it
will do so in future licensing activities. The approach taken for an EA
differs slightly from the approach for EISs because under the terms of
the revised 10 CFR 51.23 an EA must consider the impact determinations
from the GEIS, while for an EIS the impact determinations are deemed
incorporated into the EIS. Consistent with current practice, applicants
will not be required to address continued storage in environmental
reports submitted to support applications for issuance, renewal, or
amendment of an operating license or construction permit for a nuclear
power reactor under 10 CFR parts 50 and 54; issuance, renewal, or
amendment of an early site permit or combined license for a nuclear
power reactor under 10 CFR parts 52 and 54; or the issuance, renewal,
or amendment of a license for storage of spent nuclear fuel at an ISFSI
under 10 CFR part 72. The impact determinations are deemed incorporated
into any EIS prepared to support issuance, renewal, or amendment of an
operating license or construction permit for a nuclear power reactor
under 10 CFR parts 50 and 54; issuance, renewal, or amendment of an
early site permit or combined license for a nuclear power reactor under
10 CFR parts 52 and 54; or the issuance, renewal, or amendment of a
license for storage of spent nuclear fuel at an ISFSI under 10 CFR part
72. The impact determinations will be considered in EAs, if the impact
determinations of continued storage of spent fuel are relevant to the
proposed action. The NRC is making conforming changes to 10 CFR
51.30(b), 51.50(a). 51.50(b), 51.50(c), 51.53(b), 51.53(c), 51.53(d),
51.61, 51.75(a), 51.75(b), 51.75(c), 51.80(b), 51.95(b), 51.95(c),
51.95(d), and 51.97(a) to clarify that ISFSI license renewals, reactor
construction permits, and early site permits are included in the scope
of the generic determination; to reflect how the generic determination
will be used in future NEPA reviews; and to improve readability of the
rule language.
With respect to early site permits, the NRC has consistently
acknowledged its intent to apply 10 CFR 51.23 in its early site permit
reviews, and this interpretation has been approved by a number of
Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards. See, (e.g., Exelon Generation Co.,
LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), LBP-04-17, 60 NRC 229,
246-47 (2004); Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Early Site Permit for
North Anna ESP Site), LBP-04-18, 60 NRC 253, 268-69 (2004)). The
omission of early site permits from the text of 10 CFR 51.23(b) was
highlighted by a public comment (see Section D.2.3.5 of the GEIS), and
the NRC has decided that clarification of its continued storage rule to
explicitly include early site permits is appropriate. The NRC has
further determined that the same clarification is warranted with regard
to the environmental review of a construction permit application. A
construction permit is issued prior to issuance of a reactor operating
license; the construction permit holder can subsequently receive an
operating license for the constructed facility if applicable
requirements are met. See 10 CFR 50.23 and 50.56. Thus, like an early
site permit, a construction permit is a precursor to issuance of a
reactor operating license and therefore falls within the scope of
licensing activities specified in 10 CFR 51.23(b) for which
clarification is warranted. The NRC is therefore amending 10 CFR
51.23(b) to clarify that the rule applies to early site permits and
construction permits. The NRC notes that this clarification responds to
the public comments on early site permits and builds on the
clarification in the proposed rule to add ISFSI license renewals to the
listed actions in 10 CFR 51.23(b), thus making the rule's application
to these licensing activities equally explicit. See 78 FR 56804-56805.
Given the regulatory history of the waste confidence rules, the
NRC's use of the generic determination in early site permit
proceedings, and the NRC's extensive discussion of the purpose and
objectives of the proposed rule in the statements of consideration, the
public could have reasonably ascertained that the NRC would make
clarifying changes in the final rule, including the addition of early
site permits and construction permits, as a natural outgrowth of the
proposed rule. These changes clarify the Commission's approach to
ensure consistent evaluation of the environmental impacts of continued
storage in all proceedings where spent fuel impacts arising from
reactor operation may be considered, including the NEPA reviews for
early site permits and construction permits, and thereby fully
implement the NRC's objectives for this latest rule revision.
These changes to add early site permits and construction permits do
not affect and are independent of the NRC's conclusions regarding the
analysis in NUREG-2157, in 10 CFR 51.23(a), or the application of 10
CFR 51.23(b) to the licensing actions specified in the proposed rule.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the balance of the rule
for which prior notice was given can function sensibly and
independently without these additional changes, and therefore intends
that the balance of the rule be treated as severable to the extent
possible. See MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass'n v. FCC, 236 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C.
Cir. 2001).
With respect to changes to improve the rule's readability, the
revisions do not change the requirements for applicants and do not
modify the substantive standards by which the NRC evaluates license
applications. The changes made to address readability do not affect and
are independent of the NRC's conclusions regarding the analysis in
NUREG-2157 as applied in 10 CFR 51.23(a) or the application of 10 CFR
51.23(b) to the licensing actions specified in the proposed rule.
The 2010 version of 10 CFR 51.23(b) provided that no discussion of
any environmental impact of spent fuel continued storage is required in
any NRC EA or EIS prepared in connection
[[Page 56250]]
with the issuance or amendment of an operating license for a nuclear
power reactor under 10 CFR parts 50 and 54; or issuance or amendment of
a combined license for nuclear power reactor under 10 CFR parts 52 and
54; or the issuance of an initial license or amendment for an ISFSI
under 10 CFR part 72. In practice, the NRC does include a brief
discussion of the generic determination of 10 CFR 51.23 in these EISs.
See, (e.g., NUREG-1947, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for Combined License (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating
Plant Unit 3 and 4 and NUREG-1714, Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute
Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County,
Utah). Under NEPA, the NRC must analyze the impacts of continued
storage pending ultimate disposal for both power reactors and ISFSIs.
Although the 2010 rule as worded did not require any discussion, the
NRC has historically met this NEPA obligation in practice in the EISs
for power reactors and ISFSIs by relying on the generic determination.
Because the NRC will now be relying on the GEIS for the generic
determination instead of a FONSI, the NRC needs to clarify how the
generic determination will be used in future NEPA documents to ensure
consistent use. Section 51.23(b) is revised to state that the impact
determinations in NUREG-2157 are deemed to be incorporated into EISs
and that the NRC will consider the impact determinations in EAs, if the
impacts of continued storage of spent fuel are relevant to the proposed
action. This means that the NRC will use the impact determinations in
NUREG-2157 to evaluate the contribution of the environmental impacts of
continued storage as part of the overall NEPA analysis. For agency
actions that have already been taken, the NRC will not prepare new
analyses or revise the existing analyses with respect to the
environmental impacts of continued storage; rather, when preparing EAs
and EISs for pending and future licensing actions, the NRC's review
will simply consider the incorporated impact determinations along with
the other environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
The revisions do not change the requirements for applicants and do not
modify the substantive standards by which the NRC evaluates license
applications. The changes made to clarify how the generic determination
will be used in future NEPA reviews do not affect and are independent
of the NRC's conclusions regarding the analysis in NUREG-2157 as
applied in 10 CFR 51.23(a).
B12. What changes in this rulemaking address continued storage for
license renewal?
Table B-1, ``Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal
of Nuclear Power Plants,'' addresses the environmental impacts of
license renewal activities by resource area. Table B-1 is located in
appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental Effect of
Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant.'' \5\ In 1996,
the Commission determined that offsite radiological impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal would be a Category 1 issue
with no impact level assigned (61 FR 28467, 28495; June 5, 1996). The
Commission analyzed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
generic repository standards and dose limits in existence at the time
and concluded that offsite radiological impacts warranted a Category 1
determination (61 FR 28467, 28478; June 5, 1996). In its 2009 proposed
rule preceding the 2013 final rule, the Commission stated its intention
to reaffirm that determination. (74 FR 38117, 38127; July 31, 2009).
However, when the Commission issued the 2013 final rule, which amended
Table B-1--along with other 10 CFR part 51 regulations--it stated that
upon finalization of the Waste Confidence rule and accompanying
technical analyses, the NRC would make any necessary conforming
amendments to Table B-1 (78 FR 37282, 37293; June 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commission issued Table B-1 in June, 1996 (61 FR 28467;
June 5, 1996). The Commission issued an additional rule in December,
1996 that made minor clarifying changes to, and added language
inadvertently omitted from, Table B-1 (61 FR 66537; December 18,
1996). The NRC revised Table B-1 and other regulations in 10 CFR
part 51, relating to the NRC's environmental review of a nuclear
power plant's license renewal application in a 2013 rulemaking (78
FR 37282; June 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this current rulemaking, the NRC is revising determinations
related to two environmental issues in Table B-1: Onsite storage of
spent fuel during the term of an extended license (resulting from the
renewal of the plant's operating license) and the offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal. Although
the GEIS for this rulemaking does not include high-level waste disposal
in the analysis of impacts, it does address the technical feasibility
of a repository in Appendix B of the GEIS and concludes that a geologic
repository for spent fuel is technically feasible and the same analysis
applies to the feasibility of geologic disposal for high-level waste.
