Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 51

RIN 3150-AD63

Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating

Licenses

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations

on the environmental review of applications to renew the operating

licenses of nuclear power plants to make minor clarifying and

conforming changes and add language inadvertently omitted from Table B-

1 of the rulemaking published June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467). This final

rule also presents an analysis of the comments received and the staff

responses to the comments requested in the final rule published June 5,

1996. After reviewing the comments received, the NRC has determined

that no substantive changes to the final rule are warranted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule shall be effective on January 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of comments received and all documents cited in the

supplementary information section of 61 FR 28467 may be examined at the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW, (Lower Level) Washington,

DC, between the hours of 7:45 am and 4:15 pm 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

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 a nuclear power

plant operating license for up to an additional 20 years. The final

rule containing these amendments was published in the Federal Register

on June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467). The amendments are based on the analyses

reported in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996). At several stages

in the development of the rule the Commission sought public comment by

means of notices in the Federal Register and public workshops. The

history of this rulemaking is summarized in the June 5, 1996 notice (61

FR 28469). Prior to the final rule becoming effective, the Commission

believed it appropriate to seek comments on 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. In a supplemental notice published on July

18, 1996 (61 FR 37351), the Commission extended the comment period for

these issues to August 5, 1996, and indicated that the final rule would

become effective on September 5, 1996, absent notice from the

Commission to the contrary. The Commission has reviewed the comments

submitted and finds no need to amend the substantive provisions of the

rule.

This final rule amends the June 5, 1996 rule with minor

nonsubstantive changes. The changes are: addition of five Ground-water

Use and Quality issues inadvertently left out of Table B-1 in the June

5, 1996 notice (see, 61 FR 29278, July 29, 1996); minor conforming

changes to reflect recent amendments to Secs. 51.53 and 51.95 effected

by a separate rulemaking (``Decommissioning of Nuclear Power

Reactors,'' July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39278)); substitution of one sentence

under Findings for the issue ``Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel

and high-level waste disposal)'' in Table B-1, in order to more

accurately represent a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

regulatory position; a word substitution in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M),

in order to clarify the information on the environmental effect of

transportation of fuel and waste to and from a nuclear power plant that

is to be submitted with a license renewal application; and minor

clarifying changes to the text in Table B-1 concerning chronic effects

of electromagnetic fields.

II. Analysis of Public Comments

A. Commenters.

In response to the Federal Register notice for the final rule

published on June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), 11 organizations and 1 private

citizen submitted written comments. The 11 organizations included the

EPA; the States of Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont; the Nuclear

Energy Institute, and 6 licensees. Commenters expressed concerns about

specific aspects of the rule and several commenters referred to

material in NUREG-1437 which they believe to be inaccurate or

ambiguous. Other than one State, the commenters expressed that the rule

should be revised to address their concerns. The seven commenters from

the nuclear power industry stated that their concerns should be

addressed by supplemental rulemaking and should not delay the effective

date of the rule as published in 61 FR 28467. The Commission assumes

that EPA, two States, and the private individual intend for their

concerns to be addressed by revising the final rule and final GEIS now

rather than by supplemental rulemaking. These specific concerns and how

and when they should be resolved are addressed below.

B. Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal, and Cumulative Radiological

Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

Comment. The two commenting States expressed concern over the

prospect of long-term storage of high-level waste (HLW) at reactor

sites. One State also expressed concern over the prospect of long-term

storage of low-level waste (LLW) at reactor sites. This State believes

that ``the Commission should establish a policy which would condition

license renewal to a resolution of radioactive waste disposal issues.''

One State believes that provisions in NRC's regulations for addressing

significant new information and the 10-year cycle for reviewing the

continued appropriateness of the conclusions codified by the rule are

not adequate with respect to the issues of on-site storage and disposal

of HLW; and, therefore, site-specific environmental review should be

required for these issues, i.e., these issues should be designated

Category 2. A third State believes that a Category 1 designation is

appropriate for these issues, i.e., findings for the issue codified in

the rule may be adopted in site-specific license renewal reviews,

[[Page 66538]]

and supports the provision in the rule for periodic evaluation of these

issues.

Response. As stated at 61 FR 28477, the Commission acknowledges

that there is uncertainty in the schedule of availability of disposal

facilities for LLW and HLW. The Commission understands the continuing

concern of the States and of the public over the prospects for timely

development of waste disposal facilities. The uncertainty in the

schedule of availability of disposal facilities is especially of

concern because of the waste currently being generated during the

initial licensing term of power reactors. The Commission, however,

continues to believe that there is sufficient understanding of and

experience with the storage of LLW and HLW to conclude that the waste

generated at any plant as a result of license renewal can be stored

safely and without significant environmental impacts prior to permanent

disposal. The Commission believes that conditioning individual license

renewal decisions on resolution of radioactive waste disposal issues is

not warranted because the Commission has already made a generic

determination, codified in 10 CFR 51.23, that spent fuel generated at

any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental

impacts for at least 30 years beyond a license renewal term and that

there will be a repository available within the first quarter of the

twenty-first century. The waste confidence decision is discussed in

Chapter 6 of NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal for Nuclear Plants,'' May 1996. The Commission

similarly believes that enough is known regarding the effects of

permanent disposal to reach the generic conclusion in the rule. The

rule is not based on the assumption that Yucca Mountain will be

licensed. Also from a regulatory policy perspective, the Commission

disagrees with the view of one state that each renewal applicant should

come forward with an analysis of the HLW storage and disposal

environmental effects. This is a national problem of essentially the

same degree of complexity and uncertainty for every renewal application

and it would not be useful to have a repetitive reconsideration of the

matter.

