Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses
Federal RegisterJun 5, 1996
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations regarding environmental protection regulations for domestic
licensing and related regulatory functions to establish new
requirements for the environmental review of applications to renew the
operating licenses of nuclear power plants. The amendment defines those
environmental impacts for which a generic analysis has been performed
that will be adopted in plant-specific reviews for license renewal and
those environmental impacts for which plant-specific analyses are to be
performed.
The amendment improves regulatory efficiency in environmental
reviews for license renewal 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. The amendment also eliminates consideration of the need for
generating capacity and of utility economics from the environmental
reviews because these matters are under the regulatory jurisdiction of
the States and are not necessary for the NRC's understanding of the
environmental consequences of a license renewal decision.
The increased regulatory efficiency will result in lower costs to
both the applicant in preparing a renewal application and to the NRC
for reviewing plant-specific applications and better focus of review
resources on significant case specific concerns. The results should be
a more focused and therefore a more effective NEPA review for each
license renewal. The amendment will also provide the NRC with the
flexibility to address unreviewed impacts at the site-specific stage of
review and allow full consideration of the environmental impacts of
license renewal.
The NRC is soliciting public comment on this rule for a period of
30 days. In developing any comment specific attention should be given
to the treatment of low-level waste storage and disposal impacts, the
cumulative radiological effects from the uranium fuel cycle, and the
effects from the disposal of high-level waste and spent fuel.
DATES: Absent a determination by the NRC that the rule should be
modified, based on comments received, the final rule shall be effective
on August 5, 1996. The comment period expires on July 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Docketing and Services Branch, or hand deliver comments to the Office
of the Secretary, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal
workdays. Copies of comments received and all documents cited in the
supplementary information may be examined at the NRC Public Document
Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC between the hours
of 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-6263; e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Rulemaking History
III. Analysis of Public Comments
A. Commenters
B. Procedural Concerns
1. Public Participation and the Periodic Assessment of the Rule
and GEIS
2. Economic Costs and Cost-Benefit Balancing
3. Need for Generating Capacity and Alternative Energy Sources
C. Technical Concerns
1. Category and Impact Magnitude Definitions
2. Surface Water Quality
3. Aquatic Ecology
4. Groundwater Use and Quality
5. Terrestrial Ecology
6. Human Health
7. Socioeconomics
8. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management
9. Accidents
10. Decommissioning
11. Need for Generating Capacity
12. Alternatives to License Renewal
13. License Renewal Scenario
14. Environmental Justice
IV. Discussion of Regulatory Requirements
A. General Requirements
B. The Environmental Report
1. Environmental Impacts of License Renewal
2. Consideration of Alternatives
C. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
1. Public Scoping and Public Comments on the SEIS
2. Commission's Analysis and Preliminary Recommendation
3. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
D. NEPA Review for Activities Outside NRC License Renewal
Approved Scope
V. Availability of Documents
VI. Submittal of Comments in an Electronic Format
VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact Availability
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
IX. Regulatory Analysis
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
XII. Backfit Analysis
I. Introduction
The Commission has amended its environmental protection regulations
in 10 CFR part 51 to improve the efficiency of the process of
environmental review for applicants seeking to renew an operating
license for up to an additional 20 years. The amendments are based on
the analyses conducted for and reported in NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants''
(May 1996). The Commission's initial decision to undertake a generic
assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the renewal of
a nuclear power plant operating license was motivated by its beliefs
that:
(1) License renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which the
[[Page 28468]]
environmental impacts of operation are well understood as a result of
data evaluated from operating experience to date;
(2) Activities associated with license renewal are expected to be
within this range of operating experience, thus environmental impacts
can be reasonably predicted; and
(3) Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are
gradual and predictable with respect to characteristics important to
environmental impact analyses.
Although this amendment is consistent with the generic approach and
scope of the proposed amendment published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR
47016), several significant modifications have been made in response to
the public comments received. The proposed amendment would have
codified the findings reached in the draft generic environmental impact
statement (GEIS) as well as certain procedural requirements. The draft
GEIS established the bounds and significance of potential environmental
impacts at 118 light-water nuclear power reactors that, as of 1991,
were licensed to operate or were expected to be licensed in the future.
All potential environmental impacts and other matters treated by
the NRC in an environmental review of nuclear power plants were
identified and combined into 104 discrete issues. For each issue, the
NRC staff established generic findings encompassing as many nuclear
power plants as possible. These findings would have been codified by
the proposed amendment. Of the 104 issues reviewed for the proposed
rule, the staff determined that 80 issues could be adequately addressed
generically and would not have been reviewed in plant-specific license
renewal reviews. For 22 of the issues, it was found that the issue was
adequately addressed for some but not all plants. Therefore, a plant-
specific review would be required to determine whether the plant is
covered by the generic review or whether the issue must be assessed for
that plant. The proposed amendment provided guidance on the application
of these findings at the site-specific license renewal stage. For the
two remaining issues, it was found that the issue was not generically
addressed for any plant, and thus a plant-specific review would have
been required for all plants.
Other major features of the proposed amendment included a
conditional finding of a favorable cost-benefit balance for license
renewal and a provision for the use of an environmental assessment that
would address only those issues requiring plant-specific review. A
finding of no significant impact would have resulted in a favorable
cost-benefit balance for that plant. If a finding of no significant
impact could not be made for the plant, there would have to have been a
determination as to whether the impacts found in the environmental
assessment were sufficient to overturn the conditional cost-benefit
balance found in the rule.
Although the final amendments to 10 CFR part 51 maintain the same
generic approach used in the proposed rule, there are several
modifications.The final amendments to 10 CFR part 51 now contain 92
issues. The reduction of the number of issues from 104 in the proposed
rule to 92 in the final rule is due to (1) the elimination from the
review of the consideration of the need for electric power and
associated generating capacity and of the direct economic benefits and
costs associated with electric power, (2) removing alternatives as an
issue from Table B-1 and addressing review requirements only in the
text of the rule, (3) combining the five severe accident issues used in
the proposed rule into one issue, (4) eliminating several regional
economic issues under socioeconomics that are not directly related to
environmental impacts, (5) making minor changes to the grouping of
issues under aquatic ecology and groundwater, (6) identifying
collective offsite radiological impacts associated with the fuel cycle
and all impacts of high level waste and spent fuel disposal as separate
issues, and (7) adding environmental justice as an issue for
consideration.
Of the 92 issues in the final rule, 68 issues were found to be
adequately addressed in the GEIS, and therefore, additional assessment
will not be required in a plant-specific review. Twenty-four issues
were found to require additional assessment for at least some plants at
the time of the license renewal review. In the final rule, the 2 issues
in the proposed rule that would have required review for all plants are
now included in the set of 24 issues of the final rule.
Public comments on the adequacy of the analysis for each issue were
considered by the NRC staff. Any changes to the analyses and findings
that were determined to be warranted were made in the final GEIS and
incorporated in the rule. Several changes were made to the procedural
features of the proposed rule in response to comments by the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a
number of State agencies. First, the NRC will prepare a supplemental
site-specific environmental impact statement (SEIS), rather than an
environmental assessment (as initially proposed), for each license
renewal application. The SEIS will be issued for public comment as part
of the individual plant review process. The NRC will delay any
conclusions regarding the acceptability of the overall impacts of the
license renewal until completion of the site-specific review. In
addition, the SEIS will be prepared in accordance with existing public
scoping requirements. The NRC will also review and consider any new and
significant information presented during the review of individual
license renewal applications. In addition, any person may challenge the
validity of the conclusions codified in the rule by filing a petition
for rulemaking pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802. Finally, the NRC will review
the rule and the GEIS on a schedule that allows revisions, if required,
every 10 years. This review will be initiated approximately 7 years
after the completion of the previous revision cycle.
In addition to the changes involving public participation, this
final rule also contains several changes regarding the scope of
analysis and conclusions in the rule and GEIS. The conditional cost-
benefit balance has been removed from the GEIS and the rule. In place
of the cost-benefit balancing, the NRC will use a new standard that
will require a determination of whether or not the adverse
environmental impacts of license renewal are so great, compared with
the set of alternatives, that preserving the option of license renewal
for future decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The final amendment
also eliminates NRC's consideration of the need for generating capacity
and the preparation of power demand forecasts for license renewal
applications. The NRC acknowledges the primacy of State regulators and
utility officials in defining energy requirements and determining the
energy mix within their jurisdictions. Therefore, the issue of need for
power and generating capacity will no longer be considered in NRC's
license renewal decisions. The final GEIS has been revised to include
an explicit statement of purpose and need for license renewal
consistent with this acknowledgment. Lastly, the final rule has
eliminated the consideration of utility economics from license renewal
reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) except when
such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination
regarding the inclusion of an alternative
[[Page 28469]]
in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation.
These and other features of the final rule are explained in detail
below.
The NRC is soliciting public comment on this rule for a period of
30 days. In developing any comment specific attention should be given
to the treatment of low-level waste storage and disposal impacts, the
cumulative radiological effects from the uranium fuel cycle, and the
effects from the disposal of high-level waste and spent fuel. Absent a
determination by the NRC that the rule should be modified, based on
comments received, the final rule shall be effective on August 5, 1996.
II. Rulemaking History
In 1986, the NRC initiated a program to develop license renewal
regulations and associated regulatory guidance in anticipation of
applications for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.
A solicitation for comments on the development of a policy statement
was published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1986 (51 FR
40334). However, the Commission decided to forgo the development of a
policy statement and to proceed directly to rulemaking. An advance
notice of proposed rulemaking was published on August 29, 1988 (53 FR
32919). Subsequently, the NRC determined that, in addition to the
development of license renewal regulations focused on the protection of
health and safety, an amendment to its environmental protection
regulations in 10 CFR part 51 was warranted.
On October 13, 1989 (54 FR 41980), the NRC published a notice of
its intent to hold a public workshop on license renewal on November 13
and 14, 1989. One of the workshop sessions was devoted to the
environmental issues associated with license renewal and the possible
merit of amending 10 CFR part 51. The workshop is summarized in NUREG/
CP-0108, ``Proceedings of the Public Workshop on Nuclear Power Plant
License Renewal'' (April 1990). Responses to the public comments
submitted after the workshop are summarized in NUREG-1411, ``Response
to Public Comments Resulting from the Public Workshop on Nuclear Power
Plant License Renewal'' (July 1990).
On July 23, 1990, the NRC published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (55 FR 29964) and a notice of intent to prepare a generic
environmental impact statement (55 FR 29967). The proposed rule was
published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47016). The same Federal
Register notice described the supporting documents that were available
and announced a public workshop to be held on November 4-5, 1991. The
supporting documents for the proposed rule included:
(1) NUREG-1437, ``Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (August 1991);
(2) NUREG-1440, ``Regulatory Analysis of Proposed Amendments to
Regulations Concerning the Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plant Operating Licenses: Draft Report for Comment'' (August
1991);
(3) Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4002, Proposed Supplement 1 to
Regulatory Guide 4.2, ``Guidance for the Preparation of Supplemental
Environmental Reports in Support of an Application To Renew a Nuclear
Power Station Operating License'' (August 1991); and
(4) NUREG-1429, ``Environmental Standard Review Plan for the Review
of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants: Draft Report
for Comment'' (August 1991).
After the comment period, the NRC exchanged letters with the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to address their concerns about procedural aspects of the
proposed rule. The Commission also decided that the staff should
discuss with the States the concerns raised in comments by a number of
States that certain features of the proposed rule conflicted with State
regulatory authority over the need for power and utility economics. To
facilitate these discussions, the NRC staff developed an options paper
entitled ``Addressing the Concerns of States and Others Regarding the
Role of Need for Generating Capacity, Alternative Energy Sources,
Utility Costs, and Cost-Benefit Analysis in NRC Environmental Reviews
for Relicensing Nuclear Power Plants: An NRC Staff Discussion Paper.''
A Federal Register notice published on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2542)
announced the scheduling of three regional workshops during February
1994 and the availability of the options paper. A fourth public meeting
on the State concerns was held in May 1994 in order for the NRC staff
to better understand written proposals that had been submitted by two
industry organizations after the regional workshops. After considering
the comments from the workshops and the written comments, the NRC staff
issued a proposed supplement to the proposed rule published on July 25,
1994 (59 FR 37724), that it believed would resolve the States' concerns
regarding the Commission's consideration of need for power and utility
economics. Comments were requested on this proposal. The discussion
below contains an analysis of these comments and other comments
submitted in response to the proposed rule.
III. Analysis of Public Comments
The analysis of public comments and the NRC's responses to these
comments are documented in NUREG-1529, ``Public Comments on the
Proposed 10 CFR part 51 Rule for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses and Supporting Documents: Review of Concerns and NRC
Staff Response'' (May 1996). The extent of comments received during the
various stages of the rulemaking process and the principal concerns
raised by the commenters, along with the corresponding NRC responses to
these concerns, are discussed below.
