[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65755-65758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18014]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65755]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[NRC-2018-0296]
RIN 3150-AK32
Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses--Environmental
Review; Correction
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a
final rule that was published in the Federal Register on August 6,
2024, regarding the amendment of NRC's environmental protection
regulations to update the Commission's 2013 findings on the
environmental effect of renewing the operating license of a nuclear
power plants. This action is necessary to correct formatting errors.
DATES: The correction takes effect on September 5, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0296 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may
obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0296. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang; telephone: 301-415-3228;
email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, 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].
NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yanely Malave-Velez, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-1519, email:
[email protected]; Jennifer Davis, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3835, email:
[email protected]; or Kevin Folk, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone 301-415-6944, email:
[email protected]. All are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC may post materials related to this
document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0296. In
addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public
to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder.
To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2018-0296); (2)
click the ``Subscribe'' link; and (3) enter an email address and click
on the ``Subscribe'' link.
In the interest of clarity and transparency, the NRC is correcting
the attachment to the final rule, published at 89 FR 64166 on March 14,
2023, to distinguish the quoted material. The text is unchanged.
Correction
In FR Doc. 2024-16643, published at 89 FR 64166 on August 6, 2024,
on page 64197, the section titled ``Separate Views of Commissioner
Caputo on Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses--
Environmental Review,'' following the NOTE is corrected to read as
follows:
Separate Views of Commissioner Caputo on Renewing Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses--Environmental Review
The purpose of the first license renewal generic environmental
impact statement (LR GEIS) in 1996 was to improve regulatory efficiency
in environmental reviews for license renewals ``. . . by drawing on the
considerable experience of operating nuclear power reactors to
generically assess many of the environmental impacts that are likely to
be associated with license renewal'' resulting lower costs for both
license renewal applicants and the agency.\6\ The use of the LR GEIS
was expected to result in improved focus on significant case specific
concerns a more effective NEPA review for each license renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses; Final Rule, 61 FR 28467, June 5, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today the Commission finalizes the rulemaking ``Renewing Nuclear
Power Plant Operating Licenses--Environmental Review'' with all
Commissioners agreeing that Revision 2 to NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power
Plants,'' appropriately considers the environmental impacts of license
renewal of nuclear power plants licensed as of June 30, 1995. Because
of this, licensees of such plants may rely on the LR GEIS in the
preparation of their environmental reports under Sec. 51.53(c) in
connection with their applications for license renewal and subsequent
license renewal. In addition, the NRC must prepare a supplement to the
LR GEIS as a part of the environmental review of those applications.
This rulemaking was necessary because of the Commission's reversal
in its adjudicative role of its prior holistic view of Part 51 in favor
of a plain language reading of the wording of a single paragraph in the
regulations.\7\ This action disrupted two renewed
[[Page 65756]]
licenses that had been issued.\8\ The Commission then initiated a
rulemaking to remove the word ``initial'' to clarify the applicability
of the LR GEIS for subsequent license renewals, dramatically increasing
the staff's environmental review workload with the additional work of
the LR GEIS revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
Units 1 and 2), CLI-22-2, 95 NRC 26, 31-2 (2022) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML22055A496) (holding the 2013 LR GEIS does not cover subsequent
license renewal, stating section 51.53(c) narrows the scope only to
those applicants seeking an initial renewed license, and
acknowledging that there is language in the regulatory analysis for
the 2013 revisions to Part 51 that would support a contrary
interpretation).
\8\ See Florida Power & Light Co., CLI-22-2, 95 NRC at 36
(stating that the licensee could ``maintain its current subsequently
renewed licenses, but with shortened terms to match the end dates of
the previous licenses (i.e., July 19, 2032, and April 10, 2033, for
Units 3 and 4, respectively) until completion of the NEPA
analysis.''); Exelon Generation Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-22-4, 95 NRC 44, 46 (2022) (modifying
the expiration date of the licenses for Units 2 and 3 to 2033 and
2034, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action also precluded any subsequent license renewal
applicants from using the LR GEIS in their applications while under
revision, injecting considerable uncertainty into the nuclear planning
process. As applicants wrestled with this protracted uncertainty, some
potential applicants delayed filing their applications pending
completion of the revision in order to rely on it. Others initially
chose to delay and then apparently reconsidered, choosing instead to
revise their applications to include a complete environmental report
without the benefit of the LR GEIS. As business decisions were revised
to address continuing uncertainty, the staff's workload management was
complicated further. As a result, the Commission has unjustifiably
undermined the reliability of license renewal reviews and, thus, the
stability of the nuclear operational and planning processes as noted in
correspondence from Senators Capito and Ricketts:
The Commission's misguided 2022 reversal of previously issued
SLRs [subsequent license renewals] resulted in a cascading delay
that impedes the ability for nuclear utilities to make long-term
planning decisions and support those decisions with necessary
investments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Letter from Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, Ranking Member,
Committee on Environment and Public Works and Hon. Pete Ricketts,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear
Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, to Chairman
Christopher T. Hanson (Nov. 1, 2023), available at https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=0000018b-8b9a-da71-a98f-abff5d500000.