The Commission further believes that the provisions in the present

rule and elsewhere in the Commission's regulations adequately provide

for the introduction and consideration of new significant information

in license renewal reviews, and that the 10 year review cycle for the

rule and the GEIS adequately provides for Commission reassessment of

the status of LLW and HLW disposal programs. The Commission recognizes

that the possibility of significant unexpected events remains open.

Consequently, the Commission will review its conclusions on these waste

findings should significant and pertinent unexpected events occur (see

also, 49 FR 34658 (August 31, 1984)). In view of the Commission's

favorable conclusions regarding prospects for safe and environmentally

acceptable waste disposal, it sees no need for conditioning licenses as

recommended. The Category 1 designations for these three issues [low-

level waste storage and disposal, offsite radiological impacts (spent

fuel and high-level waste disposal), and on-site spent fuel] in the

final rule has not been changed in response to these comments.

Comment. Six industry organizations specifically commented on the

treatment of the LLW and HLW issues in 61 FR 28467 and in the GEIS.

Except for the treatment of the environmental impacts of transportation

of radiological material to and from the plant, the industry commenters

agree with the Commissions findings on waste issues. Transportation

(radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts) is designated

Category 2 in the final rule. This designation requires some additional

review of the environmental impacts of transportation.

The industry commenters argue that the requirements for the review

of transportation impacts for license renewal described in the final

rule are unclear, and that there are good reasons to change the

transportation issue from a Category 2 to a Category 1 designation. The

requirements for the review of transportation issues in the final rule

were found by the commenters to be unclear with respect to (1) the use

and legal status of 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, in the plant-specific

license renewal review; (2) the conditions that must be met before an

applicant may adopt Table S-4; and (3) the extent to which the

``generic'' effects of transporting spent fuel to a high-level waste

repository should be considered in a plant-specific license renewal

review. In addition, several commenters suggested that DOE should have

the responsibility of considering the cumulative environmental impacts

from transportation.

Response. The Commission does not believe that changes to the rule

in response to industry comments are warranted at this time. However,

in order to clarify the rule's requirements, the following guidance is

provided on the issue of transportation impacts. As a result of this

rulemaking, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) requires applicants to review the

environmental effects of transportation in accordance with Sec. 51.52

(Table S-4) and to discuss the generic and cumulative impacts

associated with transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of a

high-level waste repository site. The candidate site at Yucca Mountain

should be used for the purpose of impact analysis as long as that site

is under consideration for licensing. The amendments to 10 CFR Part 51

in this rulemaking do not alter the existing provisions of Sec. 51.52.

If an applicant's reactor meets all the conditions in Sec. 51.52(a) the

applicant may use the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel

and waste to and from the reactor set forth in Summary Table S-4 to

characterize the transportation impacts from the renewal of its

license. However, because Table S-4 does not take into account the

generic and cumulative (including synergistic) impacts of

transportation infrastructure construction and operation in the

vicinity of the Yucca Mountain repository site, such information would

have to be provided by these applicants.

For reactors not meeting the conditions of Sec. 51.52(a), the

applicant must provide a full description and detailed analysis of such

environmental effects associated with transportation in accordance with

Sec. 51.52(b). Industry commenters pointed out that the conditions in

paragraph (a) are not likely to be satisfied by many plants now using

higher burn-up fuel. In such cases, applicants may incorporate in their

analysis the discussion presented in the GEIS in Section 6.2.3

``Sensitivity to Recent Changes in the Fuel Cycle,'' and Section 6.3

``Transportation.'' This category of applicants also would have to

consider the generic and cumulative impacts of transportation operation

in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain repository site. These impacts

may be attributed to an individual plant on a reactor-year basis.

As part of its efforts to develop regulatory guidance for this

rule, the Commission will consider whether further changes to the rule

are desirable to generically address: (1) The issue of cumulative

transportation impacts and (2) the implications that the use of higher

burn-up fuel have for the conclusions in Table S-4. After consideration

of these issues, the Commission will determine whether the issue of

transportation impacts should be changed to Category 1.

As to the NRC's duty to consider the cumulative transportation

impacts of license renewal, the Commission

[[Page 66539]]

continues to believe that such analysis is appropriate. The fact that

DOE rather than an applicant will have title to spent-fuel and high-

level waste when it is transported to a repository and that ultimately

DOE must consider the environmental impacts of transportation does not

relieve the Commission of the responsibility under the National

Environmental Policy Act to consider the impacts of transportation in

its environmental review for renewal of an operating license.

Finally, regarding the attribution of transportation impacts

between the initial operating license and the renewed license, the

allocation of environmental data in Sec. 51.51 and environmental

impacts in Sec. 51.52 on the bases of a reference reactor year sets the

precedence for allocating generic (common) impacts.