A. Commenters
In response to the Federal Register notice on the proposed rule
published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47016), 68 organizations and 49
private citizens submitted written comments. The 68 organizations
included 5 Federal agencies; 26 State, regional, and local agencies; 19
nuclear industry organizations and engineering firms; 3 law firms; and
15 public interest groups. Before the close of the initial comment
period, the NRC conducted a 2-day workshop on November 4-5, 1991, in
Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the proposed rule. Representatives from
Federal agencies, State agencies, utilities, engineering firms, law
firms, and public interest groups attended the workshop. Workshop
panelists included the NRC staff as well as representatives from the
Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Interior (DOI), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
several State agencies, the nuclear industry, and public interest
groups.
In February 1994, the NRC conducted three public meetings to
solicit views on the NRC staff's options for addressing the need for
generating capacity, alternative energy sources, economic costs, and
cost-benefit analysis in the proposed rule. The intent to hold public
meetings and the availability of the options paper was noticed in the
Federal Register on January 12, 1994 (59 FR 2542). Written comments
were also solicited on the options paper. The public meetings were held
in Rockville, Maryland; Rosemont, Illinois; and Chicopee,
Massachusetts.
[[Page 28470]]
Representatives from several States, the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the nuclear industry, and
public interest groups actively participated. Nineteen separate written
comments were also submitted, primarily by the States and the nuclear
industry. In their submittals, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
formerly known as the Nuclear Management and Resources Council
(NUMARC), and Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) each proposed an
approach to handling the issues of need for generating capacity and
alternative energy sources in the rule. For the NRC staff to better
understand these proposals, an additional public meeting was held with
NEI and YAEC on May 16, 1994, in Rockville, Maryland.
After considering the public comments on the NRC staff's options
paper, the NRC issued a proposed supplement to the proposed rule; it
was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37724).
The proposed supplement set forth the NRC staff's approach to the
treatment of need for generating capacity and alternative energy
sources, as well as the staff's revision to the purpose of and need for
the proposed action (i.e., license renewal), which was intended to
satisfy the States' concerns and to meet NEPA requirements. Twenty
separate written comments were received in response to this
solicitation from Federal and State agencies, the nuclear industry, a
public interest group, and two private citizens.
B. Procedural Concerns
The commenters on the proposed rule raised significant concerns
regarding the following procedural aspects of the rule:
(1) State and public participation in the license renewal process
and the periodic assessment of the GEIS findings;
(2) The use of economic costs and cost-benefit balancing; and
(3) Consideration of the need for generating capacity and
alternative energy sources in the environmental review of license
renewal applications.
Each of these concerns and the NRC response is discussed below.
1. Public Participation and the Periodic Assessment of the Rule and the
GEIS
Concern. Many commenters criticized the draft GEIS finding that 80
of 104 environmental issues could be generically applied to all plants
and, therefore, would not be subject to plant-specific review at the
time of license renewal. As a consequence, these commenters believe
they are being denied the opportunity to participate in the license
renewal process. Moreover, they pointed out that the site-specific
nature of many important environmental issues does not justify a
generic finding, particularly when the finding would have been made 20
years in advance of the decision to renew an operating license. The
commenters believe that only a site-specific EIS to support a license
renewal decision would satisfy NEPA requirements.
Federal and State agencies questioned how new scientific
information could be folded into the GEIS findings because the GEIS
would have been performed so far in advance of the actual renewal of an
operating license. There were differing views on exactly how the NRC
should address this question. A group of commenters, including CEQ and
EPA, noted that the rigidity of the proposed rule hampers the NRC's
ability to respond to new information or to different environmental
issues not listed in the proposed rule. They believe that incorporation
of new information can only be achieved through the process of amending
the rules. One commenter recommended that, if the NRC decides to pursue
the approach of making generic findings based on the GEIS, the
frequency of review and update should be specifically stated in the
rule. Recommendations on the frequency of the review ranged from 2
years to 5 years.
Response. In SECY-93-032, February 9, 1993, the NRC staff reported
to the Commission their discussions with CEQ and EPA regarding the
concerns these agencies raised, which were also raised by other
commenters, about limiting public comment and the consideration of
significant new information in individual license renewal environmental
reviews. The focus of the commenters concerns is the limited nature of
the site-specific reviews contemplated under the proposed rule. In
response, the NRC has reviewed the generic conclusions in the draft
rule, expanded the opportunity for site-specific review, and confirmed
that what remains as generic is so. Also, the framework for
consideration of significant new information has been revised and
expanded.
The major changes adopted as a result of these discussions are as
follows:
1. The NRC will prepare a supplemental site-specific EIS, rather
than an environmental assessment (as initially proposed), for each
license renewal application. This SEIS will be a supplement to the
GEIS. Additionally, the NRC will review comments on the draft SEIS and
determine whether such comments introduce new and significant
information not considered in the GEIS analysis. All comments on the
applicability of the analyses of impacts codified in the rule and the
analysis contained in the draft supplemental EIS will be addressed by
NRC in the final supplemental EIS in accordance with 40 CFR 1503.4,
regardless of whether the comment is directed to impacts in Category 1
or 2. Such comments will be addressed in the following manner:
a. NRC's response to a comment regarding the applicability of the
analysis of an impact codified in the rule to the plant in question may
be a statement and explanation of its view that the analysis is
adequate including, if applicable, consideration of the significance of
new information. A commenter dissatisfied with such a response may file
a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. If the commenter is
successful in persuading the Commission that the new information does
indicate that the analysis of an impact codified in the rule is
incorrect in significant respects (either in general or with respect to
the particular plant), a rulemaking proceeding will be initiated.
b. If a commenter provides new information which is relevant to the
plant and is also relevant to other plants (i.e., generic information)
and that information demonstrates that the analysis of an impact
codified in the final rule is incorrect, the NRC staff will seek
Commission approval to either suspend the application of the rule on a
generic basis with respect to the analysis or delay granting the
renewal application (and possibly other renewal applications) until the
analysis in the GEIS is updated and the rule amended. If the rule is
suspended for the analysis, each supplemental EIS would reflect the
corrected analysis until such time as the rule is amended.
c. If a commenter provides new, site-specific information which
demonstrates that the analysis of an impact codified in the rule is
incorrect with respect to the particular plant, the NRC staff will seek
Commission approval to waive the application of the rule with respect
to that analysis in that specific renewal proceeding. The supplemental
EIS would reflect the corrected analysis as appropriate.
2. The final rule and the GEIS will not include conditional cost-
benefit conclusions or conclusions about alternatives. Conclusions
relative to the overall environmental impacts including cumulative
impacts will be left entirely to each site-specific SEIS.
3. After consideration of the changes from the proposed rule to the
final rule and further review of the environmental issues, the NRC has
concluded that it is
[[Page 28471]]
adequate to formally review the rule and the GEIS on a schedule that
allows revisions, if required, every 10 years. The NRC believes that 10
years is a suitable period considering the extent of the review and the
limited environmental impacts observed thus far, and given that the
changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are gradual and
predictable with respect to characteristics important to environmental
impact analyses. This review will be initiated approximately 7 years
after completion of the last cycle. The NRC will conduct this review to
determine what, if anything, in the rule requires revision.
Concern. As part of their comments on the July 1994 Federal
Register notice, NEI, several utilities, and the DOE asked that the NRC
reconsider its understanding with CEQ and EPA regarding the preparation
of a site-specific supplemental EIS for each license renewal action.
These commenters supported an approach that would allow the preparation
of an environmental assessment for reviewing the environmental impacts
of license renewal.
Response. The NRC does not agree with this position. The NRC
believes that it is reasonable to expect that an assessment of the full
set of environmental impacts associated with an additional 20 years of
operation of any plant would not result in a ``finding of no
significant impact.'' Therefore, the review for any plant would involve
an environmental impact statement.
2. Economic Costs and Cost-Benefit Balancing
Concern. State, Federal, and utility representatives expressed
concern about the use of economic costs and cost-benefit balancing in
the proposed rule and the draft GEIS. Commenters criticized the NRC's
heavy emphasis on economic analysis and the use of economic decision
criteria. They argued that the regulatory authority over utility
economics falls within the States' jurisdiction and to some extent
within the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Commenters also believe that the cost-benefit balancing used in the
proposed rule and the draft GEIS went beyond NEPA requirements and CEQ
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508). They noted that CEQ
regulations interpret NEPA to require only an assessment of the
cumulative effects of a proposed Federal action on the natural and man-
made environment.
Response. In response to these concerns, the NRC has eliminated the
use of cost-benefit analysis and consideration of utility economics in
its NEPA review of a license renewal application except when 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. As discussed in more detail in the following
section, the NRC recognizes that the determination of the economic
viability of continuing the operation of a nuclear power plant is an
issue that should be left to appropriate State regulatory and utility
officials.
3. Need for Generating Capacity and Alternative Energy Sources
Concern. In their comments on the proposed rule and the draft GEIS,
several States expressed concern that the NRC's analysis of need for
generating capacity would preempt or prejudice State energy planning
decisions. They argued that the determination of need for generating
capacity has always been the States' responsibility. Recommendations on
how to address this issue ranged from withdrawing the proposed rule to
changing the categorization of the issue so that a site-specific review
can be performed, thus allowing for meaningful State and public
participation. Almost all the concerned States called on the NRC to
modify the rule to state explicitly that NRC's analysis does not
preempt a State's jurisdiction over the determination of need for
generating capacity.
Regarding the issue of alternative energy sources, several
commenters contended that the site-specific nature of the alternatives
to license renewal did not justify the generic finding in the GEIS. One
significant concern about this finding is the States' perception that a
generic finding, in effect, preempts the States' responsibility to
decide on the appropriate mix of energy alternatives in their
respective jurisdictions.
Three regional public meetings were held during the February 1994
to discuss the concerns of the States. At these meetings, and later in
written comments, the State of New York proposed an approach to resolve
the problem. The approach was endorsed by several other States. This
approach had three major conditions:
(1) A statement in the rule that the NRC's findings on need and
alternatives are only intended to satisfy the NEPA requirements and do
not preclude the States from making their own determination with
respect to these issues;
(2) The designation of the need for generating capacity and
alternative energy sources as Category 3 (i.e., requiring site-specific
evaluation); and
(3) A requirement that all site-specific EISs and relicensing
decisions reference State determinations of need for generating
capacity and alternative energy sources, and that they defer to those
State determinations to the maximum extent possible.
Response. After consideration, the NRC staff did not accept all
elements of the States' approach because the approach would have
continued to require the NRC to consider the need for generating
capacity and utility economics as part of its environmental analysis.
In addition, the approach would have required the NRC to develop
guidelines for determining the acceptability of State economic
analyses, which some States may have viewed as an intrusion on their
planning process.
The NRC staff developed and recommended another approach, which was
published on July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37724), after consideration of
information gathered at the regional meetings and from the written
comments. This approach, which borrows some elements from NEI and YAEC
proposals, has five major features:
(1) Neither the rule nor the GEIS would contain a consideration of
the need for generating capacity or other issues involving the economic
costs and benefits of license renewal and of the associated
alternatives;
(2) The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., license
renewal) would be defined as preserving the continued operation of a
nuclear power plant as a safe option that State regulators and utility
officials may consider in their future planning actions;
(3) The only alternative to the proposed action would be the ``no-
action'' alternative, and the environmental consequences of this
alternative are the impacts of a range of energy sources that might be
used if a nuclear power plant operating license were not renewed;
(4) The environmental review for license renewal would include a
comparison of the environmental impacts of license renewal with impacts
of the range of energy sources that may be chosen in the case of ``no
action''; and
(5) The NRC's NEPA decision standard for license renewal would
require the NRC to determine whether the environmental impacts of
license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license
renewal for future decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
[[Page 28472]]
The statement that the use of economic costs will be eliminated in
this approach refers to the ultimate NEPA decision regarding the
comparison of alternatives and the proposed action. This approach does
not preclude a consideration of economic costs if these costs are
essential to a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative
in the range of alternatives considered (i.e., an alternative's
exorbitant cost could render it nonviable and unworthy of further
consideration) or relevant to mitigation of environmental impacts.
Also, the two local tax issues and the two economic structure issues
under socioeconomics in the table would be removed from consideration
when applying the decision standard.
Concern. Comments received from several States on the NRC staff's
July 1994 recommended approach ranged from rejection to endorsement.
Some States supported the three conditions proposed by the State of New
York. Several States were still concerned about whether a meaningful
analysis of need for generating capacity and alternative energy sources
could be undertaken 20 years ahead of time. One State asked that the
proposed rule be withdrawn. Another State wanted the proposed rule to
be reissued for public comment. CEQ supported the approach proposed by
the State of New York. CEQ believed that the NRC's recommended approach
was in conflict with the NEPA process because the proposed statement of
purpose and need for the proposed action was too narrow and did not
provide for an appropriate range of alternatives to the underlying need
for the proposed action. CEQ wanted the NRC to address other energy
sources as separate alternatives, rather than as consequences of the
no-action alternative. Moreover, CEQ stated that the proposed decision
standard places a ``weighty and improper burden of proof'' on
consideration of the alternative. The EPA endorsed CEQ's comments. In
general, the nuclear industry was supportive of the recommended
approach. However, NEI and the utilities strongly expressed the opinion
that, with the redefined statement of purpose and need, alternative
energy sources would no longer be alternatives to the proposed action
and, therefore, need not be considered.