The Table B-1 finding for ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel''
is revised to add the phrase ``during the license renewal term'' in two
places in the first paragraph to make clear that the SMALL impact is
for the license renewal term only. Some minor clarifying changes are
also made to the paragraph. The first paragraph of the column entry now
reads, ``During the license renewal term, SMALL. The expected increase
in the volume of spent nuclear fuel from an additional 20 years of
operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal
term with small environmental impacts through dry or pool storage at
all plants.'' In addition, a new paragraph is added to address the
impacts of onsite storage of spent fuel during the continued storage
period. The second paragraph of the column entry reads, ``For the
period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of
onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage
period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and as stated in 10 CFR 51.23(b),
shall be deemed incorporated into this issue.'' The changes reflect
that this issue covers the environmental impacts associated with the
storage of spent nuclear fuel during the license renewal term as well
as the period after the licensed life for reactors operations.
The Table B-1 entry for ``Offsite radiological impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal'' is revised by
reclassifying the impact determination as a Category 1 \6\ issue with
no impact level assigned. The finding column entry for this issue
includes reference to the existing radiation protection standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of Table B-1, a designation as Category 1 means
that the generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each site-
specific review. Category 2 means that additional plant-specific
review is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the status of a repository, including a repository at
Yucca Mountain, is uncertain and outside the scope of the generic
environmental analysis conducted to support this rulemaking, the NRC
believes that it is appropriate to refer to the radiation standard for
Yucca Mountain because it is the current standard. The changes to these
two issues finalize the Table B-1 entries that the NRC had intended to
promulgate in its 2013 rulemaking, but was unable to because the 2010
Waste Confidence rule had been vacated.
While the bases for the specific conclusions in Table B-1 are found
elsewhere (e.g., the 1996 rule that issued
[[Page 56251]]
Table B-1 and the 1996 license renewal GEIS, which provided the
technical basis for that rulemaking, as reaffirmed by the 2013
rulemaking and final GEIS), the Commission has concluded in this GEIS
that deep geologic disposal remains technically feasible. This
rulemaking accordingly revises the entries for these two issues in
Table B-1. The NRC provided notice of this revision in the Federal
Register for the proposed rule (78 FR 56776; September 13, 2013) and
received two comments on the table. See Sections D.2.3.6 and D.2.3.9 of
Appendix D of the GEIS.
C. Repository and Continued Storage Conclusions
C1. What is the basis of the NRC's conclusion that a geologic
repository is feasible?
The technical feasibility of a repository is addressed in Section
B.2.1 of the GEIS. Technical feasibility simply means whether a
geologic repository is technically possible using existing technology
(i.e., without any fundamental breakthroughs in science and
technology). As discussed in Section B.2.1, the consensus within the
scientific and technical community engaged in nuclear waste management
is that safe geologic disposal is achievable with currently available
technology. Currently, 25 countries, including the United States, are
considering disposal of spent or reprocessed nuclear fuel in deep
geologic repositories.
As noted in Section B.2.1 of the GEIS, ongoing research in both the
United States and other countries supports a conclusion that geological
disposal remains technically feasible and that acceptable sites can be
identified. After decades of research into various geological media, no
insurmountable technical or scientific problem has emerged to challenge
the conclusion that safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level
radioactive waste can be achieved in a mined geologic repository. Over
the past two decades, significant progress has been made in the
scientific understanding and technological development needed for
geologic disposal.
As discussed in Section B.2.1, activities of European countries,
experience in reviewing the DOE's Yucca Mountain license application,
and DOE defense-related activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
all support the technical feasibility of a deep geologic repository.
Based on national and international research, proposals, and experience
with geological disposal, the NRC concludes that a geologic repository
continues to be technically feasible.
C2. What is the basis for the NRC's conclusion that a repository will
be available?
The availability of a repository is addressed in Section B.2.2 of
the GEIS. Progress in development of repositories internationally
provides useful experience in building confidence that the most likely
scenario is that a repository can and will be developed in the United
States in the short-term timeframe. Based on the examination of a
number of international programs and DOE's current plans, the NRC
continues to believe that 25 to 35 years is a reasonable period for
repository development (i.e., candidate site selection and
characterization, final site selection, licensing review, and initial
construction for acceptance of waste). A discussion of international
repository programs and DOE's current plans can be found in Section
B.2.2 of the GEIS.
As discussed in Section B.2.2 of the GEIS, the time DOE will need
to develop a repository site will depend upon a variety of factors,
including Congressional action and funding. Public acceptance will also
influence the time it will take to implement geologic disposal. As
stated in its ``Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13011A138), DOE's current plans predict that a repository will be
available by 2048. Although the NRC believes that 25-35 years is a
reasonable timeframe for repository development, the NRC acknowledges
that there is sufficient uncertainty in this estimate that the
possibility that more time will be needed cannot be ruled out.
International and domestic experience clearly demonstrate that
technical knowledge and experience alone are not sufficient to bring
about the broad social and political acceptance needed to construct a
repository. The time needed to develop a societal and political
consensus for a repository could add to the time to site and license a
repository or overlap it to some degree. Given this uncertainty, the
GEIS evaluates a range of scenarios for the timeframe of the
development of a repository, including indefinite storage. As discussed
in Section B.2.2, the NRC believes that the United States will open a
repository within the short-term time frame of 60 years, but, to
account for all possibilities, has included a second, longer time frame
as well as the scenario in which a repository never becomes available.
This analysis does not constitute an endorsement of extended onsite
storage of spent fuel as the appropriate long-term solution for
disposition of spent fuel and high-level waste.
C3. Does the rule address the feasibility and timing of a repository?
No. As discussed in Issue 1 (see Section IV, ``Summary and Analysis
of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule''), the NRC specifically sought
public comment on this issue and decided not to address the feasibility
and timing of a repository in the rule text itself, instead analyzing
various time scenarios for repository availability in the GEIS,
including the possibility that a repository will not be available. A
discussion of the feasibility and timing of a repository can be found
in Appendix B of the GEIS.
C4. What is the basis for the NRC's conclusion regarding safe storage
of spent fuel in spent fuel pools?
Section B.3.1 of the GEIS discusses the feasibility of safe storage
of spent fuel in spent fuel pools and addresses a number of technical
considerations. First, the integrity of spent fuel and cladding within
the environment of a spent fuel pool's controlled water chemistry is
supported by operational experience and a number of scientific studies.
Based on available information and operational experience as discussed
in Section B.3.1.1, degradation of the fuel cladding occurs very slowly
over time in the spent fuel pool environment. Degradation of the spent
fuel should be minimal over the short-term storage timeframe. In the
GEIS, the NRC assumes that the spent fuel pool will be decommissioned
before the end of the short-term storage timeframe; however, the NRC is
not aware of any information that would call into question the
technical feasibility of continued safe storage of spent fuel in spent
fuel pools beyond the short-term storage timeframe.
Second, the spent fuel pool's robust structural design protects
against a range of natural and human-induced challenges, which are
discussed in detail in Section B.3.1.2 and in the body of the GEIS.
Spent fuel pools are massive seismically-designed structures that are
constructed from thick, reinforced concrete walls and slabs. Section
B.3.1.2 discusses a number of studies and evaluations on storage of
spent fuel in a spent fuel pool and the associated accident risk. In
Section B.3.1.2, the NRC concludes that the likelihood of major
accidents at spent fuel pools resulting in offsite consequences is very
remote. In
[[Page 56252]]
particular, Appendix F supports the NRC's determination that the
environmental impacts from spent fuel pool fires are SMALL during the
short-term storage timeframe based on the low risk of a spent fuel pool
fire. As noted in Section B.3.1.2, the NRC is not aware of any study
that would cause it to question the low risk of spent fuel pool
accidents and thereby question the technical feasibility of continued
safe storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools for the short-term
timeframe considered in the GEIS. Further, as described in Appendix E,
the NRC has determined that the public health impact from potential
spent fuel pool leaks is SMALL.
C5. What is the basis for the NRC's conclusion regarding safe storage
of spent fuel in dry casks?
As explained in Section B.3.2 of the GEIS, the feasibility of dry
cask storage is supported by years of experience and technical studies
and NRC reviews that examined and confirmed the integrity of spent fuel
and cladding under the controlled environment within dry cask storage
systems. The technical feasibility of these systems is further
supported by the robustness of the structural design of the dry cask
storage system against a variety of challenges, both natural and human-
induced. Based on available information and operational experience as
discussed in Section B.3.2.1, degradation of the spent fuel should be
minimal over the short-term storage timeframe if conditions inside the
canister are appropriately maintained (e.g., consistent with the
technical specifications for storage). Thus, it is expected that only
routine maintenance will be needed over the short-term storage
timeframe. In the GEIS, the NRC conservatively assumes that the dry
casks would need to be replaced if storage continues beyond the short-
term storage timeframe. The NRC assumes replacement of dry casks after
100 years of service life, even though studies and experience to date
do not preclude a longer service life. Accidents associated with
repackaging spent fuel are evaluated in Section 4.18, and the NRC
determined that the environmental impacts are SMALL because the
accident consequences would not exceed the NRC accident dose standard
contained in 10 CFR 72.106. Dry cask storage systems are passive
systems that are inherently robust, massive, and highly resistant to
damage. To date, the NRC and licensee experience with ISFSIs and cask
certification indicates that spent fuel can be safely and effectively
stored using passive dry cask storage technology. As explained in
Section B.3.2.2, technical studies and practical operating experience
to date confirm the physical integrity of dry cask storage structures
and thereby demonstrate the technical feasibility of continued safe
storage in dry cask storage systems for the time periods considered in
the GEIS.