Comment. EPA states that the discussion of the radiological impacts

of the uranium fuel cycle (61 FR 28478) requires clarification

regarding the collective effects, over time, on human populations.

Response. The Commission believes that the discussion adequately

summarizes the potential collective health impacts of the uranium fuel

cycle. The following is provided to clarify the specific elements of

that discussion. First, an estimate is provided of the 100-year dose

commitment to the U. S. population and the estimated cancer fatalities

from the uranium fuel cycle that are attributable to each 20-year

license renewal. It is then explained that much of the dose to

individuals is ``tiny'' and is attributed to radon releases from mines

and tailing piles. Second, it is explained that the dose calculation

could be extended to cover populations outside of the U. S. over

thousands of years, and that such a calculation would estimate

thousands of cancer fatalities. Third, the uncertainty that would be

involved in this computation and the conservative nature of the

estimates of fatalities are discussed. Views of the scientific

community about the possible overestimation of fatalities resulting

from the assumptions used are developed in Appendix E, Section E.4.1,

of the GEIS. Finally, the discussion points out that no standards exist

that can be used to reach a conclusion as to the significance of the

magnitude of the collective radiological health effects.

Comment. EPA maintains that natural background radiation should not

be used comparatively to judge the significance of additional doses of

radiation.

Response. The statement referred to by EPA (61 FR 28478), is

intended to provide perspective only on the magnitude of the additional

dose, not on its significance.

Comment. EPA believes that the GEIS is unclear as to whether

occupational doses are measured as the dose received by the average

worker or the maximally exposed worker. The NRC should clarify what

significance these two distinct measures have with respect to the NRC's

regulatory regime for reactor licensing.

Response. Occupational dose limits and the requirement to achieve

exposures which are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) are

codified in the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. The dose

limits and measured doses correspond to the individual. However, the

overall effectiveness of the licensee's ALARA programs are reflected by

the average doses received by the population of workers. A detailed

discussion of the Commission's radiation protection limits and

protection measures is provided in Appendix E of the GEIS. These

regulations apply to license renewal activities. The estimates in the

GEIS of occupational doses due to license renewal assume continued

compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, including both the dose limits and the

ALARA requirement.

Comment. EPA disagrees with the Commission's definition of

``small'' relative to radiological impacts. The Commission's definition

is, ``For the purpose 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.'' EPA points out

that the Commission's regulations permit an upper limit that would

exceed the range of 10E-6 to 10E-4, established under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, for negligibly

small lifetime risk. EPA believes that risks falling above this range

should not be designated as small or insignificant.

Response. The definition of ``small'' used for assessing

radiological impacts in the GEIS is not synonymous with ``negligibly

small,'' which implies that an impact is so insignificant as to be

unworthy of consideration. The Commission promotes licensee programs to

bring doses below the regulatory limits to ``as low as reasonably

achievable'' (ALARA) through its regulations, 10 CFR 50.36(a), Appendix

I to 10 CFR Part 50, and provisions in 10 CFR Part 20. Because ALARA

programs continue to be effective, actual doses are far below the

regulatory limits, limits that represent a small risk. As the

Commission's dose limits are based on radiation protection standards

established by interagency committees and reflects international

scientific consensus on the adequacy of protection standards, the

Commission chooses to define radiological risk resulting from these

standards as being ``small.''

Comment. EPA takes issue with the Commission's assumptions, in

Section 6.2.2.2 of the GEIS, about regulatory limits for off-site

releases of radionuclides for the candidate repository at Yucca

Mountain. EPA stated that the Commission should not presume that EPA

will adopt the National Academy of Science recommendation regarding a

100 millirem annual dose limit. Further, EPA believes that the GEIS

should assume a smaller dose limit as a more conservative bounding

estimate, consistent with the stated objective of Table S-3 to

represent the worst case or bounding estimate of the potential release

from the uranium fuel cycle [GEIS page 6-1].

Response. The Commission does not assume that EPA will adopt a 100

millirem annual dose limit. The discussion in Section 6.2.2.2 is clear

that this limit is recommended by the Academy as a starting point for

consideration, and that there is some measure of consensus among

national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction

of the 100 mrem/year. At this time, the Commission is not prepared to

speculate as to what the final limit will be.

Comment. EPA states: ``The NRC has mis-stated the Agency's

expectations regarding the performance of a high-level waste

repository, and in doing so has used an inappropriate benchmark for its

discussion of acceptable doses to the general public from the disposal

of reactor fuel. Table B-1 * * * states that EPA's cumulative release

limits (from 40 CFR Part 191) are based on a population impact goal of

1,000 premature cancer deaths in the first 10,000 years after closure

of a repository. The table mistakenly equates EPA's standard for

releases from a high-level waste repository--an extreme upper limit

that would result in 1,000 premature cancer deaths--with EPA's goal or

expectation for the performance of such repositories. EPA stated in the

promulgation of its high-level waste regulation that a repository for

100,000 metric tonnes of reactor fuel would cause between 10 and 100

such deaths, on the assumption that the repository complies with the

NRC's enforceable requirements for engineered barriers

[[Page 66540]]

found at 10 CFR Part 60. The Commission should not use 1,000 fatal

cancers as a benchmark for repository performance and instead should

consider the Agency's stated expectation that a well-constructed, well-

sited repository should out-perform this level by ten or one-hundred-

fold. The same discussion appears in Section 6.2.2.2 of the GEIS on

page 6-20 and should also be corrected there.''