Response. After consideration of the comments received on the
Commission's July 1994 proposal, the Commission has modified and
clarified its approach in order to address the concerns of CEQ relative
to consideration of appropriate alternatives and the narrow definition
of purpose and need. These modifications and clarifications addressed
the States' concerns relative to treatment of need for generating
capacity and alternatives. Specifically, the Commission has clarified
the purpose and need for license renewal in the GEIS as follows:
The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an
operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power
generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power
plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as
such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where
authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
Using this definition of the purpose of and need for the proposed
action, which stresses options for the generation of power, the
environmental review will include a characterization of alternative
energy sources as being the alternatives to license renewal and not
merely the consequences of the no-action alternative and, thus, it
addresses CEQ's concern that the scope of the alternatives analysis is
unacceptably restricted.
With respect to the States' concerns regarding need for generating
capacity analysis, the NRC will neither perform analyses of the need
for power nor draw any conclusions about the need for generating
capacity in a license renewal review. This definition of purpose and
need reflects the Commission's recognition that, absent findings in the
safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or
in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a
license renewal application, the NRC has no role in the energy planning
decisions of State regulators and utility officials. From the
perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the
purpose of renewing an operating license is to maintain the
availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements
beyond the term of the plant's current license. The underlying need
that will be met by the continued availability of the nuclear plant is
defined by various operational and investment objectives of the
licensee. Each of these objectives may be dictated by State regulatory
requirements or strongly influenced by State energy policy and
programs. In cases of interstate generation or other special
circumstances, Federal agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) or the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) may be
involved in making these decisions. The objectives of the various
entities involved may include lower energy cost, increased efficiency
of energy production and use, reliability in the generation and
distribution of electric power, improved fuel diversity within the
State, and environmental objectives such as improved air quality and
minimized land use.
The consideration of alternatives has been shifted to the site-
specific review. The rule contains no information or conclusions
regarding the environmental impacts of alternative energy sources, it
only indicates that the environmental impact of alternatives will be
considered during the individual plant review. However, the GEIS
contains a discussion of the environmental impacts of alternative
energy sources based on currently available information. The
information in the GEIS is available for use by the NRC and the
licensee in performing the site-specific analysis of alternatives and
will be updated as appropriate. For individual plant reviews,
information codified in the rule, information developed in the GEIS,
and any significant new information introduced during the plant-
specific review, including any information received from the State,
will be considered in reaching conclusions in the supplemental EIS. The
NRC's site-specific comparison of the impacts of license renewal with
impacts of alternative energy sources will involve consideration of
information provided by State agencies and other members of the public.
This approach should satisfy the States' concerns relative to a
meaningful analysis of alternative energy sources.
The Commission disagrees with CEQ's assertion that the new decision
standard is inappropriate. Under this decision standard, the NRC must
determine if the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are
so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy
planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The Commission expects
that license renewal would be denied only if the expected environmental
effects of license renewal significantly exceed all or almost all
alternatives. The Commission believes that this is a reasonable
approach to addressing the issue of environmental impacts of license
renewal, given NRC's limited role in the area of energy systems
planning. The operation of a nuclear power plant beyond its initial
license term involves separate regulatory actions, one taken by the
utility and the NRC, and the other taken by the utility and the State
regulatory authorities. The decision standard would be used by NRC to
determine whether, from an environmental perspective, it is
[[Page 28473]]
reasonable to renew the operating license and allow State and utility
decisionmakers the option of considering a currently operating nuclear
power plant as an alternative for meeting future energy needs. The test
of reasonableness focuses on an analysis of whether the environmental
impacts anticipated for continued operation during the term of the
renewed license reasonably compare with the impacts that are expected
from the set of alternatives considered for meeting generating
requirements. The NRC would reject a license renewal application if the
analysis demonstrated that the adverse environmental impacts of the
individual license renewal were so great that preserving the option of
license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be
unreasonable.
After the NRC makes its decision based on the safety and
environmental considerations, the final decision on whether or not to
continue operating the nuclear plant will be made by the utility,
State, and Federal (non-NRC) decisionmakers. This final decision will
be based on economics, energy reliability goals, and other objectives
over which the other entities may have jurisdiction. The NRC has no
authority or regulatory control over the ultimate selection of future
energy alternatives. Likewise, the NRC has no regulatory power to
ensure that environmentally superior energy alternatives are used in
the future. Given the absence of the NRC's authority in the general
area of energy planning, the NRC's rejection of a license renewal
application based on the existence of a single superior alternative
does not guarantee that such an alternative will be used. In fact, it
is conceivable that the rejection of a license renewal application by
the NRC in favor of an individual alternative may lead to the
implementation of another alternative that has even greater
environmental impacts than the proposed action, license renewal.
Given the uncertainties involved and the lack of control that the
NRC has in the choice of energy alternatives in the future, the
Commission believes that it is reasonable to exercise its NEPA
authority to reject license renewal applications only when it has
determined that the impacts of license renewal sufficiently exceed the
impacts of all or almost all of the alternatives that preserving the
option of license renewal for future decision makers would be
unreasonable. Because the objectives of the utility and State
decisionmakers will ultimately be the determining factors in whether a
nuclear power plant will continue to operate, NRC's proposed decision
standard is appropriate. The decision standard will not affect the
scope or rigor of NRC's analyses, including the consideration of the
environmental impacts relevant to the license renewal decision and
associated alternatives. The NRC staff believes that, under the
circumstances, the decision standard does not place ``a weighty and
improper burden of proof'' on other alternatives as CEQ claims.
With respect to the industry's desire to eliminate consideration of
alternative energy sources, the Commission does not agree. The
Commission does not support the views of NEI and others that
alternative energy sources need not be considered in the environmental
review for license renewal. The Commission is not prepared to state
that no nuclear power plant will fall well outside the range of other
reasonably available alternatives far in advance of an actual
relicensing decision. Following NEI's suggestion would not lead to a
meaningful set of alternatives with which to compare a proposed action.
The Commission has always held the view that alternative sources of
energy should be compared with license renewal and continued operation
of a nuclear power plant.
Lastly, the Commission does not believe it is necessary to reissue
this rule for public comment as a State commenter requested. The
Commission has taken many measures to involve the public concerning the
resolution of public comments on the proposed rule. The Commission has
conducted a number of public meetings and published for public comment
its recommended procedural revisions to the proposed rule. The
Commission believes that modifications made to the proposed rule
reflect the logical outgrowth of the proposed rule based on the public
comments received by the Commission.
C. Technical Concerns
1. Category and Impact Magnitude Definitions
Concerns. Many commenters expressed concern that the category
definitions and the impact-significance definitions were ambiguous and
appeared somewhat interconnected. The EPA expressed concern that
mitigation of adverse impacts was not addressed adequately.
Commenters expressed a number of concerns about the use of the
applicability categories and the magnitude-level categories. With
respect to the applicability categories, concerns ranged from a general
concern that Category 1 precludes or hinders public involvement in an
issue at the time of the plant-specific review to specific concerns
about the technical adequacy of the analysis supporting a Category 1
finding for an issue. Several commenters believed that the definitions
create confusion, especially as to whether the finding of small impact
and Category 1 are interdependent. The GEIS appears to use Category 1
and ``small'' interchangeably. Concern was also expressed that the
requirement to consider mitigative actions was inadequately addressed
in the draft GEIS and proposed rule.
Response. To reduce potential confusion over the definitions, the
use of the categories, and the treatment of mitigation within the
context of the categorization scheme, the NRC has revised the
definitions to eliminate any ambiguity as to how they are used.
Further, the GEIS has been modified to clearly state the reasons behind
the category and magnitude findings.
In order to facilitate understanding of the modifications to the
GEIS, the previous approach is discussed as follows. In the proposed
rule and the draft GEIS, findings about the environmental impact
associated with each issue were divided into three categories of
applicability to individual plant reviews. These categories were:
Category 1: A generic conclusion on the impact has been
reached for all affected nuclear power plants.
Category 2: A generic conclusion on the impact has been
reached for affected nuclear power plants that fall within defined
bounds.
Category 3: A generic conclusion on the impact was not
reached for any affected nuclear power plants.
The significance of the magnitude of the impact for each issue was
expressed as one of the three following levels.
Small impacts are so minor that they warrant neither
detailed investigation nor consideration of mitigative actions when
such impacts are negative.
Moderate impacts are likely to be clearly evident and
usually warrant consideration of mitigation alternatives when such
impacts are negative.
Large impacts involve either a severe penalty or a major
benefit, and mitigation alternatives are always considered when such
impacts are negative.
With respect to the categories of applicability, under the proposed
rule applicants would have:
(1) Not provided additional analyses of Category 1 issues;
(2) Not provided additional analyses if their plant falls within
the bounds
[[Page 28474]]
defined in the rule for a Category 2 issue;
(3) Provided additional plant-specific analyses if their plant does
not fall within the bounds defined in the rule for a Category 2 issue;
and
(4) Provided plant-specific analyses of Category 3 issues.
In order to address the comments on these magnitude and category
definitions, the GEIS has been modified to clearly state the reasons
behind the category and magnitude findings.
The revised definitions are listed below.
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 collective off site
radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high level waste and
spent fuel disposal); 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 likely not to be
sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-
specific review. Issues for which the impact was found to be favorable
were also defined to be Category 1 issues.
Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the
GEIS has shown that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be
met and, therefore, additional plant-specific review is required.
If, for an environmental issue, the three Category 1 criteria apply
to all plants, that issue is Category 1 and the generic analysis should
be used in a license renewal review for all plant applications. If the
three Category 1 criteria apply to a subset of plants that are readily
defined by a common plant characteristic, notably the type of cooling
system, the population of plants is partitioned into the set of plants
with the characteristic and the set without the characteristic. For the
set of plants with the characteristic, the issue is Category 1 and the
generic analysis should be used in the license renewal review for those
plants. For the set of plants without the characteristic, the issue is
Category 2 and a site-specific analysis for that issue will be
performed as part of the license renewal review. The review of a
Category 2 issue may focus on the particular aspect of the issue that
causes the Category 1 criteria not to be met. For example, severe
accident mitigation under the issue ``severe accidents'' is the focus
for a plant-specific review because the other aspects of the issue,
specifically the offsite consequences, have been adequately addressed
in the GEIS. With the revised definitions, the two issues previously
designated as Category 3 are now designated Category 2. For an issue to
be a Category 1, current mitigation practices and the nature of the
impact were considered and a determination was made that it is unlikely
that additional measures will be sufficiently beneficial. In the GEIS,
in discussing the impacts for each issue, consideration was given to
what is known about current mitigation practices.
The definitions of the significance level of an environmental
impact have been revised to make the consideration of the potential for
mitigating an impact separate from the analysis leading to a conclusion
about the significance level of the impact. Further, the significance
level of an impact is now more clearly tied to sustaining specific
attributes of the affected resource that are important to its
viability, health or usefulness. General definitions of small, moderate
and large significance levels are given below. These definitions are
adapted to accommodate the resource attributes of importance for each
of the environmental issues in the GEIS. The definition of ``small''
clarifies the meaning of the term as it applies to radiological
impacts. The definition of ``small'' in the proposed rule did not
logically apply to such impacts.
The general definitions of significance level are:
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.
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.
The discussion of each environmental issue in the GEIS includes an
explanation of how the significance category was determined. For issues
in which probability of occurrence is a key consideration (i.e.,
accident consequences), the probability of occurrence has been factored
into the determination of significance. The determination of the
significance category was made independently of the consideration of
the potential benefit of additional mitigation.
The major concerns (organized by topical areas) about the
environmental issues examined in the draft GEIS and the NRC staff's
response to those concerns are summarized next.
2. Surface Water Quality
Concern. Several commenters expressed concerns related to the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
process for surface water discharge. They believe that the NRC may have
overlooked its legal obligation to comply with Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Their recommendations included withholding approval
for license renewal until a facility has complied with Section 401 and
treating license renewal as an opportunity for a new NEPA review. On
the other hand, other commenters recommended decoupling the NRC
relicensing process from the NPDES permitting process.
Response. In issuing individual license renewals, the Commission
will comply, as has been its practice, with the provisions of Section
401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (see 10 CFR 51.45(d) and
51.71(c)). In addition, pursuant to Section 511(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Commission cannot question or
reexamine the effluent limitations or other requirements in permits
issued by the relevant permitting authorities. Nevertheless, compliance
with the environmental quality standards and requirements of these
permits does not negate the requirement for the Commission to consider
all environmental effects of the proposed action. Accordingly, the
Commission has not only taken existing permits into account in its
analysis of the water quality impacts of license renewal but has also
considered information on actual operating impacts collected from
individual plants, State and Federal regulatory agencies, and published
literature. As a result of this analysis, the Commission has concluded
that the environmental impacts on surface water quality are small for
those effluents subject to existing permit or certification
requirements. A total decoupling of the license renewal process and the
NPDES permitting process is not appropriate because, for
[[Page 28475]]
issues with incomplete Clean Water Act determinations, the NRC cannot
complete its weighing and balancing of impacts without independently
addressing the issues.
Concern. Several commenters raised concerns that various issues
within the Surface Water Quality topic should be Category 2 or 3
issues. These included water use conflicts as experienced in Arizona
and the Midwest, thermal stratification and salinity gradients
associated with once-through cooling systems, and the toxicity of
biofouling compounds.