As noted in Sections B.3.2.1 and B.3.2.2, the NRC is not aware of
any issue that would cause it to question the technical feasibility of
continued safe storage of spent fuel in dry casks for the timeframes
considered in the GEIS. However, as part of continued oversight, the
NRC continues to evaluate aging management programs and to monitor dry
cask storage so that it can update its service life assumptions as
necessary and consider any circumstances that might require repackaging
spent fuel earlier than anticipated.
C6. How does the regulatory framework factor into the continued safe
storage of spent fuel?
A strong regulatory framework that involves regulatory oversight,
continuous improvement based on research and operating experience, and
licensee compliance with regulatory requirements is important to the
continued safe storage of spent fuel until repository capacity is
available. As part of its oversight, the NRC can issue orders and new
or amended regulations to address emerging issues that could impact the
safe storage of spent fuel, as well as issue generic communications
such as generic letters and information notices. The regulatory
framework is discussed in Section B.3.3 of the GEIS. The NRC's upgrades
of safety, environmental, and security requirements following historic
events such as the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the March
11, 2011, earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power plant demonstrate the NRC's capability for
prompt and vigorous response to new developments that warrant increased
regulatory attention. Thus, the vitality and evolution of the NRC's
regulatory requirements support a reasonable conclusion that continued
storage, even over extended periods of time beyond those regarded as
most likely, will continue to be safe with the same or less
environmental impact. Section B.3.3.1 discusses the NRC's oversight
related to routine operations, accidents, and terrorist activity in
more detail. Section B.3.3.2 and Appendix E discuss the NRC's response
to spent fuel pool leaks and Section B.3.3.3 discusses the regulatory
framework related to dry cask storage.
The NRC continues to improve its understanding of long term dry
storage issues and is separately examining the regulatory framework and
potential technical issues related to extended storage and subsequent
transportation of spent fuel for multiple ISFSI license renewal periods
extending beyond 120 years. As part of this effort, the NRC is also
closely following DOE and industry efforts to study the effects of
storing high burn-up spent fuel in casks. As information becomes
available, the NRC will analyze the information to determine if
additional or different actions are necessary. If necessary, the NRC
will issue orders or enhance its regulatory requirements for storage of
spent fuel, as appropriate, to continue providing adequate protection
of public health and safety and the common defense and security.
As discussed in Section B.3.3.4, the NRC will continue its
regulatory control and oversight of spent fuel storage through both
specific and general 10 CFR part 72 licenses. Decades of operating
experience and ongoing NRC inspections demonstrate that the reactor and
ISFSI licensees continue to meet their obligation to safely store spent
fuel in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR parts 50, 52, and
72. If the NRC were to find noncompliance with these requirements or
otherwise identify a concern with the safe storage of the spent fuel,
the NRC would evaluate the issue and take whatever action or change in
its regulatory program is necessary to protect the public health and
safety and the environment.
Section B.3.4 concludes that the NRC believes that for the storage
timeframes considered in the GEIS, regulatory oversight will continue
in a manner consistent with the NRC's regulatory actions and oversight
in place today to provide for continued storage of spent fuel in a safe
manner until sufficient repository capacity is available for the safe
disposal of all spent fuel.
C7. Does the rule address the safety of continued storage of spent
fuel?
No. As discussed in Issue 2 (see Section IV, ``Summary and Analysis
of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule''), the NRC specifically sought
public comment on this issue and decided not to address the continued
safe storage of spent fuel in the rule text itself. Appendix B of the
GEIS discusses the feasibility of safe storage of spent fuel.
Additionally, feasibility of continued safe storage and the regulatory
framework are addressed in Questions C4, C5, and C6.
In summary, storage of spent fuel will be necessary until a
repository is
[[Page 56253]]
available for permanent disposal. The storage of spent fuel in any
combination of spent fuel pools or dry casks will continue as a
licensed activity under regulatory controls and oversight. Licensees
continue to develop and successfully use onsite spent fuel storage
capacity in the form of spent fuel pools and dry casks in a safe and
environmentally sound fashion. Technical understanding and experience
continues to support the technical feasibility of safe storage of spent
fuel in spent fuel pools and in dry casks, based on their physical
integrity over long periods of time. However, the safety determinations
associated with licensing of these activities are contained in the
appropriate regulatory provision addressing licensing requirements and
in the specific licenses for facilities. While those safety
determinations are not the subject of this rulemaking they serve to
inform the analysis of likely environmental impacts. The NRC concludes
that spent fuel can continue to be safely managed in spent fuel pools
and dry casks and that regulatory oversight exists to ensure the aging
management programs continue to be updated to address the monitoring
and maintenance of structures, systems, and components that are
important to safety. Based on all of the information set forth in
Appendix B of the GEIS, the NRC concludes that spent fuel can be safely
managed in spent fuel pools in the short-term timeframe and dry casks
during the short-term, long-term, and indefinite timeframes evaluated
in the GEIS.
III. Rulemaking Procedure
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)), an
agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if the rule
is an interpretive rule, a general statement of policy, or a rule of
agency organization, procedure, or practice.
As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the NRC has waived the notice
and comment requirements for the additional clarifying amendments to 10
CFR 51.23(b) and conforming amendments to 10 CFR 51.50(a), 51.50(b),
51.75(a), and 51.75(b) that were not included in the proposed rule. The
additional amendments expand the list of licensing proceedings for
which site-specific consideration of the environmental impacts of
continued storage is not needed, to include construction permits and
early site permits. Paragraph 51.23(b) of 10 CFR is a rule of agency
procedure and practice that governs how the NRC implements NEPA. This
paragraph describes how the NRC will implement the NRC's generic
determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in site-specific NEPA reviews in
licensing proceedings (i.e., by precluding a duplicative review in an
individual licensing proceeding). The changes to 10 CFR 51.23(b) do not
modify the substantive standards by which the NRC will evaluate license
applications and do not alter the generic determination in 10 CFR
51.23(a). Rather, the additional changes to 10 CFR 51.23(b) clarify
that the generic finding in 10 CFR 51.23(a) also precludes a
duplicative NRC review of the environmental effects of continued
storage in early site permit and construction permit application
reviews, no different than the other NRC licensing proceedings already
listed in that paragraph. NEPA is a procedural statute directed at
Federal agencies, and 10 CFR 51.23 (including the additional clarifying
amendments) addresses the manner by which the NRC complies with NEPA
with respect to the subject of continued storage. These amendments do
not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC, nor do
these amendments modify the substantive responsibilities of any person
or entity regulated by the NRC. That the additional amendments do not
impose any substantive responsibilities or require or prohibit action
by any persons or entities regulated by the NRC is indicative of the
character of the amendments as matters of NRC procedure and practice.
As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the NRC has also waived the
notice and comment requirements for the additional amendments to 10 CFR
51.23(b), 51.30(b), 51.50(c), 51.53(b), 51.53(c), 51.53(d), 51.61,
51.75(c), 51.80(b), 51.95(b), 51.95(c), 51.95(d), and 51.97(a) that
were not included in the proposed rule. These additional amendments are
made to improve readability and to clarify how the generic
determination will be used in future NEPA documents for power reactors
and ISFSIs. The changes do not modify the substantive standards by
which the NRC will evaluate license applications and do not alter the
generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a). Rather, the additional
changes improve the readability of the regulations to make it easier to
understand and provide consistency in how the generic finding in 10 CFR
51.23(a) will be used in NRC NEPA documents. NEPA is a procedural
statute directed at Federal agencies, and 10 CFR 51.23 (including the
additional clarifying amendments) addresses the manner by which NRC
complies with NEPA with respect to the subject of continued storage.
These amendments do not require action by any person or entity
regulated by the NRC, nor do these amendments change the substantive
responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC. That the
additional amendments do not impose any substantive responsibilities or
require or prohibit action by any persons or entities regulated by the
NRC is indicative of the character of the amendments as matters of NRC
procedure and practice.