Response. The Commission agrees that referring to 1,000 premature

cancer deaths as an EPA population ``impact goal'' is misleading. Until

final repository release standards are promulgated and health impact

estimates are available, the Commission will continue to use 1,000

premature cancer deaths in the first 10,000 years after closure of a

repository as an upper bound estimate of cumulative health effects. The

following sentence has been substituted in the rule for the one with

which EPA disagrees: ``Repository performance standards that will be

required by EPA are expected to result in releases and associated

health consequences in the range between 10 and 100 premature cancer

deaths with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide

for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.''

Comment. EPA states: ``The NRC has not adequately justified certain

assumptions regarding its analysis of risks from the disposal of spent

nuclear (reactor) fuel in the high-level waste repository at Yucca

Mountain. The NRC asserts that analyses in the GEIS of health effects

from disposal of reactor fuel need not extend beyond 1,000 years,

though NRC's own regulations for high-level waste disposal, found at 10

CFR Part 60, contain explicit numerical requirements on releases

occurring after the first 1,000 years. An analysis extending over a

longer period of time would be more appropriate, such as for 10,000

years as required in EPA's high-level waste standard applicable to

sites other than Yucca Mountain.''

Response. This comment refers to an NRC staff response (found at

NUREG-1529, page C7-3) to a comment made by an EPA participant in the

NRC Public Workshop to Discuss License Renewal, held in Arlington,

Virginia, November 4 and 5, 1991 (Session 4, page 26). The EPA

participant pointed out that in the discussion of the uranium fuel

cycle in the draft GEIS, NRC provided estimates of population dose

commitments from open-pit uranium mines and stabilized tailings piles

for 100, 500 and 1,000 years, but didn't provide long-term estimates

for other long-lived materials. The commenter went on to point out that

in the case of the high-level waste repository these calculations are

carried out for 10,000 years, although in his view a calculation of

impact should be carried until there is no more impact. The staff

response to this comment is intended to point out that the likely

radiological impacts attributable to any one nuclear power plant's HLW

generated as a result of license renewal are uncertain and are unlikely

to be significantly altered by consideration of the impacts that may be

attributable to the period from 1,000 to 10,000 years. The basis for

the evaluation of the environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle

for the renewal of an operating license is 10 CFR 51.51--Table S-3, as

supplemented with an evaluation of the contribution of Radon-222 and

Technetium-99 to the environmental impact of the fuel cycle. The

environmental data in Table S-3 and discussion of associated

environmental impacts is expressed on the basis of a reference reactor

year of operation. Discussion of fuel cycle impacts has been further

supplemented in the final GEIS with available information on the status

of regulatory requirements and studies on the possible performance of

the candidate high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

C. Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives

Comment. Three industry commenters disagreed with the designation

of severe accidents as Category 2 in the final rule and the requirement

that severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) must be

addressed by the applicant and staff if SAMDAs had not previously been

addressed in a staff environmental document for the plant. They noted

that efforts to analyze severe accident vulnerabilities and the

opportunities to mitigate the vulnerabilities will be completed for all

plants in the near future. These analyses will provide the bases for a

generic finding on SAMDAs for all plants, including the designation of

Category 1 for severe accidents. One commenter proposed that a generic

Category 1 finding could be made that consideration of SAMDAs is not

required for any plant that has a completed Individual Plant

Examination (IPE) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events

(IPEEE).

Response. It is stated at 61 FR 28481 that upon completion of its

IPE/IPEEE program, the Commission may review the issue of severe

accident mitigation for license renewal and consider, by separate

rulemaking, reclassifying severe accidents as a Category 1 issue.

Completion of an IPE and IPEEE in itself is not sufficient to fulfill

the Commission's responsibility under the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA). SAMDA alternatives must be addressed within an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or supplement to an EIS, or an

Environmental Assessment. The Commission believes that this can be most

efficiently accomplished generically through a supplement to the GEIS

and rule amendment based on Commission review of all IPEs and IPEEEs.

Prior to successful completion of such a rulemaking an applicant will

have to submit a SAMDA alternatives analysis, based on its IPE and

IPEEE (if available), in its environmental report. Then the Commission

will review that analysis in a supplemental EIS for the plant.

D. Electromagnetic Fields (Chronic Effects)

Comment. Four industry commenters disagreed with the treatment of

chronic health effects of transmission line electromagnetic fields. The

rule contains the finding that the magnitude of effects is uncertain.

No finding is made in the rule as to whether this issue is a Category 1

or Category 2. The commenters note that no submittal is required of an

applicant for this issue until such time as the Commission finds that a

consensus has been reached by the appropriate Federal health agencies

that there are adverse health effects. The commenters believe that the

number of scientific studies performed over a long period of time which

could find no harmful effects is adequate disclosure under the NEPA to

designate this issue Category 1. It is suggested that an alternative to

a Category 1 designation is rewording Footnote 5 to Table B-1 in the

rule to state in a more positive manner that there is no scientific

evidence of chronic biological effects on humans and that this issue

will not be admitted as a contention in any hearing on a renewal

application. One commenter believes that this issue is not related to

refurbishment activities and thus should not be addressed in the

context of license renewal.

