[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