IV. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule was published on September 13, 2013 (78 FR
56776), for a 75-day public comment period that would have ended on
November 27, 2013. The draft GEIS was also noticed for public comment
on the same day. Due to the lapse in appropriations and the subsequent
shutdown of the NRC, the NRC published a Federal Register notice on
November 7, 2013 (78 FR 66858), that extended the public comment period
until December 20, 2013. The NRC also held 13 public meetings during
the comment period to obtain public comment on the proposed rule and
draft GEIS. The NRC received 33,099 comment submissions from
organizations and individuals. Of those comments, 924 represented
unique comment submissions and the remainder were considered form
comments sponsored by various organizations. In addition, a number of
individuals provided oral comments at the public meetings that resulted
in more than 1,600 pages of transcribed comments. The commenters on the
proposed rule and draft GEIS included Tribal governments, State
governments, industry groups, advocacy groups, licensees, and
individuals. The EPA also provided comments under its authority to
review EISs.
In general, there was a range of views from commenters concerning
the rulemaking and draft GEIS, both in support and in opposition. Many
individuals provided comments that expressed opposition to or support
for nuclear power and licensing of nuclear facilities in general and
comments related to actions at specific nuclear power plants.
Commenters expressed concerns related to the NEPA process, continued
safe storage of spent fuel, repository availability, reliance on
institutional controls, costs, climate change, pool fires, pool leaks,
and accidents among other things. In this section the NRC summarizes
the four issues on which the NRC specifically requested input: (1)
Whether specific policy statements regarding the timeline for
repository availability should be
[[Page 56254]]
removed from the rule text; (2) whether specific policy statements
regarding the safety of continued spent fuel storage should be made in
the rule text given the expansive and detailed information in the draft
GEIS; (3) whether the Discussion portion of the Statements of
Consideration should be streamlined by removing content that is
repeated from the draft GEIS in order to improve clarity of the
discussion; and (4) whether the title of the rule should be changed in
light of a GEIS being issued instead of a sep(arate Waste Confidence
Decision. Responses to the comments received on the proposed rule and
draft GEIS are provided in Appendix D of the GEIS, Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear
Fuel, Volume 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14196A107). Separately, the NRC
published a document containing the text of all identified unique
comments, ``Comments on the Waste Confidence Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Rule,'' which is located in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14154A175. This separate document provides
individual comments organized by comment category, and comment author
tables.
Issue 1
In the proposed rule, the NRC invited comment on whether the
timeline for repository availability should be included in the rule
text. Commenters were requested to comment on whether specific policy
statements regarding the timeline for repository availability should be
removed from the proposed rule text. A total of 13 commenters
responded.
Commenters who responded to Issue 1 generally expressed support for
removing a statement regarding the repository availability timeline
from the rule text. Reasons for this support varied, but commonly
included a lack of NRC control over repository timelines; previous
failures to predict when a repository would become available; the
inadequacy of a basis for any particular timeline; that a timeline is
not required under NEPA; and the concern that including a statement
about repository availability ties the United States to repository
disposal of spent fuel to the exclusion of reprocessing or other
options.
The few commenters who expressed support for retaining a statement
regarding the timeline for repository availability indicated that the
timeline is an important element of the ``contract'' the public has
with the nuclear industry; that the availability of a repository is the
most critical issue affecting long-term dry cask storage; that
inclusion of a statement regarding repository availability in the rule
text indicates the importance the Commission places on this key
assumption of the GEIS; and that these findings are useful in framing
the NRC's assessment of the safety and environmental impacts of
continued storage.
After considering the comments, the NRC has decided not to retain
the timeline in the rule text. With the development of the GEIS, the
relationship between repository availability and the consideration of
environmental impacts from continued storage has changed from previous
proceedings. In previous proceedings, the date of future repository
availability was the end point of the temporal scope of the NRC's
analysis of the environmental impacts from continued storage. In this
rulemaking, there is no end point to the temporal scope of the NRC's
analysis of the environmental impacts of continued storage. Further,
the NRC agrees that there is no legal requirement to include a timeline
in the rule text. Although future repository availability remains an
important consideration because it provides an eventual disposition
path for spent fuel, there no longer is a need to provide a time limit
for the environmental impacts analysis. To support the analysis in the
GEIS, the NRC has determined that a repository is technically feasible
and that it is technically feasible to safely store the spent fuel. The
removal of a timeframe from the rule language does not mean that the
Commission is endorsing indefinite storage of spent fuel. The United
States national policy remains disposal of spent fuel in a geologic
repository, and, as stated in the GEIS, the NRC believes that the most
likely scenario is that a repository will become available by the end
of the short-term timeframe (60 years beyond the licensed life for
operation of a reactor).
Further, the GEIS recognizes the uncertainty inherent in predicting
when a repository will become available. It therefore contains an
analysis of two additional timeframes: A long-term timeframe that
contemplates an additional 100 years of storage and an indefinite
timeframe that looks at the environmental impacts that could occur if a
repository never becomes available. Appendix B of the GEIS and Section
II.C of this notice contain a discussion of repository feasibility.
Issue 2
In the proposed rule, the NRC invited comment on the issue of
including statements regarding the safety of continued spent fuel
storage in the rule text. Commenters were requested to comment on
whether specific policy statements regarding the safety of continued
spent fuel storage should be made in the rule text given the expansive
and detailed information in the GEIS. A total of 13 commenters provided
responses to the specific question on this subject.
Commenters who responded to Issue 2 generally expressed support for
making a policy statement regarding safety of continued storage in the
rule text. However, their reasons varied widely. Some commenters
indicated that including a statement about safety enhanced openness and
transparency or supported the language because storage is, in fact,
safe. Other commenters indicated that it should be included because
safety determinations are more important to NRC decisions and to
members of the public than environmental issues in spent fuel matters;
because the public should have the benefit of the NRC's determination
that spent fuel may be stored for extended periods with reasonable
assurance of safety; because a safety statement would facilitate
opposition to nuclear power; because it is consistent with the long-
standing approach to addressing continued storage; and because it
addresses legal precedents.
Commenters who opposed a policy statement regarding safety of
continued storage in the rule text asserted that a statement is
unnecessary to the rule; that it is not possible to project the future
safety of spent fuel storage; that statements related to safety of
spent fuel storage are entirely unrelated and unnecessary to the
intended purpose of the rule; and that there are too many unknowns and
open issues related to storage that must be resolved before any
statement regarding safety can be made.
After considering the comments, the NRC has decided not to make a
policy statement about safe storage in the rule text. The generic
conclusion that spent fuel can be stored safely beyond the operating
life of a power reactor has been a component of all past Waste
Confidence proceedings. However, this continued storage rulemaking
proceeding is markedly different from past proceedings. Unlike earlier
proceedings, the NRC has prepared a GEIS that analyzes the impacts of
continued storage of spent fuel. The GEIS fulfills the NRC's NEPA
obligations and provides a regulatory basis for the rule rather than
addressing the agency's responsibilities to protect public health and
safety under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), of 1954 as
[[Page 56255]]
amended. Further, Appendix B of the GEIS discusses the technical
feasibility of continued safe storage. It is important to note that, in
adopting revised 10 CFR 51.23 and publishing the GEIS, the NRC is not
making a safety determination under the AEA to allow for the continued
storage of spent fuel. AEA safety determinations associated with
licensing of these activities are contained in the appropriate
regulatory provision addressing licensing requirements and in the
specific licenses for facilities. Further, there is not any legal
requirement for the NRC to codify a generic safety conclusion in the
rule text. By not including a safety policy statement in the rule text,
the NRC does not imply that spent fuel cannot be stored safely. To the
contrary, the analysis documented in the GEIS is predicated on the
ability to store spent fuel safely over the short-term, long-term, and
indefinite timeframes. This understanding is based upon the technical
feasibility analysis in Appendix B of the GEIS and the NRC's decades-
long experience with spent fuel storage and development of regulatory
requirements for licensing of storage facilities that are focused on
safe operation of such facilities, which have provided substantial
technical knowledge about storage of spent fuel. Further, spent fuel is
currently being stored safely at reactor and storage sites across the
country, which supports the NRC's conclusion that it is feasible for
spent fuel to be stored safely for the timeframes considered in the
GEIS. Appendix B of the GEIS and Section II.C of this notice contain a
discussion of the technical feasibility and regulatory framework that
supports continued safe storage.
Issue 3
In the proposed rule, the NRC invited comment on the issue of
streamlining the Statements of Consideration. Commenters were
specifically requested to comment on whether the Discussion portion of
the Statements of Consideration should be streamlined by removing
content that is repeated from the draft GEIS to improve clarity of the
discussion. A total of 13 commenters provided responses to the specific
question on this subject.
Commenters who responded to Issue 3 provided both support and
opposition for streamlining. Commenters who supported streamlining did
so most frequently because it would improve clarity or because it would
reduce redundancy. Other reasons included that lengthy Federal Register
notices are burdensome to search and that streamlining could remove
anachronisms.
Commenters who opposed streamlining most commonly did so because
the information in the Discussion section supports the rule or provides
a plain-language explanation of matters in the rule. Other commenters
opposed streamlining because it would introduce changes upon which the
public has not been able to comment; because the Statements of
Consideration should address findings that the NRC historically
included as part of the Waste Confidence Decision; and because the
Federal Register is more readily available to the public and is easier
to search than the GEIS. Commenters indicated that the Statements of
Consideration should contain enough information that it can be used as
a stand-alone document.