Response. The Commission is not inclined at this time to change the

rule relative to the treatment of the chronic human health effects of

transmission line electromagnetic fields. The Commission recognizes

that biological and physical studies of electromagnetic fields have not

found consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures

and that much of the scientific evidence and many experts in the field

arguably would support a

[[Page 66541]]

Category 1 determination for this issue. However, the Commission also

recognizes that research is continuing in this area, and that a

scientific consensus on the issue has not yet emerged. Consequently,

the Commission believes that a more conservative position on the matter

is appropriate at this time. With respect to concern that nonproductive

litigation of this issue will take place in license renewal hearings,

it should be noted that because of the intensive scrutiny given to this

issue within the scientific community, any contention will have to meet

scientific standards for admission.

E. Environmental Justice

Comment. Comments about the treatment of environmental justice in

the rule were offered by EPA and two licensees. EPA stated that as the

Commission further defines its environmental justice requirements it

should consider the draft guidance issued by the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) on May 24, 1996, and the draft guidance

issued by EPA on July 12, 1996. The licensees believe that the rule

should include provisions for the treatment of environmental justice

that take into consideration that most environmental impacts of

relicensing nuclear plants have been found to be small and whether

there is any benefit in conducting an environmental justice review for

an already sited facility.

Response. The Commission is aware of the CEQ and EPA draft guidance

on the treatment of environmental justice in NEPA reviews. This

guidance is being considered as the Commission proceeds with developing

its own requirements for the treatment of environmental justice in NEPA

reviews. As these requirements are developed, the Commission will

consider whether it is appropriate to take a generic rather than a

site-specific approach to this issue for license renewal reviews.

F. Supplemental Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement Versus

Environmental Assessment

Comment. A licensee disagrees with the Commission's decision that a

supplemental EIS will be prepared for license renewal reviews rather

than a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) as proposed in the

proposed rule. The licensee believes that environmental reviews will

show that there will be no significant environmental impact for a

number of license renewal applicants, and therefore preparation of an

environmental assessment should be allowed under the final rule.

Response. Several considerations led to the Commission's decision

to require a supplemental EIS in license renewal reviews. The proposed

rule and supporting GEIS would have included a preliminary conclusion

of a favorable cost-benefit balance. The function of an EA would have

been to consider the impacts associated with a limited set of

environmental issues and whether these impacts would overturn the

favorable preliminary cost-benefit finding in the GEIS and codified in

the rule. Because there was a possibility that the impacts for the

limited set of environmental issues would be found to be nonexistent or

insignificant (no significant impacts), use of an EA was provided for

in the proposed rule. In addition, a finding of no significant impact

and the supporting EA may be issued in draft for comment at the

discretion of the appropriate NRC staff director. The proposed rule was

challenged with respect to preliminary cost-benefit findings and

procedural hurdles to public input to the license renewal review. To

resolve these concerns, the Commission modified the rule to eliminate

the preliminary license renewal finding and to make that finding only

after consideration of all impacts within the plant-specific review.

The Commission believes that the sum of all the individual impacts that

are to be considered in the decision whether to renew a nuclear power

plant operating license for an additional 20 years, especially given

the controversy over various aspects of nuclear power, exceeds the

Commission's threshold for a finding of no significant impact. This and

the desire to ensure public access to the license renewal review

process led to the requirement of a supplemental EIS for license

renewal.

G. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Comment. EPA questions the definition of the ``proposed action''

within the context of the discussion of purpose and need at 61 FR

28472.

Response. The definition of ``purpose and need'' is to be applied

to the ``proposed action'' of renewal of a nuclear power plant

operating license. It does not refer to and should not be confused with

the purpose of the GEIS, which is given in the GEIS, Section 1.1

Purpose of the GEIS.

H. Alternatives

Comment. A individual believes that the rule appears to contradict

the Limerick Ecology Action decision, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989). The

commenter states that this decision ``* * * requires the environmental

review to look at non-nuclear design alternatives in context of severe

accidents including non-nuclear alternatives.'' The commenter proceeds

to express concern that the analysis of alternatives consider

``efficiency and conservation'' and that sites considered for

alternatives not be limited geographically because of the ability to

wheel power over long distances. Finally, the individual objects to

eliminating utility economics from the environmental review because

``The real world reason to extend an operating license is that of

utility economics.''

Response. The Limerick decision was concerned with the

consideration of design mitigation alternatives specifically for the

Limerick plant, not with ``non-nuclear design alternatives.'' With

respect to the commenters concerns about the treatment of alternatives

to license renewal, the Commission believes that the final GEIS and

rule adequately accommodate these concerns. The consideration of

alternative energy sources in individual license renewal reviews will

consider those alternatives that are reasonable for the region,

including power purchases from outside the applicant's service area.

Also, in assessing the environmental impacts of new generating capacity

it will not necessarily be assumed that the capacity would be

constructed on the site under review. Finally, consideration of the

economic merits of renewing a plant operating license is eliminated

only from the Commission's decision whether to renew. The decision

about the economic merits of continued operation of a nuclear power

plant will be made by the owners and the State regulators.