Unfortunately, the decision enshrined in this final LR GEIS fails
to learn from this mistake and misses the opportunity to establish the
stability of environmental reviews for a future, third round of license
renewals.
In CLI-20-3, the Commission chose a holistic interpretation of the
2013 LR GEIS upholding its applicability for subsequent license renewal
and, indeed, any license renewal.10 11 The 2013 LR GEIS had
long been expected to apply to subsequent license renewal since
applications were anticipated in the near future. Indeed, the agency
began receiving notices from the industry of the intent to file
applications in 2015 \12\ with the first application filed in 2018.\13\
As noted above, one of the regulatory purposes in the initial
codification of the LR GEIS was ``to promote efficiency in the
environmental review process for license renewal applications.'' \14\
The reversal of CLI-20-03 strays from that regulatory purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
Units 3 and 4), CLI-20-3, 91 NRC 133, 141 (2020) (agreeing with the
Board's determination that the regulatory language in section
51.53(c) is ambiguous and concurring that a holistic reading of Part
51 supports the conclusion that section 51.53(c) applies to all
applicants for license renewal).
\11\ The Commission's decision in CLI-20-3 notes that ``the
Board was `guided by the Supreme Court's approach in Fed. Express
Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008)[.]'' Florida Power & Light
Co., CLI-20-3, 91 NRC at 140.
\12\ See, e.g., Letter from Mark Sartain, Virginia Electric and
Power Company, to NRC Document Control Desk (Nov. 5, 2015)
(ML15314A078) (providing notification of intent to submit a second
renewed operating license application for Surry Power Station Units
1 and 2 in the first quarter of 2019).
\13\ See Letter from Mano K. Nazar, Florida Power & Light Co. to
NRC Document Control Desk, ``Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Subsequent
License Renewal Application'' (Jan. 30, 2018) (ML18037A824).
\14\ Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses; Final Rule, 61 FR 28467, 28468 June 5, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In SECY-22-0109, the staff had analyzed, recommended, and drafted
the LR GEIS proposed rule to apply to any license renewal term (i.e.,
initial, first SLR, or a term beyond the first SLR), excepting issues
related to the Continued Storage Rule.\15\ Contrary to this and despite
the omission of a regulatory analysis regarding the impact of limiting
LR GEIS applicability to a single subsequent license renewal term, my
colleagues chose to limit the applicability of the LR GEIS to a single
term of subsequent license renewal. In his response to the staff's
recommendation, Chair Hanson stated the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Proposed Rule: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses--Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),''
Commission Paper SECY-22-0109 (Dec. 6, 2022), at 6 (ML22165A003
(package)) (SECY-22-0109).
The NRC's regulatory framework for renewal anticipates that the
LR GEIS will be reviewed and updated every ten years to account for
new information and lessons learned. It is at this ten-year review
that it is most appropriate to consider whether the scope of the LR
GEIS should be expanded to cover additional terms of license renewal
beyond the first SLR.
It benefits the agency and the public it serves to use the ten-
year review cycle of the LR GEIS as designed--to evaluate and
incorporate new information gleaned from experience to generically
address known impacts of continued operation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Commission Voting Record, ``SECY-22-0109: Proposed Rule:
Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses--Environmental
Review, (Dec. 20, 2022), at 1 (ML23023A231) (Chair Hanson's Notation
Vote).
While this statement is true, the Commission had previously
deferred the anticipated revision that should be underway in favor of
addressing the consequences flowing from the Commission's reversal of
CLI-20-3.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Staff Requirements--SECY-22-0036--Rulemaking Plan for
Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses--10-Year
Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022-0087) (June 17, 2022)
(ML2216A130).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A concern has been raised that there is inherent uncertainty in
estimating environmental impacts from continued contributions to onsite
waste storage beyond the first term of subsequent license renewal.