After considering the comments and looking at ways to be more
concise in presenting the information, the NRC has streamlined the
Statements of Consideration where it is appropriate to do so without
removing text necessary to explain the action that the NRC is taking.
As noted in the comments, the Federal Register notice for the rule must
contain enough information to explain the matters in the rule; however,
it does not need to be a stand-alone document. The GEIS provides a
regulatory basis for the rule and not everything in the GEIS needs to
be addressed in the Statements of Consideration. Some redundancy with
the GEIS remains to ensure adequate information is present to explain
the nature and intent of the rule. After streamlining, the Statements
of Consideration still contains sufficient information in plain
language to provide the reader with an understanding of the nature and
intent of the rule.
Issue 4
In the proposed rule, the NRC invited comment on changing the rule
title. Commenters were requested to comment on whether the title of the
rule should be changed in light of a GEIS being issued instead of a
separate Waste Confidence Decision. A total of 13 commenters provided
responses to the specific question on this subject.
Commenters who responded to Issue 4 expressed near-unanimous
support for changing the title of the rule. Reasons for support,
however, varied widely. Commenters indicated an array of reasons to
support changing the rule name, including that the name is an
anachronism; that the title is misleading and provides no useful
description of the revised rule's purpose or intent; that the title
shows a lack of transparency; that historical findings of confidence
have proven erroneous; that confidence does not exist; that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated
confidence as a basis for the rule; that the title should be changed to
reflect the evolving rulemaking process (no separate Waste Confidence
Decision and reliance on the GEIS); and that confidence requires
transfer of all fuel to dry casks and a defined and available end
point. Many other commenters--who did not expressly respond to this
issue--expressed views that ``waste confidence'' is a confusing term or
that it conveys a confidence that does not exist. Commenters noted that
with a clearer title, the purpose and limited application of the rule
would be more evident to members of the public who are not aware of the
historical basis for the term ``waste confidence.'' Commenters
suggested that the title should more accurately reflect the true
Federal action of licensing and relicensing of reactors and ISFSIs and
should accurately reflect the purpose of the analysis, evaluation, and
conclusions of the study. Suggestions for a new title included
``Storage of SNF [Spent Nuclear Fuel] after Licensed Term of
Operations'' and ``Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel for the Period After
License Term of Reactor Operation.''
Only one commenter who responded to this issue expressed opposition
to revising the title. The commenter was opposed to changing the title
because waste confidence is what the rulemaking has historically been
about and the rule should still be about confidence that a repository
will be available.
After considering the comments, the NRC has decided to change the
title of the rule. The title of a rule should convey the nature and
content of the rule. This rule represents a change in the format from
past Waste Confidence proceedings. Because of the decades of experience
with safely storing spent fuel and the fact that the Commission has
issued a GEIS to support the rule, which provides a detailed analysis
of the environmental impacts associated with continued storage, the
nature of the rule has changed and the need for a separate Waste
Confidence Decision no longer exists. The rule codifies the
environmental impact of continued storage of spent fuel beyond the
licensed life for operation of a reactor at 10 CFR 51.23(a). The rule
is used in reactor and ISFSI licensing and relicensing proceedings to
address the environmental impacts of storage of spent fuel for the
period after the licensed life for operation of the reactor and before
disposal. Including ``waste
[[Page 56256]]
confidence'' in the title of the proposed rule was intended to bridge
past rulemakings on the topic to the current effort, recognizing that
there is no separate Waste Confidence Decision included in the current
proceeding. However, it is clear from the comments that using the
historical term ``waste confidence'' in the title has caused some
confusion. The NRC agrees that a title that more accurately reflects
the content is more appropriate. Therefore, the NRC has changed the
title of this notice to ``Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.''
The title of the GEIS was also changed accordingly.
V. Discussion of Final Amendments by Section
Sec. 51.23 Environmental Impacts of Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear
Fuel Beyond the Licensed Life for Operation of a Reactor
The heading of the section is revised to reflect that the section
is no longer based on an EA and FONSI, but on an EIS and that
environmental effects of continued storage are included in the section.
Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.23 is revised to provide the
Commission's generic determination of the environmental impacts on the
continued storage of spent fuel. The amendments state that the
Commission has generically determined that the environmental impacts of
continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for
operation of a reactor are those impacts identified in NUREG-2157.
Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.23 is revised to clarify that ISFSI
renewals, reactor construction permits, and early site permits are
included in the scope of the generic determination. The final rule also
makes changes to improve readability and by providing additional
clarity regarding the application of the generic determination in 10
CFR 51.23(a) in future NRC NEPA reviews. Provisions applicable to
applicants and the NRC are separated to make it clear that applicants
do not need to address continued storage and that for the NRC's NEPA
documents the impact determinations in NUREG-2157 are deemed
incorporated into EISs and will be considered in EAs, if the impacts of
continued storage of spent fuel are relevant to the proposed action.
Sec. 51.30 Environmental Assessment
Paragraph (b) is revised to clarify that EAs will consider the
generic impact determinations in NUREG-2157, if the impacts of
continued storage of spent fuel are relevant to the proposed action.
Sec. 51.50 Environmental Report--Construction Permit, Early Site
Permit, or Combined License Stage
Section 51.50 is revised to clarify that construction permits,
early site permits, and combined licenses are included in the scope of
the generic determination in Sec. 51.23 and that the applicants'
environmental reports do not need to discuss the impacts of continued
storage.
Sec. 51.53 Postconstruction Environmental Reports
Section 51.53 is revised to improve readability and to clarify that
applicants' postconstruction environmental reports do not need to
discuss the impacts of continued storage.
Sec. 51.61 Environmental Report--Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) or Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation
(MRS) License
Section 51.61 is revised to clarify that ISFSI renewals are
included in the scope of the generic determination in Sec. 51.23, to
improve readability, and to clarify that an applicant's ISFSI
environmental report does not need to discuss the impacts of continued
storage.
Sec. 51.75 Draft Environmental Impact Statement--Construction Permit,
Early Site Permit, or Combined License
Section 51.75 is revised to clarify that construction permits and
early site permits are included in the scope of the generic
determination in Sec. 51.23 and that the impact determinations on
continued storage that are in NUREG-2157 are deemed to be incorporated
into the draft EIS. Although footnote 5 is included in the regulatory
text, it is not being amended but is included to meet an Office of the
Federal Register publication requirement.
Sec. 51.80 Draft Environmental Impact Statement--Materials License
Paragraph (b) is revised to clarify that ISFSI renewals are
included in the scope of the generic determination in Sec. 51.23 and
to improve readability. Paragraph (b) is further revised to clarify
that the impact determinations on continued storage that are in NUREG-
2157 are deemed to be incorporated into the EIS.
Sec. 51.95 Postconstruction Environmental Impact Statements
Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are revised to clarify that the impact
determinations on continued storage that are in NUREG-2157 are deemed
to be incorporated into the EIS or considered in the EA, if the impacts
of continued storage of spent fuel are applicable to the proposed
action.
Sec. 51.97 Final Environmental Impact Statement--Materials License
Paragraph (a) is revised to clarify that ISFSI renewals are
included in the scope of the generic determination in Sec. 51.23 and
to improve readability. Paragraph (a) is further revised to clarify
that the impact determinations on continued storage that are in NUREG-
2157 are deemed to be incorporated into the EIS.
Table B-1--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plants
Table B-1 addresses the environmental impacts of license renewal
activities by resource area. When the Commission issued the final rule
on the environmental effects of license renewal (78 FR 37282; June 20,
2013), it was not able to rely on the Waste Confidence rule for two of
the issues. The Commission noted that upon issuance of the GEIS and
rule, the NRC would make any necessary conforming changes to the
license renewal rule. This final rule revises these two Table B-1
finding column entries under the Waste Management section to address
onsite storage and offsite radiological impact of disposal. The
``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste disposal'' issue is reclassified as a Category 1 issue with no
impact level assigned and the finding column entry is revised to
include reference to the existing radiation protection standards. For
the ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' issue, the finding column
entry is revised to address the impacts of onsite storage during the
license renewal term and during the continued storage period.
Additionally, footnote 7 of Table B-1 is removed. Although footnotes 1,
2, and 3 are included in the regulatory text, they are not being
amended but are included to meet an Office of the Federal Register
publication requirement.
VI. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons either through ADAMS or the Web address provided, as
indicated.
[[Page 56257]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web (www.regulations.gov
Document PDR unless otherwise indicated) ADAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRC Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register notice--Extension X X........................... ML13294A398.
of Comment Period (78 FR 66858;
November 7, 2013).
Federal Register notice--Waste X X........................... ML13256A004.
Confidence--Continued Storage of
Spent Nuclear Fuel; Proposed Rule
(78 FR 56776; September 13, 2013).
NUREG-2157, ``Generic Environmental X X........................... ML14196A105.
Impact Statement for Continued
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel''
Vol. 1.
NUREG-2157, ``Generic Environmental X X........................... ML14196A107.
Impact Statement for Continued
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel''
Vol. 2.