Response. Regarding the water use conflicts, the NRC has considered
the impacts of water use during the renewal period and has concluded
that these impacts are small for plants with a once-through cooling
system and that this is a Category 1 issue for those plants. However,
this issue is designated Category 2 for plants with cooling towers and
cooling ponds because, for those plants, the impacts might be moderate
(they could also be small). In either case, pursuant to 10 CFR
51.45(d), an applicant for license renewal must identify and indicate
in its environmental report the status of State and local approvals
regarding water use issues. For those reactor sites where thermal
stratification or salinity gradient was found to be the most
pronounced, the issues were reviewed during preparation of the GEIS and
found to be acceptable by the States within the NPDES process. No
change in the categorization in the GEIS would be required. Similarly,
the NPDES permit for a facility establishes allowable discharges,
including biocides. The NRC has no indication that residual
environmental impacts would occur as a result of license renewal
activities at any nuclear plant site other than perhaps water use
conflicts arising at plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using
make-up water from a small river with low flow. For those plants, this
issue is Category 2.
3. Aquatic Ecology
Concern. A number of comments regarding the ecological impact of
cooling water withdrawal from aquatic bodies were received. Specific
concerns included fish kills associated with the entrainment and
impingement of fish within once-through and cooling pond cooling
systems, the use of chlorine and molluscicides to control mussel and
clam growth, and the long-term effects of heavy metal discharges from
plants with copper-nickel condenser tubes. Another commenter noted that
license extension affords the opportunity to review the intake and
discharge configuration of plant cooling water systems, since the best
available technology that is economically available may be different
given the additional 20 years of plant operating life.
Response. The Commission has considered the impacts of license
renewal on aquatic ecology and, in doing so, has reviewed existing
NPDES permits and other information. Based on this analysis, the
Commission has concluded that these impacts are small with the
exception that plants with once-through cooling and cooling ponds may
have larger effects associated with entrainment of fish and shellfish
in early life stages, impingement, and heat shock. Agencies responsible
for existing permits are not constrained from reexamining the permit
issues if they have reason to believe that the basis for their issuance
is no longer valid. The Commission does not have authority under NEPA
to impose an effluent limitation other than those established in
permits issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The problem of the
long-term effects of heavy metal discharges from plants with copper-
nickel condenser tubes has been found at only one plant. The affected
condenser tubes have been replaced with tubing of a more corrosion-
resistant material.
Concern. A commenter pointed out that the issue of riparian zones
should be addressed in the GEIS because the vegetation region along a
water course can be affected by water withdrawal and is important in
maintaining the habitat.
Response. The NRC agrees with the importance of addressing the
impacts of license renewal on the riparian habitat. The final GEIS
provides a discussion of the riparian habitat as an important resource
and the potential effects of consumptive water use on riparian zones.
4. Groundwater Use and Quality
Concern. Several commenters indicated that groundwater issues
should be reviewed on a site-specific basis because of groundwater use
conflicts (in particular, the effect on aquifer recharge of using
surface water for cooling water), opportunities for saltwater
intrusion, and concerns over tritium found in wells at one site. On the
other hand, a commenter requested that the issue of groundwater use for
cooling tower makeup water be changed from Category 2 to Category 1
because the issue is based solely on data from Ranney wells at the
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, where tests have shown that the elevation
of the water plain around Grand Gulf is not dropping.
Response. Based on consideration of comments, the issue of
groundwater use conflicts resulting from surface water withdrawals for
cooling tower makeup water or cooling ponds is now Category 2 for
plants withdrawing surface water from small water bodies during low
flow conditions. The GEIS has identified a potential reduction in
aquifer recharge as a result of competing water use. These conflicts
are already a concern at two closed-cycle nuclear power plants. The NRC
does not agree that saltwater intrusion should be considered a Category
2 issue. When saltwater intrusion has been a problem, the major cause
has been the large consumption of groundwater by agricultural and
municipal users. Groundwater consumption by nuclear power plants is
small by comparison and does not contribute significantly to the
saltwater intrusion problem. With regard to traces of tritium found in
the groundwater at one nuclear power plant, the tritium was attributed
to a modification in the plant's inlet and discharge canal that did not
take into consideration a unique situation in topology and groundwater
flow. The releases were minor and the situation has been corrected.
Regarding the issue of the use of groundwater for cooling water
makeup, the NRC has designated this issue as Category 2 even though
only the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station is currently using Ranney wells to
withdraw groundwater. This water intake does not conflict with other
groundwater uses in the area. It is not possible to predict whether or
not water use conflicts will occur at the Grand Gulf facility in the
future. It is also not possible to determine the significance of the
environmental impacts associated with Ranney well use at other nuclear
plants that may choose to adopt this method in the future.
5. Terrestrial Ecology
Concern. Several commenters recommended that the issue of bird
mortality resulting from collisions with transmission lines, towers, or
cooling towers be characterized as a Category 2 issue. Such a
characterization would provide for a review of mitigation at those
plants with cooling towers that do not have illumination and for power
plant transmission lines that transect major flyways or that cross
wetlands used by large concentrations of birds.
Response. The NRC does not agree with this recommendation. The GEIS
cites several studies that conclude that bird mortalities resulting
from collision with transmission lines, towers, or cooling towers are
not significantly
[[Page 28476]]
reducing bird populations. Mitigation measures in place, such as safety
lights, were found adequate and additional measures were not warranted.
Therefore, the issue remains a Category 1 issue because refurbishment
will not involve construction of any additional transmission lines or
natural draft cooling towers.
Concern. One commenter expressed concern that the GEIS analysis of
land use did not adequately encompass the impact of onsite spent fuel
storage on land use and that the Category 1 finding is questionable. A
specific concern was the potential need for the construction of
additional spent fuel storage facilities associated with the license
renewal term, along with their associated impacts on the terrestrial
environment.
Response. The NRC does not agree that there is a need to change the
Category 1 determination for onsite land use. Waste management
operations could require the construction of additional storage
facilities and thus adversely affect land use and terrestrial ecology.
However, experience has shown that the land requirements would be
relatively small (less than 9 acres), impacts to land use and
terrestrial ecology would also be relatively small, and the land that
may be used is already possessed by the applicant; thus, its basic use
would not be altered. Onsite land use is Category 1. Terrestrial
ecology with disturbance of sensitive habitat is treated as a separate
issue and is Category 2.
6. Human Health
Concern. In the human health section of the GEIS, the radiological
impacts of plant refurbishment and continued operations during the
license renewal term to workers and the general public were examined.
Several commenters indicated that it was inappropriate to compare the
radiation exposures associated with license renewal to natural
background levels. These commenters believed that the appropriate
argument should be that the risks associated with the additional
exposures are so small that no additional mitigative measures are
required.
Response. The NRC agrees that the assessment of radiation exposure
should not be simply a comparison with background radiation. In
response to comments on the draft generic environmental impact
statement and the proposed rule, the standard defining a small
radiological impact has changed from a comparison with background
radiation to sustained compliance with the dose and release limits
applicable to the various stages of the fuel cycle. This change is
appropriate and strengthens the criterion used to define a small
environmental impact for the reasons that follow. The Atomic Energy Act
requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to promulgate, inspect and
enforce standards that provide an adequate level of protection of the
public health and safety and the environment. The implementation of
these regulatory programs provides a margin of safety. A review of the
regulatory requirements and the performance of facilities provides the
bases to project continuation of performance within regulatory
standards. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the
Commission has concluded that impacts are of small significance if
doses to individuals and releases do not exceed the permissible levels
in the Commission's regulations.
With respect to whether additional mitigative measures are
required, it should be noted that in 10 CFR parts 20 and 50 there are
provisions that radiological impacts associated with plant operation be
reduced to levels as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Concern. Several commenters indicated that the GEIS needs a broader
treatment of uncertainty as it relates to human health issues.
Response. The NRC agrees that there is considerable uncertainty
associated with health effects, especially at low occupational and
public dose levels, and particularly with respect to electromagnetic
fields. Health effect estimates from radiation exposures are based on
the best scientific evidence available and are considered to be
conservative estimates. Several sections of the GEIS have been expanded
to more thoroughly explain how predicted impacts could be affected by
changes in scientific information or standards.
Concern. One commenter indicated that, in the GEIS and the proposed
rule, risk coefficients should have been used for chemicals and
radiation to obtain upper bound risk estimates of cancer incidence.
Response. The NRC does not agree with this comment. In making
comparisons of alternatives, comparisons of the central or best
estimates of impacts are consistent with NEPA requirements because they
provide the fairest determination. The GEIS is written using current,
Commission-approved risk estimators.
Concern. Two commenters expressed concern regarding the GEIS
conclusion that the impact of radiation exposure to the public is
small, citing a study done by the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health (MDPH). This study concluded that adults who live within 10
miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant have a risk of contracting
leukemia four times greater than other individuals.
Response. The NRC staff reviewed the MDHP study and compared it
with various other studies. The results of the study have been
contradicted by a National Cancer Institute (NCI) study entitled
``Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities'' (July 1990).
The NCI study, which included the Pilgrim plant in its analysis, found
no reason to suggest that nuclear facilities may be linked causally
with excess deaths from leukemia or from other cancers. The findings of
the NCI study are consistent with the findings of several similar
epidemiological studies in foreign countries and with the latest
conclusions of expert bodies such as the National Research Council's
Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. The NRC
continues to base its assessment of the health effects of ionizing
radiation on the overall body of scientific knowledge and on the
recommendations of expert groups.
7. Socioeconomics
Concern. A commenter concerned with historic preservation pointed
out that this issue must be addressed through compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and cannot be resolved
generically.
Response. The NRC agrees with this comment. Historical and
archaeological impacts have been changed from a Category 1 to a
Category 2 issue (that is, it must be evaluated site-specifically).
Consultation with State historical preservation offices and other
Government agencies, as required by NHPA, must be undertaken to
determine whether protected historical or archaeological resources are
in areas that might be disturbed during refurbishment activities and
operation during the renewal period.
Concern. Several commenters indicated that transportation issues
associated with refurbishment activities should be changed from
Category 3 to Category 2 because the impacts will be insignificant in
the majority of cases. One recommendation was to use a level of service
(LOS) determination for specific plants as the bounding criterion. The
analysis would require that LOS be determined for that part of the
refurbishment period during which traffic not related to the plant is
expected to be the heaviest. Another recommendation was to establish
bounding criteria based on past major routine outages.
Response. The NRC agrees that use of the LOS approach may prove to
be
[[Page 28477]]
acceptable. Transportation still must be reviewed on a plant-specific
basis, that is, it is a Category 2 issue (based on the revised
definition).
Concern. There were recommendations to make the housing impacts
during refurbishment a Category 1 issue instead of Category 2. One
commenter noted that the construction period data used in the analysis
appears to overestimate the impact on housing.
Response. The NRC does not agree that this should be a Category 1
issue. Although negligible housing impacts are anticipated for most
license renewals, significant housing impacts have occurred during a
periodic plant outage at one of the case plants studied for the
analysis. This issue is now a Category 2 issue because moderate and
large impacts on housing are possible depending on local conditions
(e.g., areas with extremely slow population growth or areas with growth
control measures that limit housing development).
8. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management
Concern. Wide-ranging concerns were expressed in the comments on
the proposed rule and the draft GEIS about the treatment of storage and
disposal of low-level waste (LLW), mixed waste, spent fuel,
nonradiological waste, and the transportation of fuel and waste to and
from nuclear power plants as a consequence of license renewal. Concern
was expressed about the uncertain availability of disposal facilities
for LLW, mixed waste, and spent fuel; the prospect of generation and
onsite storage of an additional 20 years output of waste; and the
resulting pressure that would be put on the States to provide LLW
disposal facilities. Various commenters expressed concern about the
adequacy of the treatment of the cost of waste management and the
implications for the economic viability of license renewal. Numerous
comments were provided on updating and clarifying data on waste
management presented in the draft GEIS. Finally, various questions were
raised about the applicability of Table S-3 (10 CFR 51.51 Uranium fuel
cycle environmental data--Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle
Environmental Data) to the management of waste generated as a result of
license renewal.
With regard to spent fuel, several commenters expressed concern
that dry cask storage is not a proven technology and that onsite
storage of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of plant operation
will present environmental and safety problems. Therefore, onsite
storage of spent fuel should be considered on a site-specific basis
within a plant license renewal review.
Response. The Commission acknowledges that there is uncertainty in
the schedule of availability of disposal facilities for LLW, mixed
waste, and spent fuel. However, the Commission believes that there is
sufficient understanding of and experience with the storage of LLW,
mixed waste, and spent fuel to conclude that the waste generated at any
plant as a result of license renewal can be stored safely and without
significant environmental impacts before permanent disposal. In
addition, the Commission concluded that the classification of storage
and ultimate disposal as a Category 1 issue is appropriate because
States are proceeding, albeit slowly, with the development of new
disposal facilities; LLW and mixed waste have been and can be safely
stored at reactor sites until new disposal capacity becomes available.
Analyses to support this conclusion are presented in Chapter 6 of the
final GEIS (NUREG-1437). The following summary of the responses to
comments emphasizes the main features of these analyses.