While this might be considered a potential inconsistency between the LR
GEIS and the Continued Storage GEIS (NUREG-2157), I note that the
staff's recommendation specifically excepted issues related to the
Continued Storage Rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ SECY-22-0109 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thereafter, in SRM-SECY-22-0109, the Commission directed the staff
to ``modify the proposed rule and draft License Renewal GEIS to
explicitly state that the scope of the GEIS is initial license renewal
and one term of subsequent license renewal . . . but include in the
Federal Register notice, a specific question asking whether the
proposed rule should be expanded beyond two license renewal terms.''
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Staff Requirements--SECY-22-0109--Proposed Rule: Renewing
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses--Environmental Review (RIN
3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296) (Jan. 23, 2023) (ML23023A200 (package)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Commission's direction in SRM-SECY-22-0109, the
staff provided the draft final LR GEIS in SECY 24-0017, and described
the significant work done to support this final version:
Lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license
renewal environmental reviews performed by the NRC staff since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS provided an important source of new
information for this assessment. In addition, new scientific
research, changes in environmental regulations and impact
methodology, and other new information were considered in evaluating
the significance of impacts associated with initial LR and SLR.
Public comments on previous plant-specific license renewal
environmental
[[Page 65757]]
reviews also were analyzed to assess the existing environmental
issues and identify new ones. The purpose of this evaluation was to
determine if the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS remain valid
for initial LR and to update the analysis and assumptions to support
one SLR term. In doing so, the staff considered the need to modify,
add to, or delete any of the 78 environmental issues presented in
the 2013 LR GEIS and codified in Table B-1. As a result of the
detailed evaluation, the staff identified 80 environmental issues,
which are considered in detail in the LR GEIS revision.
And:
In the revised LR GEIS, the staff used the following general
analytical approach to evaluate potential environmental issues and
the impacts associated with continued operations and any
refurbishment: (1) describe the nuclear power plant activity or
aspect of plant operations or refurbishment that could affect the
resource; (2) identify the resource that is affected; (3) evaluate
past license renewal reviews and other available information,
including information related to impacts during an SLR term; (4)
assess the nature and magnitude of the potential environmental
effect (impact) on the affected resource; (5) characterize the
significance of the effect; (6) determine whether the results of the
analysis apply to all or a specific subset of nuclear power plants,
i.e., whether the issue is Category 1 (generic) or Category 2
(plant-specific); and (7) consider additional mitigation measures
for reducing adverse impacts.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Final Rule--Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses--Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296,''
Commission Paper SECY 24-0017 (Feb. 21, 2024) at 3 (ML23202A179
(package)).
This is a nearly identical recitation of the description provided
in SECY 22-0109 of the staff's effort which supported their
recommendation that ``. . . the LR GEIS apply to any license renewal
term''.\21\ Hence, the work was nonetheless completed and supported the
applicability to any license renewal, laying bare any concerns that
addressing a third round of renewals in this revision wasn't practical
given the urgent need to complete it. Clearly, the benefits of
accepting the staff's sound technical judgement as expressed in SECY-
22-0109 would have outweighed the costs of establishing the
applicability of this LR GEIS to all SLR terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ SECY 22-0109 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nuclear Energy Institute, representing industry stakeholders,
agreed that this revision should apply to any license renewal term and
cited the proposed LR GEIS statement that ``[t]here are no specific
limitations in the Atomic Energy Act [AEA] or the NRC's regulations
restricting the number of times a license may be renewed.'' \22\ NEI
also stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Letter from Jennifer Uhle, Nuclear Energy Institute, to
Secretary of the Commission, NRC (May 2, 2023), at 3-4
(ML23123A407).
We believe that the LR GEIS provides a reasonable analysis of
the environmental impacts of 20 years of reactor operation,
irrespective of the prior number of years of reactor operation.
Every license renewal review, regardless of term, requires a site-
specific supplement to the LR GEIS (i.e., SEIS), in which the NRC
evaluates any issues not resolved generically by the GEIS. The NRC
also evaluates any new and significant information. In addition, the
NRC updates the GEIS roughly every 10 years to incorporate material
new information and lessons learned. This review cycle is reasonable
given that ``changes in the environment around nuclear plants are
gradual and predictable.'' There for, limiting the applicability of
the proposed rule and GEIS to one SLR term is not necessary as a
technical or legal matter, and contravenes the NRC's Principles of
Good Regulation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id. at 4 (internal citations omitted).