``Comments on the Waste Confidence X X........................... ML14154A175.
Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement and Proposed Rule''.
Draft NUREG-2157, ``Waste Confidence X X........................... ML13224A106.
Generic Environmental Impact
Statement''.
Federal Register notice announcing X ............................ ML13294A161.
the 1977 Denial of PRM-50-18 (42 FR
34391; July 5, 1977).
Federal Register notice announcing X
generic proceeding on Waste
Confidence (44 FR 61372, 61373;
October 25, 1979).
Federal Register notice--1984 Waste X ............................ ML033000242.
Confidence Final Rule (49 FR 34688;
August 31, 1984).
Federal Register notice--1984 Final X ............................ ML033000242.
Waste Confidence Decision (49 FR
34658; August 31, 1984).
Federal Register notice--1990 Waste X ............................ ML031700063.
Confidence Final Rule (55 FR 38472;
September 18, 1990).
Federal Register notice--1990 Waste X ............................ ML031700063.
Confidence Decision (55 FR 38474;
September 18, 1990).
Federal Register notice--1999 Waste X ............................ ML003676331.
Confidence Decision Review (64 FR
68005; December 6, 1999).
Federal Register notice--``Licenses, X ............................ ML063060337.
Certifications, and Approvals for
Nuclear Power Plants'' (72 FR
49352; August 8, 2007).
Federal Register notice--2010 Waste X ............................ ML103350175.
Confidence Final Rule (75 FR 81037;
December 23, 2010).
Federal Register notice--2010 Waste X ............................ ML120970147.
Confidence Decision Update (75 FR
81032; December 23, 2010).
Federal Register notice--License X ............................ ML13101A059.
Renewal GEIS Final Rule (78 FR
37282: June, 20, 2013).
COMSECY-12-0016--Approach for X ............................ ML12180A424.
Addressing Policy Issues Resulting
from Court Decision to Vacate Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule (June
9, 2012).
SRM-COMSECY-12-0016--Approach for X ............................ ML12250A032.
Addressing Policy Issues Resulting
from Court Decision to Vacate Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule
(September 6, 2012).
Luminant Generation Co. LLC X ............................ ML12076A190.
(Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant,
Units 3 and 4), et al., CLI-12-7,
75 NRC 379, 391-92 (March 16, 2012).
NUREG 1947, ``Final Supplemental X ............................ ML11076A010.
Environmental Impact Statement for
Combined License (COLs) for Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant Unit 3
and 4''.
NUREG-1714, Volume 1, ``Final X ............................ ML020150170.
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Construction and Operation of
an Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation on the Reservation of
the Skull Valley Band of Goshute
Indians and the Related
Transportation Facility in Tooele
County, Utah''.
Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Early X ............................ ML042260071.
Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site),
LBP-04-17, 60 NRC 229, 246-47
(August 6, 2004).
Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC X ............................ ML042260064.
(Early Site Permit for North Anna
ESP Site), LBP-04-18, 60 NRC 253,
268-69 (August 6, 2004).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-NRC Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC v. NRC, 582 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. ............... http://scholar.google.com/
1978). scholarcase?case=1292280692
394324643
Note: This link directs the
reader to an unofficial
copy of this case.
[[Page 56258]]
Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. ............... http://scholar.google.com/ ...........................
Cir. 1979). scholarcase?case=1554474921
7851899941
Note: This link directs the
reader to an unofficial
copy of this case.
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources ............... http://scholar.google.com/
Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989). scholarcase?case=1088705218
9863115558&q
Note: This link directs the
reader to an unofficial
copy of this case.
MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass'n v. FCC, ............... http://scholar.google.com/
236 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2001). scholarcase?case=4929117322
249877509&q=MD/DC/
DE+Broadcasters+Ass%27n+v.+
FCC&hl=en&assdt=20000006
Note: This link directs the
reader to an official copy
of the case.
Village of Bensenville v. Federal ............... http://scholar.google.com/
Aviation Administration, 457 F.3d scholarcase?case=6559910666
52, 71-72 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 849441800&q=Village+of+Bene
nville&hl=en&assdt=20000003
Note: This link directs the
reader to an unofficial
copy of the case.
New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. ............... ............................ ML12191A407.
Cir. 2012).
DOE, Strategy for the Management and X ............................ ML13011A138.
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement State Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 20,
1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997), this rule is classified as compatibility ``NRC.'' Compatibility
is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program
elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the AEA or the provisions of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations, and although an Agreement State may
not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform
its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is
consistent with a particular State's administrative procedure laws, but
does not confer regulatory authority on the State.
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is modifying its
generic determination on the consideration of environmental impacts of
continued storage of spent fuel beyond the licensed life for reactor
operations. The NRC is not aware of any voluntary consensus standards
that address the subject matter of this final rule. This action does
not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally
applicable requirements.
X. Record of Decision
The NRC has decided to adopt the proposed revision to 10 CFR 51.23
and additional conforming changes. This revision codifies the NRC's
analyses and determinations regarding the environmental impacts of
continued storage, which are documented in NUREG-2157. The NRC prepared
NUREG-2157 in accordance with its NEPA guidance for preparation of an
environmental impact statement, from scoping and issuance of the draft
to receipt and consideration of public comments in the final generic
environmental impact statement. The NRC has concluded that these
analyses and determinations meet the NRC's NEPA obligations with
respect to continued storage and thereby provide a regulatory basis for
this revision to 10 CFR 51.23. Section 51.23(a) adopts into regulation
the generic environmental impact determinations of NUREG-2157, and
section 51.23(b) provides that the environmental impacts disclosed in
NUREG-2157 will be deemed incorporated into future EISs and considered
in future EAs, if the impacts of continued storage are relevant to the
proposed action, to be considered by the decision-makers in those
proceedings.
The NRC's considerations in reaching this decision to adopt a rule
are discussed in more detail in the following sections of NUREG-2157:
The proposed action in Section 1.4, the purpose of and need for the
proposed action in Section 1.5, the no-action alternative and options
in Section 1.6, the alternatives considered and eliminated in Section
1.6.2, and the costs and benefits of the proposed action and options
under the no action alternative in Chapter 7 \7\ with supporting
information in Appendix H. These portions of the GEIS inform the public
and decision-makers of the environmental implications of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The inclusion of a cost-benefit analysis for the proposed
action in Chapter 7 is consistent with NRC guidance for preparation
of an environmental impact statement. The costs of continued storage
activities and facilities are disclosed in Chapter 2, while the
benefit that accrues from the specific action resulting in the need
to store spent fuel (i.e., production of electrical power) will be
discussed in the environmental assessment or impact statement
prepared in connection with the request for authorization of that
action, which will incorporate the impact determinations of NUREG-
2157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC's rulemaking action provides efficient processes for use in
NRC licensing proceedings and reviews to address the environmental
impacts of continued storage, consistent with the historic efficiencies
provided by prior rules codified at 10 CFR 51.23. In COMSECY-12-0016,
the NRC considered a number of alternative options and tracks to
provide processes to address these environmental impacts in licensing
and to preserve the efficiencies historically provided by 10 CFR 51.23.
As documented in the SRM for COMSECY-12-0016, the Commission chose to
pursue this combination of a rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 51.23 and a
generic environmental impact statement to provide a regulatory basis
for that rulemaking. As discussed in Section 1.6 of NUREG-2157, none of
the options under the no-action alternative
[[Page 56259]]
considered in the generic environmental impact statement could achieve
the NRC's purpose of preserving the efficiency of its licensing
proceedings with respect to the analysis of the impacts of continued
storage; the only alternative left was no action. In the event of no
action, NEPA would nonetheless require the NRC to consider the
environmental impacts of continued storage for many future licensing
actions. In Section 1.6, the NRC considered options for meeting that
obligation without this rulemaking. The adopted rulemaking action and
the options under the no action alternative are all administrative in
nature and have no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, there
is no environmentally preferable alternative and there is no
environmental harm caused by this rulemaking action for the NRC to
avoid or minimize.
The costs and benefits of this rulemaking and the various options
in the event of no action are discussed in Chapter 7 of NUREG-2157. As
that discussion indicates, the primary advantage of this rulemaking is
that costs are significantly lower than the costs of the NRC's options
in the case of no action. The NRC's other options each incur costs
associated with repetitive site-specific licensing proceedings for
issues related to the environmental impacts of continued storage as
well as other potentially large, unquantified costs. The NRC's adoption
of the rule is consistent with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
guidance regarding efficiency and timeliness under NEPA (77 FR 14473).
The NRC acknowledges that some--but not all--members of the public view
as benefits that (1) these no action options would provide the
opportunity to challenge impact determinations in individual licensing
proceedings without a waiver under 10 CFR 2.335 and (2) some
proceedings may include site-specific reviews of the environmental
impacts of continued storage. However, the NRC concludes that the cost
savings and efficiency afforded by this rulemaking outweigh those
perceived benefits and notes that the waiver provision in 10 CFR 2.335
would permit challenge to the application of this rule in appropriate
circumstances. The NRC has therefore decided to issue this rule to
avoid significant and unnecessary costs in conformity with the CEQ
policy favoring efficiency in agency environmental reviews.