In the draft GEIS, the environmental data in Table S-3 were
discussed with respect to applicability during the license renewal
period and supplemented with an analysis of the radiological release
and dose commitment data for radon-222 and technetium-99. The proposed
rule would have had this discussion apply to each plant at the time of
its review for license renewal.
Further, in the draft GEIS, Chapter 6, ``Solid Waste Management,''
covered the generation of LLW, mixed waste, spent fuel, and
nonradiological waste as a result of license renewal; the
transportation of the radiological waste; and the environmental impacts
of waste management, including storage and disposal. The findings that
were to have been codified in the rule were that, for nonradiological
waste, mixed waste, spent fuel, and transportation, the environmental
impacts are of small significance and that the analysis in the GEIS
applies to each plant (Category 1). For LLW, the finding that would
have been codified in the rule was that, if an applicant does not have
access to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility through a
low-level waste compact or an unaffiliated State, the applicant must
present plans for interim waste storage with an assessment of potential
ecological habitat destruction caused by construction activities
(Category 2).
In response to the questions about the applicability of Table S-3
to the management of waste associated with license renewal and to the
various comments challenging the treatment of the several forms of
waste in the draft GEIS and in the proposed rule, the discussion of
Table S-3 has been moved from Section 4.8 of the draft GEIS to Chapter
6 of the final GEIS in order to provide a more integrated assessment of
the environmental impacts associated with waste management as a
consequence of license renewal. Also in response to various comments,
the discussion of Table S-3 and of each of the types of waste has been
expanded.
Supplemental data are presented in Chapter 6 of the final GEIS in
order to extend the coverage of the environmental impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle presented in the current Table S-3 and of
transportation of radioactive waste presented in the current Table S-4
to radon-222, technetium-99, higher fuel enrichment, and higher fuel
burnup. In part, the current Table S-3 and the data supplementing it
cover environmental impacts of:
(1) Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in pools for 10 years,
packaging and transportation to a Federal repository, and permanent
disposal; and
(2) Short-term storage onsite of LLW, packaging and transportation
to a land-burial facility, and permanent disposal.
The following conclusions have been drawn with regard to the
environmental impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle.
The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle have been reviewed. The review included a discussion
of the values presented in Table S-3, an assessment of the release and
impact of \222\Rn and of \99\Tc, and a review of the regulatory
standards and experience of fuel cycle facilities. For the purpose of
assessing the radiological impacts of license renewal the Commission
uses the standard that the impacts are of small significance if doses
and releases do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's
regulations. Given the available information regarding the compliance
of fuel cycle facilities with applicable regulatory requirements, the
Commission has concluded that, other than for the disposal of spent
fuel and high-level waste, these impacts on individuals from
radioactive gaseous and liquid releases will remain at or below the
Commission's regulatory limits. Accordingly, the Commission concludes
that offsite radiological impacts of the fuel cycle (individual effects
from other than the disposal of
[[Page 28478]]
spent fuel and high-level waste) are small. ALARA efforts will continue
to apply to fuel cycle activities. This is a Category 1 issue.
The radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle on human
populations over time (collective effects) have been considered within
the framework of Table S-3. The 100 year environmental dose commitment
to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, high level waste and spent
fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be about 14,800 man-rem, or 12
cancer fatalities, for each additional 20 year power reactor operating
term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon releases from
mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large
populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended
to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well
as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would be
thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result
assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health
effect which will not ever be mitigated (for example no cancer cure in
the next thousand years), and that these dose projections over
thousands of years are meaningful. However these assumptions are
questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility
that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For
perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits,
and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same
populations. No standards exist that can be used to reach a conclusion
as to the significance of the magnitude of the collective radiological
effects. Nevertheless, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA
implication of this issue should be made and it makes no sense to
repeat the same judgement in every case. The Commission concludes that
these impacts are acceptable in that these 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 collective effects of the fuel cycle,
this issue is considered Category 1. For other Category 1 issues, the
impacts will be considered at the individual renewal stage as a means
of judging the total impact of an individual license renewal decision.
However, the Commission has already judged the impact of collective
effects of the fuel cycle as part of this rule.
There are no current regulatory limits for off-site releases of
radionuclides for the current candidate repository site. However if we
assume that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, and that in accordance with the
Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, a repository can and likely
will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits, peak
doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per year or
less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that
these assumptions will prove correct there is considerable uncertainty
since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application has
been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models
used to evaluate possible pathways to the human environment. The
National Academy report indicated that 100 millirem per year should be
considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses, but
notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and
international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100
millirem per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem per
year dose limit is about 3 x 10-3. Doses to populations from
disposal cannot now (or possibly ever) be estimated without very great
uncertainty. Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands
of years is more problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events
that could seriously compromise the integrity of a deep geologic
repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy in the ``Final
Environmental Impact Statement: Management of Commercially Generated
Radioactive Waste,'' October 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-year
whole-body dose commitment to the maximum individual and to the
regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a
reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after
100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. The release scenarios
covered a wide range of consequences from the limited consequences of
humans accidentally drilling into a waste package in the repository to
the catastrophic release of the repository inventory by a direct meteor
strike. Subsequently, the NRC and other Federal agencies have expended
considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the
licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the
candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of
doses to population may be possible in the future as more is understood
about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such
estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect
to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard
proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The
relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS
report, and cumulative population impacts has not been determined,
although the report articulates the view that protection of individuals
will adequately protect the population for a repository at Yucca
Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards in 40 CFR part
191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of
cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a
Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be
within the range of standards now under consideration. The standard in
40 CFR part 191 protects the population by imposing ``containment
requirements'' that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material
released over 10,000 years. The cumulative release limits are based on
EPA's population impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-
wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty surrounding the effects
of the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, some judgement as
to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and
it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case. Even
taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that
these impacts are acceptable in that these 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. Excepting the
collective effects previously discussed, for other Category 1 issues,
the impacts will be considered at the individual renewal stage as a
means of judging the total impact of an individual license renewal
decision. However, the Commission has already judged the impacts of
high level waste disposal as part of this rule.
With respect to the nonradiological impact of the uranium fuel
cycle, data concerning land requirements, water requirements, the use
of fossil fuel, gaseous effluent, liquid effluent, and tailings
solutions and solids, all listed in Table S-3, have been reviewed to
[[Page 28479]]
determine the significance of the environmental impacts of a power
reactor operating an additional 20 years. The nonradiological impacts
attributable to the relicensing of an individual power reactor are
found to be of small significance. License renewal of an individual
plant is so indirectly connected to the operation of fuel cycle
facilities that it is meaningless to address the mitigation of impacts
identified above. This is a Category 1 issue.
Table S-3 does not take into account long-term onsite storage of
LLW, mixed waste, and storage of spent fuel assemblies onsite for
longer than 10 years, nor does it take into account impacts from mixed
waste disposal. The environmental impacts of these aspects of onsite
storage are also addressed in Chapter 6 of the final GEIS and the
findings are included in the final rule in Table B-1 of appendix B to
10 CFR part 51.
Chapter 6 of the GEIS discusses the impacts of offsite disposal of
LLW and mixed waste and concludes that impacts will be small. The
conclusion that impacts will be small is based on the regulations and
regulatory programs in place (e.g., 10 CFR part 61 for LLW and 40 CFR
parts 261, 264, and 268 for hazardous waste), experience with existing
sites, and the expectation that NRC, EPA, and the States will ensure
that disposal will occur in compliance with the applicable regulations.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) made
the States responsible for the disposal of commercially generated LLW.
At present, 9 compacts have been formed, representing 42 States. The
Texas Compact (Texas, Maine, and Vermont) is pending before the U.S.
Congress.
New LLW disposal facilities in the host States of California, North
Carolina, and Texas are forecast to be operational between 1997 and
1998. Facilities in the host States of Connecticut, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York are
scheduled for operation between 1999 and 2002. Envirocare, in Utah,
takes limited types of waste from certain generators.
There are uncertainties in the licensing process and in the length
of time needed to resolve technical issues, but in NRC's view there are
no unsolvable technical issues that will inevitably preclude successful
development of new sites or other off-site disposal capacity for LLW by
the time they will be needed. For example, in California, the proposed
Ward Valley LLW disposal facility was unexpectedly delayed by the need
to resolve technical issues raised by several scientists independent of
the project after the license was issued. These issues were recently
reviewed and largely resolved by an independent review group. In North
Carolina, Texas, and Nebraska, the license application review period
has been longer than is required by the LLRWPA, but progress continues
to be made.
The State's LLW responsibilities include providing disposal
capacity for mixed LLW. Mixed waste disposal facility developers face
the same types of challenges as LLW site developers plus difficulties
with dual regulation and small volumes. However, in NRC's view there
are no technical reasons why offsite disposal capacity for all types of
mixed waste should not become available when needed. NRC and EPA have
developed guidance on the siting of mixed waste disposal facilities as
well as a conceptual design for a mixed waste disposal facility. A
disposal facility for certain types of mixed waste is operated by
Envirocare in Utah. States have begun discussions with DOE about
accepting commercial mixed waste for treatment and disposal at DOE
facilities. Although these discussions have yet to result in DOE
accepting commercial mixed waste at DOE facilities, it appears that
progress is being made toward DOE's eventual acceptance of some portion
of commercial mixed waste at its facilities.
While the NRC understands that there have been delays and that
uncertainties exist such as those just discussed, the Commission
concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient LLW and
mixed LLW disposal capacity will be made available when needed so that
facilities can be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning
requirements. This conclusion, coupled with the expected small impacts
from both storage and disposal justify classification of LLW and mixed
waste disposal as Category 1 issues.
The GEIS addresses the matter of extended onsite storage of both
LLW and mixed waste from refurbishment and operations for a renewal
period of up to 20 years. Summary data are provided and radiological
and nonradiological environmental impacts are addressed. The analysis
considers:
(1) The volumes of LLW and mixed waste that may be generated from
license renewal;
(2) Specific requirements under the existing regulatory framework;
(3) The effectiveness of the regulations in maintaining low average
doses to members of the public and to workers; and
(4) Nonradiological impacts, including land use, fugitive dust, air
quality, erosion, sedimentation, and disturbance of ecosystems.
In addition, under 10 CFR 50.59, licensees are allowed to make
changes to their facilities as discussed in the final safety analysis
report without NRC permission if the evaluation indicates that a change
in the technical specifications is not required or that an unreviewed
safety question does not exist. Licensees would have to ensure that any
new LLW activities would not represent an unreviewed safety question
for routine operations or for conditions that might arise from
potential accidents. Both onsite and offsite impacts would have to be
considered. If a LLW or mixed waste activity fails either of the two
tests in 10 CFR 50.59, a license amendment is required. Subject to the
two possible review requirements just noted, the Commission finds that
continued onsite storage of both LLW and mixed waste resulting from
license renewal will have small environmental impacts and will require
no further review within the license renewal proceeding.
The GEIS addresses extended onsite storage of spent fuel during a
renewal period of up to 20 years. The Commission has studied the safety
and environmental effects of the temporary storage of spent fuel after
cessation of reactor operation and has published a generic
determination of no significant environmental impact (10 CFR 51.23).
The environmental data on storing spent fuel onsite in a fuel pool for
10 years before shipping for offsite disposal have been assessed and
reported in NUREG-0116, ``The Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing
and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle'' (October 1976),
and published in the Commission's regulations (10 CFR 51.51).
Environmental assessments (EA) for expanding the fuel pool storage
capacity have been conducted for numerous plants. In each case, a
finding of no significant environmental impact was reached.
Radioactive exposures, waste generation, and releases were
evaluated and found to be small. The only nonradiological effluent from
waste storage is additional heat from the plant that was found to have
a negligible effect on the environment. Accidents were evaluated and
were found to have insignificant effects on the environment. Dry cask
storage at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is
another technology used to store under a general license. The
environmental impacts of allowing onsite dry cask storage under a
general license were
[[Page 28480]]
assessed in an EA and found to be insignificant. Further, the
Commission has conducted EAs for seven specific licensed ISFSIs and has
reached a finding of no significant environmental impact for each site.
Each EA addressed the impacts of construction, use, and
decommissioning. Potential impacts that were assessed include
radiological impacts, land use, terrestrial resources, water use,
aquatic resources, noise, air quality, socioeconomics, radiological
impacts during construction and routine operation, and radiological
impacts of off-normal events and accidents. Trends in onsite spent fuel
storage capacity and the volume of spent fuel that will be generated
during an additional 20 years of operation are considered in the GEIS.
Spent fuel storage capacity requirements can be adequately met by
ISFSIs without significant environmental impacts. The environmental
impacts of onsite storage of spent fuel at all plants have been
adequately assessed in the GEIS for the purposes of an environmental
review and agency decision on renewal of an operating license; thus, no
further review within the license renewal proceeding is required. This
provision is relative to the license renewal decision and does not
alter existing Commission licensing requirements specific to on-site
storage of spent fuel.
The environmental impacts from the transportation of fuel and waste
attributable to license renewal are found to be small when they are
within the range of impacts of parameters identified in Table S-4. The
estimated radiological effects are within regulatory standards. The
nonradiological impacts are those from periodic shipments of fuel and
waste by individual trucks or rail cars and thus would result in
infrequent and localized minor contributions to traffic density.