In response to questions on the potential costs of limiting the
applicability of the LR GEIS to one SLR, the staff identified 26
licensees that would be eligible to apply for a second SLR prior to
their projected completion of the next revision to the LR GEIS. While
licensees are allowed to apply for a license renewal up to 20 years in
advance of the current license's expiration, the staff's projected
completion date of the next LR GEIS revision in fiscal year 2034 would
shorten the window for filing an application to as little as 10
years.\24\ In contrast, the first SLR application was filed in 2018, 14
years prior to license expiration and applying the LR GEIS finalized 5
years earlier. Given the uncertainty plaguing the 2013 LR GEIS that is
finally being resolved 11 years later in this revision and the cascade
of delays undermining the stability of nuclear operational and planning
processes, a projected completion date for the next revision does not
inspire confidence and any delay in completing the revision would drive
a bow wave of applications awaiting completion of the LR GEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ R.E. Ginna, Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, and Dresden, Unit 2,
all operate under licenses that expire in 2029. The lack of an
applicable LR GEIS in the first five years of their eligibility to
apply for renewal and the timely renewal provision in Sec. 2.109(b)
requiring application 5 years prior to license expiration result in
this severe reduction of the window to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its regulatory analysis of the rule, the staff estimated that it
would need to review 44 applications for license renewal over the next
10 years. We have already seen delays in environmental reviews due to
limited staff resources.\25\ In order to assist the agency in this
area, Congress has worked to grant direct hiring authority in this
area.\26\ My colleagues propose that having the staff monitor interest
in further license renewals and proposing to the Commission the short-
cycling of revision of the LR GEIS would meet the needs to address
their arbitrary decision. In my opinion, the net result of this would
be a costly revisiting of the staff's hard look that was already
completed to support the recommendation in SECY-22-0109. Further, this
is wholly unnecessary given the fact that ``environmental impacts of
license renewal are expected to be bounded by data from operating
experience given that license renewal is twenty years of continued
operation, and our understanding that changes in the environment around
nuclear plants are gradual and predictable.'' \27\ This is not good
stewardship of staff resources that are already overextended and may be
exacerbated if the agency begins receiving more applications for new
plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., Letter to Daniel Stoddard ``Revision of Schedule
for the Environmental Review of the North Anna Power Station, Units
1 and 2, Subsequent License Renewal Application (EPID Number: L-
2020-SLE-0000) (Docket Numbers: 50-338 AND 50-339)'' (Oct. 16,
2023), at 1 (ML23278A064).
\26\ See H.R. 6544, Atomic Energy Advancement Act, Sec. 103,
``Strengthening the NRC workforce,'' as referred to the Senate on
February 29, 2024.
\27\ Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses; Final Rule, 61 FR 28467, et seq., June 5, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee concerns with regulatory stability in this area are
clearly demonstrated in the comments provided on this rulemaking. Duke
Energy noted the status of the NRC's ongoing review of the SLR
application for Oconee Nuclear Station, for which the current schedule
includes finalization of the Supplemental EIS after the projected
issuance of this final rule.\28\ In particular, Duke Energy expressed
concerns that this could be construed as requiring further
environmental reviews.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Letter from Thomas Ray, Duke Energy, to Secretary of
the Commission, NRC (May 2, 2023), at (ML23122A311).
\29\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recognize concerns regarding aging management and that research
into the safety of operating from 80-100 years continues. However, this
is an area the staff must address in the safety review rather than the
environmental review process and will have no effect on the
environmental issues resolved as Category 1 in this final LR GEIS. The
environmental review pertains to the plant's impact on the environment
as
[[Page 65758]]
distinct from the environment's impact on the plant which pertains to
the safety review. There has been no sound argument presented that
would link aging management to any of the LR GEIS issues. In addition,
decades of operating experience since the first LR GEIS has
demonstrated that experience has been consistent with the assumptions
underlying license renewal.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
Units 3 and 4), CLI-20-3, 91 NRC 133, 152 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Our Reliability Principle of Good Regulation states:
Once established, regulation should be perceived to be reliable
and not unjustifiably in a state of transition. Regulatory actions
should always be fully consistent with written regulations and
should be promptly, fairly, and decisively administered so as to
lend stability to the nuclear operational and planning processes.
In the wake of the Commission decision to reverse its prior
decision, there have been a series of ramifications that have
undermined reliability, created uncertainty for all stakeholders, and
resulted in a significant increase in workload for the staff. The
Commission, though constituted differently than the one that issued the
reversal in 2022, must own accountability for the consequences of that
decision and should take all the steps necessary to ensure that the
rule it issues here cannot be subject to a similar treatment in the
future. It is my view that this final rule should be modified to
encompass any license renewal period, as the staff recommended,\31\ and
that the revised final rule be provided to the Commission at least 10
business days prior to publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See SECY-22-0109 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 8, 2024.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Rulemaking Support Branch, Division of
Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2024-18014 Filed 8-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P