As this discussion indicates, this rulemaking is procedural in
nature and has no significant environmental impacts. In addition, this
rulemaking is an amendment to 10 CFR part 51 that relates to procedures
for filing and reviewing requests for licensing actions. Therefore, the
adoption of this rule qualifies for the categorical exclusion under 10
CFR 51.22(c)(3)(i) from the requirement to prepare an environmental
assessment or impact statement. Nonetheless, the NRC has provided
substantial information about this action in NUREG-2157, and the NRC is
now issuing this record of decision.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain new or amended information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing information collection requirements
were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, control number
3150-0021.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget control number.
XII. Regulatory Analysis
A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this regulation
because this regulation does not establish any requirements that would
place a burden on licensees. A cost-benefit analysis of the alternative
options considered by the NRC was prepared as part of the GEIS (Chapter
7). If continued storage must be assessed in site-specific licensing
actions, the primary costs are incurred by the NRC and licensees and
license applicants. Licensees and license applicants ultimately
shoulder the majority of costs incurred to the NRC in the course of
licensing actions through the NRC's license-fee program. Costs also
accrue through the NRC's adjudicatory activities, which affect the NRC,
licensees, license applicants, and petitioners or participants in the
proceeding. The GEIS contains an estimate that it could cost $27.3
million in constant dollars to address continued storage in site-
specific proceedings.
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final
rule modifies the generic determination regarding the consideration of
environmental impacts of continued storage. This generic determination
provides that the impact determinations from NUREG-2157 will be
incorporated into EISs, EAs, or any other analysis prepared in
connection with certain actions. The final rule affects only the
licensing of nuclear power plants or ISFSIs. Entities seeking or
holding NRC licenses for these facilities do not fall within the scope
of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR
2.810).
XIV. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31885).
XV. Backfitting and Issue Finality
The NRC has determined that the backfit rules (Sec. Sec. 50.109,
70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) and the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR
part 52 do not apply to this final rule because this amendment does not
involve any provisions that will either impose backfits as defined in
10 CFR chapter I, or represent non-compliance with the issue finality
of provisions in 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not
required for this final rule, and the NRC did not prepare a backfit
analysis for this final rule.
XVI. Congressional Review Act
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C.
801-808), the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule
and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting
the following amendments to 10 CFR part 51.
[[Page 56260]]
PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act sec. 161, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2201,
2297f); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 211 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5851); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704
(44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A also issued under National
Environmental Policy Act secs. 102, 104, 105 (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334,
4335); Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; Atomic Energy
Act sec. 193 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80.
and 51.97 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135, 141,
148 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also issued under
Atomic Energy Act sec. 274 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste
Policy Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and
51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) (42
U.S.C. 10134(f)).
0
2. In Sec. 51.23, revise the section heading and paragraphs (a) and
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.23 Environmental impacts of continued storage of spent
nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor.
(a) The Commission has generically determined that the
environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond
the licensed life for operation of a reactor are those impacts
identified in NUREG-2157, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.''
(b) The environmental reports described in Sec. Sec. 51.50, 51.53,
and 51.61 are not required to discuss the environmental impacts of
spent nuclear fuel storage in a reactor facility storage pool or an
ISFSI for the period following the term of the reactor operating
license, reactor combined license, or ISFSI license. The impact
determinations in NUREG-2157 regarding continued storage shall be
deemed incorporated into the environmental impact statements described
in Sec. Sec. 51.75, 51.80(b), 51.95, and 51.97(a). The impact
determinations in NUREG-2157 regarding continued storage shall be
considered in the environmental assessments described in Sec. Sec.
51.30(b) and 51.95(d), if the impacts of continued storage of spent
fuel are relevant to the proposed action.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 51.30, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.30 Environmental assessment.
* * * * *
(b) As stated in Sec. 51.23, the generic impact determinations
regarding the continued storage of spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be
considered in the environmental assessment, if the impacts of continued
storage of spent fuel are relevant to the proposed action.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 51.50, revise paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (c) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 51.50 Environmental report--construction permit, early site
permit, or combined license stage.
(a) Construction permit stage. Each applicant for a permit to
construct a production or utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20
shall submit with its application a separate document, entitled
``Applicant's Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage,'' which
shall contain the information specified in Sec. Sec. 51.45, 51.51, and
51.52. Each environmental report shall identify procedures for
reporting and keeping records of environmental data, and any conditions
and monitoring requirements for protecting the non-aquatic environment,
proposed for possible inclusion in the license as environmental
conditions in accordance with Sec. 50.36b of this chapter. As stated
in Sec. 51.23, no discussion of the environmental impacts of the
continued storage of spent fuel is required in this report.
(b) * * *
(2) The environmental report may address one or more of the
environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or
reactors, which have design characteristics that fall within the site
characteristics and design parameters for the early site permit
application, provided however, that the environmental report must
address all environmental effects of construction and operation
necessary to determine whether there is any obviously superior
alternative to the site proposed. The environmental report need not
include an assessment of the economic, technical, or other benefits
(for example, need for power) and costs of the proposed action or an
evaluation of alternative energy sources. As stated in Sec. 51.23, no
discussion of the environmental impacts of the continued storage of
spent fuel is required in this report.
* * * * *
(c) Combined license stage. Each applicant for a combined license
shall submit with its application a separate document, entitled
``Applicant's Environmental Report--Combined License Stage.'' Each
environmental report shall contain the information specified in
Sec. Sec. 51.45, 51.51, and 51.52, as modified in this paragraph. For
other than light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors, the environmental
report shall contain the basis for evaluating the contribution of the
environmental effects of fuel cycle activities for the nuclear power
reactor. Each environmental report shall identify procedures for
reporting and keeping records of environmental data, and any conditions
and monitoring requirements for protecting the non-aquatic environment,
proposed for possible inclusion in the license as environmental
conditions in accordance with Sec. 50.36b of this chapter. The
combined license environmental report may reference information
contained in a final environmental document previously prepared by the
NRC staff. As stated in Sec. 51.23, no discussion of the environmental
impacts of the continued storage of spent fuel is required in this
report.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 51.53, revise paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.53 Postconstruction environmental reports.
* * * * *
(b) Operating license stage. Each applicant for a license to
operate a production or utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20
shall submit with its application a separate document entitled
``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report--Operating License
Stage,'' which will update ``Applicant's Environmental Report--
Construction Permit Stage.'' Unless otherwise required by the
Commission, the applicant for an operating license for a nuclear power
reactor shall submit this report only in connection with the first
licensing action authorizing full-power operation. In this report, the
applicant shall discuss the same matters described in Sec. Sec. 51.45,
51.51, and 51.52, but only to the extent that they differ from those
discussed or reflect new information in addition to that discussed in
the final environmental impact statement prepared by the Commission in
connection with the construction permit. No discussion of need for
power, or of alternative energy sources, or of alternative sites for
the facility, is required in this report. As stated in Sec. 51.23, no
discussion of the environmental impacts of the continued storage of
spent fuel is required in this report.
(c) * * *
(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action,
including the applicant's plans to
[[Page 56261]]
modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as
described in accordance with Sec. 54.21 of this chapter. This report
must describe in detail the affected environment around the plant, the
modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant
effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. 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 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. The environmental report need not discuss other issues not
related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the
alternatives. As stated in Sec. 51.23, no discussion of the
environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent fuel is
required in this report.
* * * * *
(d) Postoperating license stage. Each applicant for a license
amendment authorizing decommissioning activities for a production or
utilization facility either for unrestricted use or based on continuing
use restrictions applicable to the site; and each applicant for a
license amendment approving a license termination plan or
decommissioning plan under Sec. 50.82 of this chapter either for
unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to
the site; and each applicant for a license or license amendment to
store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the
operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit with its
application a separate document, entitled ``Supplement to Applicant's
Environmental Report--Post Operating License Stage,'' which will update
``Applicant's Environmental Report--Operating License Stage,'' as
appropriate, to reflect any new information or significant
environmental change associated with the applicant's proposed
decommissioning activities or with the applicant's proposed activities
with respect to the planned storage of spent fuel. As stated in Sec.
51.23, no discussion of the environmental impacts of the continued
storage of spent fuel is required in this report. The `''Supplement to
Applicant's Environmental Report--Post Operating License Stage''' may
incorporate by reference any information contained in `''Applicants
Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage.''
0
6. Revise Sec. 51.61 to read as follows:
Sec. 51.61 Environmental report--independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) or monitored retrievable storage installation
(MRS) license.
Each applicant for issuance of a license for storage of spent fuel
in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or for the
storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored
retrievable storage installation (MRS) pursuant to part 72 of this
chapter shall submit with its application to: ATTN: Document Control
Desk, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, a
separate document entitled ``Applicant's Environmental Report--ISFSI
License'' or ``Applicant's Environmental Report--MRS License,'' as
appropriate. If the applicant is the U.S. Department of Energy, the
environmental report may be in the form of either an environmental
impact statement or an environmental assessment, as appropriate. The
environmental report shall contain the information specified in Sec.