III. Procedural Background

Because this rule makes only minor clarifying and conforming

changes and adds language inadvertently omitted from Table B-1 of the

rulemaking published June 5, 1996, and because public comments were

solicited on that rulemaking the NRC is approving this rule without

seeking public comments on proposed amendments. As such, pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Commission for good cause finds that a notice and

comment procedure is unnecessary for this rulemaking.

IV. 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

[[Page 66542]]

prepared for this regulation. This action is procedural in nature and

pertains only to the type of environmental information to be reviewed.

V. 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.

VI. Regulatory Analysis

The regulatory analysis prepared for the final rule published June

5, 1996 (61 FR 28467) is unchanged 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.

VII. 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).

VIII. 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, Office of Management and Budget.

IX. 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 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:

[[Page 66543]]

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 3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x1010m3/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 (total onsite) 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

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

3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x1010m3/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)

[[Page 66544]]

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. The review of impacts

shall also discuss the generic and cumulative impacts associated with

transportation operation in the vicinity of a high-level waste

repository site. The candidate site at Yucca Mountain should be used

for the purpose of impact analysis as long as that site is under

consideration for licensing.

(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 decommissioning activities for a production or

utilization facility either for unrestricted use or based on continuing

use restrictions applicable to the site; and each applicant for a

license amendment approving a license termination plan or

decommissioning plan under Sec. 50.82 of this chapter either for

unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to

the site; and each applicant for a license or license amendment to

store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the

operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit with its

application the number of copies, as specified in Sec. 51.55, of a

separate document, entitled ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental

Report--Post Operating License Stage,'' which will update ``Applicant's

Environmental Report--Operating License Stage,'' as appropriate, to

reflect any new information or significant environmental change

associated with the applicant's proposed decommissioning activities or

with the applicant's proposed activities with respect to the planned

storage of spent fuel. 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 only address the

environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the term of the license

applied for. The ``Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report--Post

Operating License Stage'' may incorporate by reference any information

contained in ``Applicants Environmental Report--Construction Permit

Stage.

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.

* * * * *

6. 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 supplemental environmental impact

statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other

issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action

and associated alternatives. The draft supplemental environmental

impact statement for license renewal prepared pursuant to Sec. 51.95(c)

will rely on conclusions as amplified by the supporting information in

the GEIS for issues designated as Category 1 in Appendix B to subpart A

of this part. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement

must contain an analysis of those issues identified as Category 2 in

Appendix B to subpart A of this part that are open for the proposed

action. The analysis for all draft environmental impact statements

will, 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, these

considerations or factors will be discussed in qualitative terms. Due

consideration will be given to compliance with environmental quality

standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State,

regional, and local agencies having

[[Page 66545]]

responsibility for environmental protection, including applicable

zoning and land-use regulations and water pollution limitations or

requirements promulgated or imposed pursuant to the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act. The environmental impact of the proposed action

will be considered in the analysis with respect to matters covered by

such standards and requirements irrespective of whether a certification

or license from the appropriate authority has been obtained.3

While satisfaction of Commission standards and criteria pertaining to

radiological effects will be necessary to meet the licensing

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the analysis will, for the

purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological effects of the proposed

action and alternatives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Compliance with the environmental quality standards and

requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (imposed by

EPA or designated permitting states) is not a substitute for and

does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all environmental

effects of the proposed action, including the degradation, if any,

of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed

action that are available for reducing adverse effects. Where an

environmental assessment of aquatic impact from plant discharges is

available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the

assessment in its determination of the magnitude of environmental

impacts for striking an overall cost-benefit balance at the

construction permit and operating license stages, and in its

determination of 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 at

the license renewal stage. When no such assessment of aquatic

impacts is available from the permitting authority, NRC will

establish on its own or in conjunction with the permitting authority

and other agencies having relevant expertise the magnitude of

potential impacts for striking an overall cost-benefit balance for

the facility at the construction permit and operating license

stages, and in its determination of 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 at the license renewal stage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Preliminary recommendation. The draft environmental impact

statement normally will include a preliminary recommendation by the NRC

staff respecting the proposed action. This preliminary recommendation

will be based on the information and analysis described in paragraphs

(a) through (d) of this section and Secs. 51.75, 51.76, 51.80, 51.85,

and 51.95, as appropriate, and will be reached after considering the

environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable

alternatives,4 and, except for supplemental environmental impact

statements for the operating license renewal stage prepared pursuant to

Sec. 51.95(c), after weighing the costs and benefits of the proposed

action. In lieu of a recommendation, the NRC staff may indicate in the

draft statement that two or more alternatives remain under

consideration.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The consideration of reasonable alternatives to a proposed

action involving nuclear power reactors (e.g., alternative energy

sources) is intended to assist the NRC in meeting its NEPA

obligations and does not preclude any State authority from making

separate determinations with respect to these alternatives and in no

way preempts, displaces, or affects the authority of States or other

Federal agencies to address these issues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. In Section 51.75, redesignate footnote 4 as footnote 5.

7. Section 51.95 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 51.95 Postconstruction environmental impact statements.