Programs designed to further reduce risk, which are already in place,
provide for adequate mitigation. Recent, ongoing efforts by the
Department of Energy to study the impacts of waste transportation in
the context of the multi-purpose canister (see, 60 FR 45147, August 30,
1995) suggest that there may be unresolved issues regarding the
magnitude of cumulative impacts from the use of a single rail line or
truck route in the vicinity of the repository to carry all spent fuel
from all plants. Accordingly, NRC declines to reach a Category 1
conclusion on this issue at this time. Table S-4 should continue to be
the basis for case-by-case evaluation of transportation impacts of fuel
and waste until such time as a detailed analysis of the environmental
impacts of transportation to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain
becomes available.
9. Accidents
Concern. Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the
appropriateness of the severe accident determination in the GEIS and
with the treatment of severe accident mitigation design alternatives
(SAMDAs) for license renewal. A group of commenters identified areas of
concern that they believe justify severe accidents being classified as
a Category 3 issue. The areas included seismic risks to nuclear power
plants and site-specific evacuation risks. Several commenters
questioned whether the analyses of the environmental impacts of
accidents were adequate to make a Category 1 determination for the
issue of severe accidents. The contention is that a bounding analysis
would be established only if plant-specific analyses were performed for
every plant, which was not the case. Instead, the GEIS analysis made
use of a single generic source term for each of the two plant types.
Response. The Commission believes that its analysis of the impacts
of severe accidents is appropriate. The GEIS provides an analysis of
the consequences of severe accidents for each site in the country. The
analysis adopts standard assumptions about each site for parameters
such as evacuation speeds and distances traveled, and uses site-
specific estimates for parameters such as population distribution and
meteorological conditions. These latter two factors were used to
evaluate the exposure indices for these analyses. The methods used
result in predictions of risk that are adequate to illustrate the
general magnitude and types of risks that may occur from reactor
accidents. Regarding site-evacuation risk, the radiological risk to
persons as they evacuate is taken into account within the individual
plant risk assessments that form the basis for the GEIS. In addition,
10 CFR Part 50 requires that licensees maintain up-to-date emergency
plans. This requirement will apply in the license renewal term as well
as in the current licensing term.
As was done in the GEIS analysis, the use of generic source terms
(one set for PWRs and another for BWRs) is consistent with the past
practice that has been used and accepted by the NRC for individual
plant Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEISs). The purpose of the
source term discussion in the GEIS is to describe whether or not new
information on source terms developed after the completion of the most
recent FEISs indicates that the source terms used in the past under-
predict environmental consequences. The NRC has concluded that analysis
of the new source term information developed over the past 10 years
indicates that the expected frequency and amounts of radioactive
release under severe accident conditions are less than that predicted
using the generic source terms. A summary of the evolution of this
research is provided in NUREG-1150, ``Severe Accident Risks: An
Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants'' (December 1990), and
its supporting documentation. Thus, the analyses performed for the GEIS
represent adequate, plant-specific estimates of the impacts from severe
accidents that would generally over-predict, rather than under-predict,
environmental consequences. Therefore, the GEIS analysis of the impacts
of severe accidents for license renewal is retained and is considered
applicable to all plants.
Based on an evaluation of the comments, the Commission has
reconsidered its previous conclusion in the draft GEIS concerning site-
specific consideration of severe accident mitigation. The Commission
has determined that a site-specific consideration of alternatives to
mitigate severe accidents will be required at the time of license
renewal unless a previous consideration of such alternatives regarding
plant operation has been included in a final environmental impact
statement or a related supplement. Because the third criterion required
to make a Category 1 designation for an issue requires a generic
consideration of mitigation, the issue of severe accidents must be
reclassified as a Category 2 issue that requires a consideration of
severe accident mitigation alternatives, provided this consideration
has not already been completed. The Commission's reconsideration of the
issue of severe accident mitigation for license renewal is based on the
Commission's NEPA regulations that require a consideration of
mitigation alternatives in its environmental impact statements (EISs)
and supplements to EISs, as well as a previous court decision that
required a review of severe mitigation alternatives (referred to as
SAMDAs) at the operating license stage. See, Limerick Ecology Action v.
NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989).
Although the Commission has considered containment improvements for
all plants pursuant to its Containment Performance Improvement (CPI)
program, which identified potential containment improvements for site-
specific consideration by licensees,
[[Page 28481]]
and the Commission has additional ongoing regulatory programs whereby
licensees search for individual plant vulnerabilities to severe
accidents and consider cost-beneficial improvements, these programs
have not yet been completed. Therefore, a conclusion that severe
accident mitigation has been generically considered for license renewal
is premature.
The Commission believes it unlikely that any site-specific
consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives for license
renewal will identify major plant design changes or modifications that
will prove to be cost-beneficial for reducing severe accident frequency
or consequences. This Commission expectation regarding severe accident
mitigation improvements is based on the analyses performed to date that
are discussed below.
The Commission's CPI program examined each of the five U.S.
containment types to determine potential failure modes, potential plant
improvements, and the cost-effectivenesses of such improvements. As a
result of this program, only a few containment improvements were found
to be potentially beneficial and were either identified for further NRC
research or for individual licensee evaluation.
In response to the Limerick decision, an NRC staff consideration of
SAMDAs was specifically included in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Limerick 1 and 2 and Comanche Peak 1 and 2 operating
license reviews, and in the Watts Bar Supplemental Final Environmental
Statement for an operating license. The alternatives evaluated in these
analyses included the items previously evaluated as part of the CPI
Program, as well as improvements identified through other risk studies
and analyses. No physical plant modifications were found to be cost-
beneficial in any of these severe accident mitigation considerations.
Only plant procedural changes were identified as being cost-beneficial.
Furthermore, the Limerick analysis was for a high-population site.
Because risk is generally proportional to the population around a
plant, this analysis suggests that other sites are unlikely to identify
significant plant modifications that are cost-beneficial.
Additionally, each licensee is performing an individual plant
examination (IPE) to look for plant vulnerabilities to internally
initiated events and a separate IPE for externally initiated events
(IPEEE). The licensees were requested to report their results to the
Commission. Seventy-eight IPE submittals were received and seventy-five
IPEEE submittals will be received, covering all operating plants in the
United States. These examinations consider potential improvements to
reduce the frequency or consequences of severe accidents on a plant-
specific basis and essentially constitute a broad search for severe
accident mitigation alternatives. The NRC staff is conducting a process
review of each plant-specific IPE submittal and IPEEE submittal. To
date, all IPE submittals have received a preliminary review by the NRC
with 46 out of 78 completed; for the IPEEE submittals, 24 of the 75 are
under review. These IPEs have resulted in a number of plant procedural
or programmatic improvements and some plant modifications that will
further reduce the risk of severe accidents.
In conclusion, the GEIS analysis of severe accident consequences
and risk is adequate, and additional plant-specific analysis of these
impacts is not required. However, because the ongoing regulatory
program related to severe accident mitigation (i.e., IPE and IPEEE) has
not been completed for all plants and consideration of severe accident
mitigation alternatives has not been included in an EIS or supplemental
EIS related to plant operations for all plants, a site-specific
consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives is required at
license renewal for those plants for which this consideration has not
been performed. The Commission expects that if these reviews identify
any changes as being cost beneficial, such changes generally would be
procedural and programmatic fixes, with any hardware changes being only
minor in nature and few in number. NRC staff considerations of severe
accident mitigation alternatives have already been completed and
included in an EIS or supplemental EIS for Limerick, Comanche Peak, and
Watts Bar. Therefore, severe accident mitigation alternatives need not
be reconsidered for these plants for license renewal.
Based on the fact that a generic consideration of mitigation is not
performed in the GEIS, a Category 1 designation for severe accidents
cannot be made. Therefore, the Commission has reclassified severe
accidents as a Category 2 issue, requiring only that alternatives to
mitigate severe accidents be considered for those plants that have not
included such a consideration in a previous EIS or supplemental EIS.
The Commission notes that upon completion of its IPE/IPEEE program, it
may review the issue of severe accident mitigation for license renewal
and consider, by separate rulemaking, reclassifying severe accidents as
a Category 1 issue.
The Commission does not intend to prescribe by rule the scope of an
acceptable consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives for
license renewal nor does it intend to mandate consideration of
alternatives identical to those evaluated previously. In general, the
Commission expects that significant efficiency can be gained by using
site-specific IPE and IPEEE results in the consideration of severe
accident mitigation alternatives. The IPEs and IPEEEs are essentially
site-specific PRAs that identify probabilities of core damage (Level 1
PRA) and include assessments of containment performance under severe
accident conditions that identify probabilities of fission product
releases (Level 2 ). As discussed in Generic Letter 88-20, ``Individual
Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities'' (November 23,
1988), one of the important goals of the IPE and IPEEE was to reduce
the overall probabilities of core damage and fission product releases
as necessary by modifying hardware and procedures to help prevent or
mitigate severe accidents.
Although Level 3 PRAs have been used in SAMDA analyses to generate
site-specific offsite dose estimates so that the cost-benefit of
mitigation alternatives could be determined, the Commission does not
believe that site-specific Level 3 PRAs are required to determine
whether an alternative under consideration will provide sufficient
benefit to justify its cost. Licensees can use other quantitative
approaches for assigning site-specific risk significance to IPE results
and judging whether a mitigation alternative provides a sufficient
reduction in core damage frequency (CDF) or release frequency to
warrant implementation. For example, a licensee could use information
provided in the GEIS analysis (exposure indices, wind frequencies, and
demographics) to translate the dominant contributors to CDF and the
large release frequencies from the IPE/IPEEE results into dose
estimates so that a cost-benefit determination can be performed. In
some instances, a consideration of the magnitude of reduction in the
site-specific CDF and release frequencies alone (i.e., no conversion to
a dose estimate) may be sufficient to conclude that no significant
reduction in off-site risk will be provided and, therefore,
implementation of a mitigation alternative is not warranted. The
Commission will review each severe accident mitigation consideration
provided by a license renewal applicant on its merits and determine
whether it
[[Page 28482]]
constitutes a reasonable consideration of severe accident mitigation
alternatives.
10. Decommissioning
Concern. Several commenters requested further clarification of the
NRC's position regarding decommissioning requirements, especially
whether the total impacts address returning the site to green field
conditions.
Response. The decommissioning chapter of the GEIS analyzes the
impact that an additional 20 years of plant operation would have on
ultimate plant decommissioning; it neither serves as the generic
analysis of the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning
nor establishes decommissioning requirements. An analysis of the
expected impacts from plant decommissioning was previously provided in
NUREG-0586, ``Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities'' (August 1988). The analysis in
the GEIS for license renewal examines the physical requirements and
attendant effects of decommissioning after a 20-year license renewal
compared with decommissioning at the end of 40 years of operation and
finds little difference in effects.
With respect to returning a site to green field condition, the
Commission defines decommissioning as the safe removal of a nuclear
facility from service, the reduction of residual contamination to a
level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use, and
termination of the license. Therefore, the question of restoring the
land to a green field condition, which would require additional
demolition and site restoration beyond addressing residual
contamination and radiological effects, is outside the current scope of
the decommissioning requirements. Moreover, consistent with the
Commission's conclusion that license renewal is not expected to affect
future decommissioning, any requirement relative to returning a site to
a green field and the attendant effects of such a requirement would
also not be affected by an additional 20 years of operation. Therefore,
the issue of returning a site to pre-construction conditions is beyond
the scope of license renewal review.
Concern. Several commenters expressed concern that, because a
residual radioactivity rule is still not in place, the LLW estimates
should be reexamined.
Response. The NRC does have criteria in place for the release of
reactor facilities to unrestricted access following decommissioning.
These include the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.86, ``Termination of
Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors'' (which provides guidance for
surface contamination), dose rate limits from gamma-emitting
radionuclides included in plant technical specifications, and
requirements for keeping residual contamination as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA) as included in 10 CFR part 20. These criteria were
used in developing NUREG-0586, the final GEIS on decommissioning of
nuclear facilities, which was published in August of 1988. One
conclusion from the analysis conducted for NUREG-0586 was that waste
volumes from decommissioning of reactors are not highly sensitive to
the radiological criteria. A proposed rule dated August 22, 1994, would
codify radiological criteria for unrestricted release of reactors and
other nuclear facilities and for termination of a facility license
following decommissioning. NUREG-1496, the draft GEIS for the proposed
rule on radiological criteria, included analyses of a range of
radiological release criteria and confirmed the earlier conclusions
that waste volumes from decommissioning of reactors are not sensitive
to the residual radiological criteria within the range likely to be
selected. This range included residual dose levels comparable to the
radiological criteria currently being used for reactor decommissioning.
Based on the insensitivity of the waste volume from reactor
decommissioning to the radiological criteria, the Commission continues
to believe, as concluded in the decommissioning section of the GEIS,
that the contribution to environmental impacts of decommissioning from
license renewal are small. The Commission further concludes that these
impacts are not expected to change significantly as a result of the
ongoing rulemaking. Therefore, the determinations in the GEIS remain
appropriate.