51.45 and shall address the siting evaluation factors contained in
subpart E of part 72 of this chapter. As stated in Sec. 51.23, no
discussion of the environmental impacts of the continued storage of
spent fuel in an ISFSI is required in this report.
0
7. In Sec. 51.75, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 51.75 Draft environmental impact statement--construction permit,
early site permit, or combined license.
(a) Construction permit stage. A draft environmental impact
statement relating to issuance of a construction permit for a
production or utilization facility will be prepared in accordance with
the procedures and measures described in Sec. Sec. 51.70, 51.71,
51.72, and 51.73. The contribution of the environmental effects of the
uranium fuel cycle activities specified in Sec. 51.51 shall be
evaluated on the basis of impact values set forth in Table S-3, Table
of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, which shall be set out in the
draft environmental impact statement. With the exception of radon-222
and technetium-99 releases, no further discussion of fuel cycle release
values and other numerical data that appear explicitly in the table
shall be required.\5\ The impact statement shall take account of dose
commitments and health effects from fuel cycle effluents set forth in
Table S-3 and shall in addition take account of economic,
socioeconomic, and possible cumulative impacts and other fuel cycle
impacts as may reasonably appear significant. As stated in Sec. 51.23,
the generic impact determinations regarding the continued storage of
spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed incorporated into the
environmental impact statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Values for releases of Rn-222 and Tc-99 are not given in the
table. The amount and significance of Rn-222 releases from the fuel
cycle and Tc-99 releases from waste management or reprocessing
activities shall be considered in the draft environmental impact
statement and may be the subject of litigation in individual
licensing proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Early site permit stage. A draft environmental impact statement
relating to issuance of an early site permit for a production or
utilization facility will be prepared in accordance with the procedures
and measures described in Sec. Sec. 51.70, 51.71, 51.72, 51.73, and
this section. The contribution of the environmental effects of the
uranium fuel cycle activities specified in Sec. 51.51 shall be
evaluated on the basis of impact values set forth in Table S-3, Table
of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, which shall be set out in the
draft environmental impact statement. With the exception of radon-222
and technetium-99 releases, no further discussion of fuel cycle release
values and other numerical data that appear explicitly in the table
shall be required.\5\ The impact statement shall take account of dose
commitments and health effects from fuel cycle effluents set forth in
Table S-3 and shall in addition take account of economic,
socioeconomic, and possible cumulative impacts and other fuel cycle
impacts as may reasonably appear significant. As stated in Sec. 51.23,
the generic impact determinations regarding the continued storage of
spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed incorporated into the
environmental impact statement. The draft environmental impact
statement must include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine
whether there is any obviously superior alternative to the site
proposed. The draft environmental impact statement must also include an
evaluation of the environmental effects of construction and operation
of a reactor, or reactors, which have design characteristics that fall
within the site characteristics and design parameters for the early
site permit application, but only to the extent addressed in the early
site permit environmental report or otherwise necessary to determine
whether there is any obviously superior alternative to the site
proposed. The draft environmental impact statement must not include an
[[Page 56262]]
assessment of the economic, technical, or other benefits (for example,
need for power) and costs of the proposed action or an evaluation of
alternative energy sources, unless these matters are addressed in the
early site permit environmental report.
(c) Combined license stage. A draft environmental impact statement
relating to issuance of a combined license that does not reference an
early site permit will be prepared in accordance with the procedures
and measures described in Sec. Sec. 51.70, 51.71, 51.72, and 51.73.
The contribution of the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle
activities specified in Sec. 51.51 shall be evaluated on the basis of
impact values set forth in Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle
Environmental Data, which shall be set out in the draft environmental
impact statement. With the exception of radon-222 and technetium-99
releases, no further discussion of fuel cycle release values and other
numerical data that appear explicitly in the table shall be
required.\5\ The impact statement shall take account of dose
commitments and health effects from fuel cycle effluents set forth in
Table S-3 and shall in addition take account of economic,
socioeconomic, and possible cumulative impacts and other fuel cycle
impacts as may reasonably appear significant. As stated in Sec. 51.23,
the generic impact determinations regarding the continued storage of
spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed incorporated into the
environmental impact statement.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 51.80, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.80 Draft environmental impact statement--materials license.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). As
stated in Sec. 51.23, the generic impact determinations regarding the
continued storage of spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed
incorporated in the environmental impact statement.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 51.95, revise paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.95 Postconstruction environmental impact statements.
* * * * *
(b) Initial operating license stage. In connection with the
issuance of an operating license for a production or utilization
facility, the NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the final
environmental impact statement on the construction permit for that
facility, which will update the prior environmental review. The
supplement will only cover matters that differ from the final
environmental impact statement or that reflect significant new
information concerning matters discussed in the final environmental
impact statement. Unless otherwise determined by the Commission, a
supplement on the operation of a nuclear power plant will not include a
discussion of need for power, or of alternative energy sources, or of
alternative sites, and will only be prepared in connection with the
first licensing action authorizing full-power operation. As stated in
Sec. 51.23, the generic impact determinations regarding the continued
storage of spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed incorporated into
the environmental impact statement.
(c) * * *
(2) The supplemental environmental impact statement for license
renewal is not required to include discussion of 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. In addition, the supplemental environmental impact
statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other
issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action
and the alternatives. The analysis of alternatives in the supplemental
environmental impact statement should be limited to the environmental
impacts of such alternatives and should otherwise be prepared in
accordance with Sec. 51.71 and appendix A to subpart A of this part.
As stated in Sec. 51.23, the generic impact determinations regarding
the continued storage of spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed
incorporated into the supplemental environmental impact statement.
* * * * *
(d) Postoperating license stage. In connection with the amendment
of an operating or combined license authorizing decommissioning
activities at a production or utilization facility covered by Sec.
51.20, either for unrestricted use or based on continuing use
restrictions applicable to the site, or with the issuance, amendment or
renewal of a license to store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor
after expiration of the operating or combined license for the nuclear
power reactor, the NRC staff will prepare a supplemental environmental
impact statement for the post operating or post combined license stage
or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, which will update the
prior environmental documentation prepared by the NRC for compliance
with NEPA under the provisions of this part. The supplement or
assessment may incorporate by reference any information contained in
the final environmental impact statement--for the operating or combined
license stage, as appropriate, or in the records of decision prepared
in connection with the early site permit, construction permit,
operating license, or combined license for that facility. The
supplement will include a request for comments as provided in Sec.
51.73. As stated in Sec. 51.23, the generic impact determinations
regarding the continued storage of spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be
deemed incorporated into the supplemental environmental impact
statement or shall be considered in the environmental assessment, if
the impacts of continued storage of spent fuel are applicable to the
proposed action.
0
10. In Sec. 51.97, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.97 Final environmental impact statement--materials license.
(a) Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). As stated
in Sec. 51.23, the generic impact determinations regarding the
continued storage of spent fuel in NUREG-2157 shall be deemed
incorporated into the environmental impact statement.
* * * * *
0
11. In appendix B to subpart A of part 51, footnote 7 is removed from
Table B-1 and the entries for ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel''
and ``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste disposal'' under the ``Waste Management'' section of the table
are revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart A--Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating
License of a Nuclear Power Plant
* * * * *
[[Page 56263]]
Table B-1--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Category \2\ Finding \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel.......... 1 During the license renewal term, SMALL. The
expected increase in the volume of spent
nuclear fuel from an additional 20 years of
operation can be safely accommodated onsite
during the license renewal term with small
environmental impacts through dry or pool
storage at all plants.
............... For the period after the licensed life for
reactor operations, the impacts of onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel during the
continued storage period are discussed in
NUREG-2157 and as stated in Sec. 51.23(b),
shall be deemed incorporated into this issue.
Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear 1 For the high-level waste and spent-fuel
fuel and high-level waste disposal. disposal component of the fuel cycle, the EPA
established a dose limit of 0.15 mSv (15
millirem) per year for the first 10,000 years
and 1.0 mSv (100 millirem) per year between
10,000 years and 1 million years for offsite
releases of radionuclides at the proposed
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would
not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA
conclusion, for any plant, that the option of
extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should
be eliminated. Accordingly, while the
Commission has not assigned a single level of
significance for the impacts of spent fuel and
high level waste disposal, this issue is
considered Category 1.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, Revision 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (June 2013).
\2\ The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:
Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or,
for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site
characteristic;
(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for
Offsite radiological impacts--collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level
waste); and
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been
determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to
warrant implementation.
The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.
Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that
one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is
required.
\3\ The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the
significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ``small,'' may be
negligible. The definitions of significance follow:
SMALL--For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing
radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in
the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table.
MODERATE--For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
LARGE--For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important
attributes of the resource.
For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in
determining significance.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of September, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-22215 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P