(a) General. Any supplement to a final environmental impact

statement or any environmental assessment prepared under the provisions

of this section may incorporate by reference any information contained

in a final environmental document previously prepared by the NRC staff

that relates to the same 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 operating

license stage; NRC staff-prepared final generic environmental impact

statements; environmental assessments and records of decisions prepared

in connection with the construction permit, the operating license, and

any license amendment for that facility. A supplement to a final

environmental impact statement will include a request for comments as

provided in Sec. 51.73.

(b) Initial operating license stage. In connection with the

issuance of an operating license for a production or utilization

facility, the NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the final

environmental impact statement on the construction permit for that

facility, which will update the prior environmental review. The

supplement will only cover matters that differ from the final

environmental impact statement or that reflect significant new

information concerning matters discussed in the final environmental

impact statement. Unless otherwise determined by the Commission, a

supplement on the operation of a nuclear power plant will not include a

discussion of need for power, or of alternative energy sources, or of

alternative sites, or of any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for

the nuclear power plant within the scope of the generic determination

in Sec. 51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b), and will only be

prepared in connection with the first licensing action authorizing

full-power operation.

(c) Operating license renewal stage. In connection with the renewal

of an operating license for a nuclear power plant under part 54 of this

chapter, the Commission shall prepare an EIS, which is a supplement to

the Commission's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996) which is available

in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower Level)

Washington, DC..

(1) The supplemental environmental impact statement for the

operating license renewal stage shall address those issues as required

by Sec. 51.71. In addition, the NRC staff must comply with 40 CFR

1506.6(b)(3) in conducting the additional scoping process as required

by Sec. 51.71(a).

(2) The supplemental environmental impact statement for license

renewal is not required to include discussion of need for power or the

economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or of

alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and

costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion

of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant

to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental impact

statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other

issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action

and the alternatives, or 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). The analysis of

alternatives in the supplemental environmental impact statement should

be limited to the environmental impacts of such alternatives and should

otherwise be prepared in accordance with Sec. 51.71 and Appendix A to

subpart A of this part.

(3) The supplemental environmental impact statement shall be issued

as a final impact statement in accordance with Secs. 51.91 and 51.93

after considering any significant new information relevant to the

proposed action contained in the supplement or incorporated by

reference.

(4) The supplemental environmental impact statement must contain

the NRC staff's recommendation regarding the environmental

acceptability of the license renewal action. In order to make its

recommendation and final conclusion on the proposed action, the NRC

staff, adjudicatory officers, and Commission shall integrate the

[[Page 66546]]

conclusions, as amplified by the supporting information in the generic

environmental impact statement for issues designated Category 1 (with

the exception of offsite radiological impacts for collective effects

and the disposal of spent fuel and high level waste) or resolved

Category 2,information developed for those open Category 2 issues

applicable to the plant in accordance with Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii), and

any significant new information. Given this information, the NRC staff,

adjudicatory officers, and Commission shall determine whether or not

the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

(d) Postoperating license stage. In connection with the amendment

of an operating license authorizing decommissioning activities at a

production or utilization facility covered by Sec. 51.20, either for

unrestricted use or based on continuing use restrictions applicable to

the site, or with the issuance, amendment or renewal of a license to

store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the

operating license for the nuclear power reactor, the NRC staff will

prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the post

operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate,

which will update the prior environmental review. The supplement or

assessment may incorporate by reference any information contained in

the final environmental impact statement-operating license stage, or in

the records of decision prepared in connection with the construction

permit or the operating license for that facility. The supplement will

include a request for comments as provided in Sec. 51.73. Unless other

wise required by the Commission in accordance with the generic

determination in Sec. 51.23(a) and the provisions of Sec. 51.23(b), a

supplemental environmental impact statement for the post operating

license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, will

address the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage only for the

term of the license, license amendment or license renewal applied for.

8. In Sec. 51.103, paragraph (a)(3) is revised and paragraph (a)(5)

is added to read as follows:

Sec. 51.103 Record of decision--General.

(a) * * *

(3) Discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant

factors, including economic and technical considerations where

appropriate, the NRC's statutory mission, and any essential

considerations of national policy, which were balanced by the

Commission in making the decision and state how these considerations

entered into the decision.

* * * * *

(5) In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant

to Part 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or

not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great

that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

* * * * *

9. In Appendix A to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 redesignate

footnotes 5 through 8 as footnotes 1 through 4.

10. Paragraph 4 of Appendix A to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is

revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart A--Format for Presentation of Material in

Environmental Impact Statements

* * * * *

4. Purpose of and need for action.

The statement will briefly describe and specify the need for the

proposed action. The alternative of no action will be discussed. In

the case of nuclear power plant construction or siting,

consideration will be given to the potential impact of conservation

measures in determining the demand for power and consequent need for

additional generating capacity.

* * * * *

11. Appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is revised to read as

follows:

Appendix B to Subpart A--Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating

License of a Nuclear Power Plant

The Commission has assessed the environmental impacts associated

with granting a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant

to a licensee who holds either an operating license or construction

permit as of June 30, 1995. Table B-1 summarizes the Commission's

findings on the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of

renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant as required

by section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

as amended. Table B-1, subject to an evaluation of those issues

identified in Category 2 as requiring further analysis and possible

significant new information, represents the analysis of the

environmental impacts associated with renewal of any operating

license and is to be used in accordance with Sec. 51.95(c). On a 10-

year cycle, the Commission intends to review the material in this

appendix and update it if necessary. A scoping notice must be

published in the Federal Register indicating the results of the

NRC's review and inviting public comments and proposals for other

areas that should be updated.