11. Need for Generating Capacity
Concern. In addition to the major procedural concern discussed
earlier about the treatment of need for generating capacity, several
commenters raised concerns about the power demand projections used in
the GEIS. Some commenters noted that any determination of need quickly
becomes dated and, therefore, the demand for and the source of
electrical power at the time of license renewal cannot be accurately
predicted at this time. Moreover, they believe that the NRC's analysis
is not definitive enough to remain unchallenged for 40 years. Another
commenter criticized the analysis because it focused only on energy
requirements without making appropriate distinctions between energy and
peak capacity requirements, plant availability, and capacity factors.
Response. The NRC has determined that a detailed consideration of
the need for generating capacity is inappropriate in the context of
consideration of the environmental impacts of license renewal. Thus,
the NRC will limit its NEPA review of license renewal applications to
the consideration of the environmental impacts of license renewal
compared with those of other available generating sources. Hence, the
concerns regarding demand projections used in the draft GEIS are no
longer an issue and they have been removed from the GEIS.
12. Alternatives to License Renewal
Concern. In addition to the procedural concern discussed earlier
about the treatment of alternative energy sources as a Category 1
issue, several commenters expressed concerns about the comparison and
analysis of alternative energy sources, as well as the economic
analysis approach used in the draft GEIS. Consistent with their
arguments against the Category 1 designation of alternatives, the
commenters questioned the approach adopted in the GEIS of comparing
only single alternative energy sources to license renewal. They believe
that the NRC's failure to consider a mix of alternatives ignores the
potential for other alternative sources of power that are available to
different regions of the nation, such as demand-side management,
cogeneration, purchased power from Canada, biomass, natural gas, solar
energy, and wind power. They also indicated that this approach neglects
a utility's ability to serve its customers with a portfolio of supply
that is based on load characteristics, cost, geography, and other
considerations, and fails to consider the collective impact of the
alternatives. Furthermore, the possible technological advances in
renewable energy sources over the next 40 years are not addressed.
One commenter argued that designating the issue of alternative
energy sources as Category 1 allows a license renewal applicant not to
consider the additional requirement of economic threshold analysis.
Relative to the economic analysis of the alternatives to license
renewal, another commenter questioned the proposed requirement for the
license renewal applicant to demonstrate that the ``replacement of
equivalent generating capacity by a coal-fired plant has no
demonstrated cost advantage over the individual nuclear power plant
license renewal.''
[[Page 28483]]
According to the commenter, this requirement would force the applicant
to perform an economic analysis of an alternative to license renewal.
The commenter further argued that NEPA does not require an economic
consideration.
Response. In response to these concerns, the final rule no longer
requires a cost comparison of alternative energy sources relative to
license renewal. Furthermore, the alternative energy sources discussed
in the final GEIS include energy conservation and energy imports as
well as the other sources discussed by the commenters. An analysis of
the environmental impacts of alternative energy sources is included in
the GEIS but is not codified in 10 CFR part 51.
The NRC believes that its consideration of alternatives in the GEIS
is representative of the technologies available and the associated
environmental impacts. With regard to consideration of a mix of
alternative sources, the Commission recognizes that combinations of
various alternatives may be used to replace power generation from
license renewal.
13. License Renewal Scenario
Concern. Several commenters raised concerns related to the license
renewal scenario evaluation methodology as implemented in the GEIS. The
fundamental issues were the degree of conservatism built into the
scenario and the appropriateness of an upper bound type approach in
characterizing the refurbishment activities (and associated costs) in
light of NEPA requirements to determine reasonable estimates of the
environmental impacts of Federal actions.
Regarding the concerns that the refurbishment schedules and
scenarios developed for the GEIS were too conservative, several
commenters indicated that many of the activities slated for completion
during the extended refurbishment before license renewal would actually
be completed by many facilities during the course of the current
licensing term. The effect of having only one major outage instead of
leveling work over three or four outages could lead to an over-estimate
of the refurbishment activities and costs that any particular plant
would expect to see.
Response. In response to this concern, the NRC has revised the GEIS
to include two license renewal program scenarios. The first scenario
refers to a ``typical'' license renewal program and is intended to be
representative of the type of programs that many plants seeking license
renewal might implement. The second scenario retains the original
objective of establishing an upper bound of the impacts likely to be
generated at any particular plant. The typical scenario is useful for
estimating impacts at plants that have been well maintained and have
already undertaken most major refurbishment activities necessary for
operation beyond the current licensing term. The conservative scenario
estimates continue to be useful for estimating the maximum impacts
likely to result from license renewal.
The revised approach of providing two separate license renewal
scenarios also alleviates the concern about the use of a bounding
scenario for license renewal activities. The NRC acknowledges that some
applicants for license renewal may not be required to perform certain
major refurbishment or replacement activities and, therefore, may have
fewer or shorter outages. However, the two scenarios described in the
GEIS are neither unrealistic nor overconservative in representing the
range of activities that could be expected for license renewal and the
possible schedule for performing these activities.
14. Environmental Justice
On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
12898, ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994). This order requires each Federal agency to make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority and low income populations. The Commission will
endeavor to carry out the measures set forth in the executive order by
integrating environmental justice into NRC's compliance with the
National Environmental Policy of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. E.O. 12898
was issued after publication of the proposed rule and the receipt of
comments on the proposed rule. As a result, no comments were received
regarding environmental justice reviews for license renewal. Therefore,
a brief discussion of this issue relative to license renewal is
warranted.
As called for in Section 1-102 of E.O. 12898, the EPA established a
Federal interagency working group to, among other things, ``* * *
provide guidance to Federal agencies or criteria for identifying
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations and low-income populations * * *.'' The
CEQ was assigned to provide this guidance to enable agencies to better
comply with E.O. 12898. Until the CEQ guidance is received, the
Commission intends to consider environmental justice in its evaluations
of individual license renewal applications. Greater emphasis will be
placed on discussing impacts on minority and low-income populations
when preparing NEPA documents such as EISs, supplemental EISs, and,
where appropriate, EAs. Commission requirements regarding environmental
justice reviews will be reevaluated and may be revised after receipt of
the CEQ guidance.
IV. Discussion of Regulatory Requirements
A. General Requirements
In this final rule, the regulatory requirements for performing a
NEPA review for a license renewal application are similar to the NEPA
review requirements for other major plant licensing actions. Consistent
with the current NEPA practice for major plant licensing actions, this
amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 requires the applicant to submit an
environmental report that analyzes the environmental impacts associated
with the proposed action, considers alternatives to the proposed
action, and evaluates any alternatives for reducing adverse
environmental effects. Additionally, the amendment requires the NRC
staff to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the
proposed action, issue the statement in draft for public comment, and
issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft.
The amendment deviates from NRC's current NEPA review practice in
some areas. First, the amendment codifies certain environmental impacts
associated with license renewal that were analyzed in NUREG-1437,
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal at Nuclear
Plants'' (xxxx 1996). Accordingly, absent new and significant
information, the analyses for certain impacts codified by this
rulemaking need only be incorporated by reference in an applicant's
environmental report for license renewal and in the Commission's
(including NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and the Commission itself)
draft and final SEIS and other environmental documents developed for
the proceeding. Secondly, the amendment reflects the Commission's
decision to limit its NEPA review for license renewal to a
consideration of the environmental
[[Page 28484]]
effects of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action.
Finally, the amendment contains the decision standard that the
Commission will use in determining the acceptability of the
environmental impacts of individual license renewals.
The Commission and the applicant will consider severe accident
mitigation alternatives to reduce or mitigate environmental impacts for
any plant for which severe accident mitigation alternatives have not
been previously considered in an environmental impact statement or
related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The Commission
has concluded that, for license renewal, the issues of need for power
and utility economics should be reserved for State and utility
officials to decide. Accordingly, the NRC will not conduct an analysis
of these issues in the context of license renewal or perform
traditional cost-benefit balancing in license renewal NEPA reviews.
Finally, in a departure from the approach presented in the proposed
rule, this final rule does not codify any conclusions regarding the
subject of alternatives. Consideration of and decisions regarding
alternatives will occur at the site-specific stage. The discussion
below addresses the specific regulatory requirements of this amendment
and any conforming changes to 10 CFR part 51 to implement the
Commission's decision to eliminate cost-benefit balancing from license
renewal NEPA reviews.
B. The Environmental Report
1. Environmental Impacts of License Renewal
Through this final rule, the NRC has amended 10 CFR 51.53 to
require an applicant for license renewal to submit an environmental
report with its application. This environmental report must contain an
analysis of the environmental impacts of renewing a license, the
environmental impacts of alternatives, and mitigation alternatives. In
preparing the analysis of environmental impacts contained in the
environmental report, the applicant should refer to the data provided
in appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, which has been added to NRC's
regulations as part of this rulemaking. The applicant is not required
to provide an analysis in the environmental report of those issues
identified as Category 1 issues in Table B-1 in Appendix B. For those
issues identified as Category 2 in Table B-1, the applicant must
provide a specified additional analysis beyond that contained in Table
B-1. In this final rule, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) specifies the subject
areas of the analysis that must be addressed for the Category 2 issues.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) requires the
applicant to consider possible actions to mitigate the adverse impacts
associated with the proposed action. This consideration is limited to
designated Category 2 matters. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(d), the
environmental report must include a discussion of the status of
compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental
standards. Also, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) specifically excludes from
consideration in the environmental report the issues of need for power,
the economic costs and benefits of the proposed action, economic costs
and benefits of alternatives to the proposed action, or other issues
not related to environmental effects of the proposed action and
associated alternatives. In addition, the requirements in 10 CFR 51.45
are consistent with the exclusion of economic issues in 10 CFR
51.53(c)(2).
2. Consideration of Alternatives
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) requires the
applicant to consider the environmental impacts of alternatives to
license renewal in the environmental report. The treatment of
alternatives in the environmental report should be limited to the
environmental impacts of such alternatives.
The amended regulations do not require a discussion of the economic
costs and benefits of these alternatives in the environmental report
for the operating license renewal stage except as necessary to
determine whether an alternative should be included in the range of
alternatives considered or whether certain mitigative actions are
appropriate. The analysis should demonstrate consideration of a
reasonable set of alternatives to license renewal. In preparing the
alternatives analysis, the applicant may consider information regarding
alternatives in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (xxxx 1996).
The Commission has developed a new decision standard to be applied
in environmental impact statements for license renewal as discussed in
Section IV.C.2. The amended regulations for license renewal do not
require applicants to apply this decision standard to the information
generated in their environmental report (although the applicant is not
prohibited from doing so if it desires). However, the NRC staff will
use the information contained in the environmental report in preparing
the environmental impact statement upon which the Commission will base
its final decision.
3. Consideration of Mitigation Alternatives
Consistent with the NRC's current NEPA practice, an applicant must
include a consideration of alternatives to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts in its environmental report. However, for license
renewal, the Commission has generically considered mitigation for
environmental issues associated with renewal and has concluded that no
additional site-specific consideration of mitigation is necessary for
many issues. The Commission's consideration of mitigation for each
issue included identification of current activities that adequately
mitigate impacts and evaluation of other mitigation techniques that
might or might not be warranted, depending on such factors as the size
of the impact and the cost of the technique. The Commission has
considered mitigation for all impacts designated as Category 1 in Table
B-1. Therefore, a license renewal applicant need not address mitigation
for issues so designated.
C. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
This amendment also requires that the Commission prepare a
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), consistent with 10
CFR 51.20(b)(2). This statement will serve as the Commission's
independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal as
well as a comparison of these impacts to the environmental impacts of
alternatives. This document will also present the preliminary
recommendation by the NRC staff regarding the proposed action.
Consistent with the revisions to 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.53 discussed above
in regard to the applicant's environmental report, this rulemaking
revises portions of 10 CFR 51.71 and 51.95 to reflect the Commission's
approach to addressing the environmental impacts of license renewal.
The issues of need for power, the economic costs and benefits of
the proposed action, and economic costs and benefits of alternatives to
the proposed action are specifically excluded from consideration in the
supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal by 10
CFR 51.95(c), except as these 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
supplemental
[[Page 28485]]
environmental impact statement does not need to discuss issues other
than environmental effects of the proposed action and associated
alternatives. This rule amends the requirements in 10 CFR 51.71 (d) and
(e) so that they are consistent with the exclusion of economic issues
in 10 CFR 51.95(c). Additionally, 10 CFR 51.95 has been amended to
allow information from previous NRC site-specific environmental
reviews, as well as NRC final generic environmental impact statements,
to be referenced in supplemental environmental impact statements.
1. Public Scoping and Public Comments on the SEIS
Consistent with NRC's current NEPA practice, the Commission will
hold a public meeting in order to inform the local public of the
proposed action and receive comments. In addition, the SEIS will be
issued in draft for public comment in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91 and
51.93. In both the public scoping process and the public comment
process, the Commission will accept comments on all previously analyzed
issues and information codified in Table B-1 of appendix B to 10 CFR
part 51 and will determine whether these comments provide any
information that is new and significant compared with that previously
considered in the GEIS. If the comments are determined to provide new
and significant information bearing on the previous analysis in the
GEIS, these comments will be considered and appropriately factored into
the Commission's analysis in the SEIS. Public comments on the site-
specific additional information provided by the applicant regarding
Category 2 issues will be considered in the SEIS.
2. Commission's Analysis and Preliminary Recommendation
The Commission's draft SEIS will include its analysis of the
environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal action and the
environmental impacts of the alternatives to the proposed action. With
the exception of offsite radiological impacts for collective effects
and the disposal of spent fuel and high level waste, the Commission
will integrate the codified environmental impacts of license renewal as
provided in Table B-1 of appendix B to 10 CFR part 51 (supplemented by
the underlying analyses in the GEIS), the appropriate site-specific
analyses of Category 2 issues, and any new issues identified during the
scoping and public comment process. The results of this integration
process will be utilized to arrive at a conclusion regarding the sum of
the environmental impacts associated with license renewal. These
impacts will then be compared, quantitatively or qualitatively as
appropriate, with the environmental impacts of the considered
alternatives. The analysis of alternatives in the SEIS will be limited
to the environmental impacts of these alternatives and will be prepared
in accordance with 10 CFR 51.71 and subpart A of appendix A to 10 CFR
part 51. The analysis of impacts of alternatives provided in the GEIS
may be referenced in the SEIS as appropriate. The alternatives
discussed in the GEIS include a reasonable range of different methods
for power generation. The analysis in the draft SEIS will consider
mitigation actions for designated Category 2 matters and will consider
the status of compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental
requirements as required by 10 CFR 51.71(d). Consistent with 10 CFR
51.71(e), the draft supplemental environmental impact statement must
contain a preliminary recommendation regarding license renewal based on
consideration of the information on the environmental impacts of
license renewal and of alternatives contained in the SEIS. In order to
reach its recommendation, the NRC staff must determine whether the
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that
preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This decision standard is
contained in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4).
3. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
The Commission will issue a final supplemental environmental impact
statement for a license renewal application in accordance with 10 CFR
51.91 and 51.93 after considering the public comments related to new
issues identified from the scoping and public comment process, Category
2 issues, and any new and significant information regarding previously
analyzed and codified Category 1 issues. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102 and
51.103, the Commission will provide a record of its decision regarding
the environmental impacts of the proposed action. In making a final
decision, the Commission must determine whether the adverse
environmental impacts of license renewal (when compared with the
environmental impacts of other energy generating alternatives) are so
great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
D. NEPA Review for Activities Outside NRC License Renewal Approval
Scope
The Commission wishes to clarify that any activity that requires
NRC approval and is not specifically required for NRC's action
regarding management of the effects of aging on certain passive long-
lived structures and components in the period of extended operation
must be subject to a separate NEPA review. The actions subject to NRC
approval for license renewal are limited to continued operation
consistent with the plant design and operating conditions for the
current operating license and to the performance of specific activities
and programs necessary to manage the effects of aging on the passive,
long-lived structures and components identified in accordance with 10
CFR part 54. Accordingly, the GEIS does not serve as the NEPA review
for other activities or programs outside the scope of NRC's part 54
license renewal review. The separate NEPA review must be prepared
regardless of whether the action is necessary as a consequence of
receiving a renewed license, even if the activity were specifically
addressed in the GEIS. For example, the environmental impacts of spent
fuel pool expansion are addressed in the GEIS in the context of the
environmental consequences of approving a renewed operating license,
rather than in the context of a specific application to expand spent
fuel pool capacity, which would require a separate NEPA review.
These separate NEPA reviews may reference and otherwise use
applicable environmental information contained in the GEIS. For
example, an EA prepared for a separate spent fuel pool expansion
request may use the information in the GEIS to support a finding of no
significant impact.
V. Availability of Documents
The principal documents supporting this supplementary information
are as follows:
(1) NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996).
(2) NUREG-1529, ``Public Comments on the Proposed 10 CFR part 51
Rule for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses and
Supporting Documents; Review of Concerns and NRC Staff Response'' (May
1996).
(3) NUREG-1440, ``Regulatory Analysis of Amendments to Regulations
Concerning the Environmental Review
[[Page 28486]]
for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses'' (May 1996).
Copies of all documents cited in the supplementary information are
available for inspection and for copying for a fee in the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. In
addition, copies of NRC final documents cited here may be purchased
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
PO Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available for
purchase from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
VI. Submittal of Comments in an Electronic Format
Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original
paper copy, a copy of their letter in an electronic format on IBM PC
DOS-compatible 3.5- or 5.25-inch, double-sided, double-density (DS/DD)
diskettes. Data files should be provided in Wordperfect 5.1 or later
version of Wordperfect. ASCII code is also acceptable or, if formatted
text is required, data files should be provided in IBM Revisable-Form
Text Document Content Architecture (RFT/DCA) format.
VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action
described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore,
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been prepared for this regulation. This action is
procedural in nature and pertains only to the type of environmental
information to be reviewed.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget, approval number 3150-0021.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 4,200 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records
Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at
BJS[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0021), Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
IX. Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis for this final
rule. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives
considered by the Commission. The two alternatives considered were:
(A) Retaining the existing 10 CFR part 51 review process for
license renewal, which requires that all reviews be on a plant-specific
basis; and
(B) Amending 10 CFR part 51 to allow a portion of the environmental
review to be conducted on a generic basis.
The conclusions of the regulatory analysis show substantial cost
savings of alternative (B) over alternative (A). The analysis, NUREG-
1440, is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120
L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Copies of the analysis are
available as described in Section V.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final
rule states the application procedures and environmental information to
be submitted by nuclear power plant licensees to facilitate NRC's
obligations under NEPA. Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall
within the definition of small businesses as defined in Section 3 of
the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Commission's Size
Standards, April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18344).
XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, 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 OMB.
XII. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that these amendments do not involve any
provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1); therefore, a backfit analysis need not be prepared.
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; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following
amendments to 10 CFR part 51.
PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, Sec. 1701, 106
Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,
5842).
Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041.
Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued
under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec.
148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161,
10168). Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as
amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141).
Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42
U.S.C. 10134(f)).
2. Section 51.45 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.45 Environmental report.
* * * * *
(c) Analysis. The environmental report shall include an analysis
that considers and balances the environmental effects of the proposed
action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed
action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse
environmental effects. Except for environmental reports prepared at the
license renewal stage pursuant to Sec. 51.53(c), the analysis in the
environmental report should also
[[Page 28487]]
include consideration of the economic, technical, and other benefits
and costs of the proposed action and of alternatives. Environmental
reports prepared at the license renewal stage pursuant to Sec. 51.53(c)
need not discuss the economic or technical benefits and costs of either
the proposed action or alternatives 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, environmental reports prepared pursuant to
Sec. 51.53(c) need not discuss other issues not related to the
environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives. The
analyses for environmental reports shall, to the fullest extent
practicable, quantify the various factors considered. To the extent
that there are important qualitative considerations or factors that
cannot be quantified, those considerations or factors shall be
discussed in qualitative terms. The environmental report should contain
sufficient data to aid the Commission in its development of an
independent analysis.
* * * * *
3. Section 51.53 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.53 Postconstruction environmental reports.
(a) General. Any environmental report prepared under the provisions
of this section may incorporate by reference any information contained
in a prior environmental report or supplement thereto that relates to
the production or utilization facility or any information contained in
a final environmental document previously prepared by the NRC staff
that relates to the production or utilization facility. Documents that
may be referenced include, but are not limited to, the final
environmental impact statement; supplements to the final environmental
impact statement, including supplements prepared at the license renewal
stage; NRC staff-prepared final generic environmental impact
statements; and environmental assessments and records of decisions
prepared in connection with the construction permit, the operating
license, and any license amendment for that facility.
(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 the number of copies specified in
Sec. 51.55 of 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 Secs. 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, or of any aspect of the storage of
spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic
determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b) is
required in this report.
(c) Operating license renewal stage. (1) Each applicant for renewal
of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under part 54 of this
chapter shall submit with its application the number of copies
specified in Sec. 51.55 of a separate document entitled ``Applicant's
Environmental Report--Operating License Renewal Stage.''
(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action,
including the applicant's plans to 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
modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant
effluents that affect the environment. 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. In
addition, the environmental report need not discuss any aspect of the
storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic
determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b).
(3) For those applicants seeking an initial renewal license and
holding either an operating license or construction permit as of June
30, 1995, the environmental report shall include the information
required in paragraph (c)(2) of this section subject to the following
conditions and considerations:
(i) The environmental report for the operating license renewal
stage is not required to contain analyses of the environmental impacts
of the license renewal issues identified as Category 1 issues in
appendix B to subpart A of this part.
(ii) The environmental report must contain analyses of the
environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the impacts of
refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal and
the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues
identified as Category 2 issues in appendix B to subpart A of this
part. The required analyses are as follows:
(A) If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling
ponds and withdraws make-up water from a river whose annual flow rate
is less than 3.15 x 1012 ft3/year (9 x 1010 m3/
year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the flow
of the river and related impacts on instream and riparian ecological
communities must be provided. The applicant shall also provide an
assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on
alluvial aquifers during low flow.
(B) If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or
cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a
copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) determinations and, if
necessary, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or
equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant
can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the
proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat
shock and impingement and entrainment.
(C) If the applicant's plant uses Ranney wells or pumps more than
100 gallons of ground water per minute, an assessment of the impact of
the proposed action on ground-water use must be provided.
(D) If the applicant's plant is located at an inland site and
utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of the impact of the proposed
action on groundwater quality must be provided.
(E) All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment and other license-renewal-related construction activities
on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant
shall assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or
[[Page 28488]]
endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
(F) If the applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment
or maintenance area, an assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions
anticipated at the time of peak refurbishment workforce must be
provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as amended.
(G) If the applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or
discharges into a river having an annual average flow rate of less than
3.15 x 1012 ft3/year (9 x 1010 m3/year), an
assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from
thermophilic organisms in the affected water must be provided.
(H) If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for
the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system
do not meet the recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code
for preventing electric shock from induced currents, an assessment of
the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from
the transmission lines must be provided.
(I) An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on housing
availability, land-use, and public schools (impacts from refurbishment
activities only) within the vicinity of the plant must be provided.
Additionally, the applicant shall provide an assessment of the impact
of population increases attributable to the proposed project on the
public water supply.
(J) All applicants shall assess the impact of the proposed project
on local transportation during periods of license renewal refurbishment
activities.
(K) All applicants shall assess whether any historic or
archaeological properties will be affected by the proposed project.
(L) If the staff has not previously considered severe accident
mitigation alternatives for the applicant's plant in an environmental
impact statement or related supplement or in an environmental
assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe
accidents must be provided.
(M) The environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste
shall be reviewed in accordance with Sec. 51.52.
(iii) The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for
reducing adverse impacts, as required by Sec. 51.45(c), for all
Category 2 license renewal issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of this
part. No such consideration is required for Category 1 issues in
Appendix B to Subpart A of this part.
(iv) The environmental report must contain any new and significant
information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
which the applicant is aware.
(d) Postoperating license stage. Each applicant for a license
amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a production or
utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20 and each applicant for a
license or license amendment to store spent fuel at a nuclear power
plant after expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power
plant shall submit with its application the number of copies specified
in Sec. 51.55 of a separate document entitled ``Supplement to
Applicant's Environmental Report--Post Operating License Stage.'' This
supplement will update ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental
Report--Operating License Stage'' and ``Applicant's Environmental
Report--Operating License Renewal 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. Unless otherwise required by the Commission, in accordance
with the generic determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and the provisions in
Sec. 51.23(b), the applicant shall address only the environmental
impact of spent fuel storage for the term of the license.
4. In Sec. 51.55, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.55 Environmental report--number of copies; distribution.
(a) Each applicant for a license to construct and operate a
production or utilization facility covered by paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) of Sec. 51.20, each applicant for renewal of
an operating license for a nuclear power plant, each applicant for a
license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a production or
utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20, and each applicant for a
license or license amendment to store spent fuel at a nuclear power
plant after expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power
plant shall submit to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation or the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, as appropriate, 41 copies of an environmental report or any
supplement to an environmental report. The applicant shall retain an
additional 109 copies of the environmental report or any supplement to
the environmental report for distribution to parties and Boards in the
NRC proceedings; Federal, State, and local officials; and any affected
Indian tribes, in accordance with written instructions issued by the
Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of
the Office Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 51.71, paragraphs (d) and (e) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.71 Draft environmental impact statement--contents.
* * * * *
(d) Analysis. The draft environmental impact statement will include
a preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental
effects of the proposed action; the environmental impacts of
alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for
reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. Except for
supplemental environmental impact statements for the operating license
renewal stage prepared pursuant to Sec. 51.95(c), draft environmental
impact statements should also include consideration of the economic,
technical, and other benefits and costs of the proposed action and
alternatives and indicate what other interests and considerations of
Federal policy, including factors not related to environmental quality
if applicable, are relevant to the consideration of environmental
effects of the proposed action identified pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section. Supplemental environmental impact statements prepared at
the license renewal stage pursuant to Sec. 51.95(c) need not discuss
the economic or technical benefits and costs of either the proposed
action or alternatives 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 su
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.