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible during

quality. refurbishment because best management practices are

expected to be employed to control soil erosion and

spills.

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water 1 SMALL. Water use during refurbishment will not

use. increase appreciably or will be reduced during plant

outage.

Altered current patterns at intake and 1 SMALL. Altered current patterns have not been found to

discharge structures. be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and

are not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

Altered salinity gradients................. 1 SMALL. Salinity gradients have not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

[[Page 66547]]

Altered thermal stratification of lakes.... 1 SMALL. Generally, lake stratification has not been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and is not expected to be a problem during the

license renewal term.

Temperature effects on sediment transport 1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a

capacity. problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 1 SMALL. Scouring has not been found to be a problem at

most operating nuclear power plants and has caused

only localized effects at a few plants. It is not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

Eutrophication............................. 1 SMALL. Eutrophication has not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides.... 1 SMALL. Effects are not a concern among regulatory and

resource agencies, and are not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor 1 SMALL. Effects are readily controlled through NPDES

chemical spills. permit and periodic modifications, if needed, and are

not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

Discharge of other metals in waste water... 1 SMALL. These discharges have not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants with

cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have

been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They

are not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

Water use conflicts (plants with once- 1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a

through cooling systems). problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-

through heat dissipation systems.

Water use conflicts (plants with cooling 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concern at

ponds or cooling towers using make-up nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants

water from a small river with low flow). with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian

communities near these plants could be of moderate

significance in some situations. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refurbishment.............................. 1 SMALL. During plant shutdown and refurbishment there

will be negligible effects on aquatic biota because

of a reduction of entrainment and impingement of

organisms or a reduced release of chemicals.

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments 1 SMALL. Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern

or biota. at a few nuclear power plants but has been

satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy

condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is

not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

Entrainment of phytoplankton and 1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton

zooplankton. has not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

Cold shock................................. 1 SMALL. Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at

operating nuclear plants with once-through cooling

systems, has not endangered fish populations or been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is

not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish.... 1 SMALL. Thermal plumes have not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

Distribution of aquatic organisms.......... 1 SMALL. Thermal discharge may have localized effects

but is not expected to effect the larger geographical

distribution of aquatic organisms.

Premature emergence of aquatic insects..... 1 SMALL. Premature emergence has been found to be a

localized effect at some operating nuclear power

plants but has not been a problem and is not expected

to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)... 1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small

number of operating nuclear power plants with once-

through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily

mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at

operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge...... 1 SMALL. Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one

nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling

system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not

been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is

not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

Losses from predation, parasitism, and 1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be

disease among organisms exposed to a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are

sublethal stresses. not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

[[Page 66548]]

Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g., 1 SMALL. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been

shipworms). satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power

plant with a once-through cooling system where

previously it was a problem. It has not been found to

be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with

cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected

to be a problem during the license renewal term.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of entrainment

life stages. are small at many plants but may be moderate or even

large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-

pond cooling systems. Further, ongoing efforts in the

vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations

may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to

intake effects during the license renewal period,

such that entrainment studies conducted in support of

the original license may no longer be valid. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

Impingement of fish and shellfish.......... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of impingement

are small at many plants but may be moderate or even

large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-

pond cooling systems. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

Heat shock................................. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Because of continuing

concerns about heat shock and the possible need to

modify thermal discharges in response to changing

environmental conditions, the impacts may be of

moderate or large significance at some plants. See

Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 1 SMALL. Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a

life stages. problem at operating nuclear power plants with this

type of cooling system and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

Impingement of fish and shellfish.......... 1 SMALL. The impingement has not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants with this

type of cooling system and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

Heat shock................................. 1 SMALL. Heat shock has not been found to be a problem

at operating nuclear power plants with this type of

cooling system and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground-water Use and Quality

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impacts of refurbishment on ground-water 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering during the original

use and quality. construction on some sites will not be repeated

during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant wastes

produced during refurbishment will be handled in the

same manner as in current operating practices and are

not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

Ground-water use conflicts (potable and 1 SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected

service water; plants that use 100 gpm). nearby ground-water users. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).

Ground-water use conflicts (plants using 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conflicts may

cooling towers withdrawing make-up water result from surface water withdrawals from small

from a small river). water bodies during low flow conditions which may

affect aquifer recharge, especially if other ground-

water or upstream surface water users come on line

before the time of license renewal. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).

Ground-water use conflicts (Ranney wells).. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Ranney wells can result in

potential ground-water depression beyond the site

boundary. Impacts of large ground-water withdrawal

for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants

using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of

application for license renewal. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).

Ground-water quality degradation (Ranney 1 SMALL. Ground-water quality at river sites may be

wells). degraded by induced infiltration of poor-quality

river water into an aquifer that supplies large

quantities of reactor cooling water. However, the

lower quality infiltrating water would not preclude

the current uses of ground water and is not expected

to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Ground-water quality degradation (saltwater 1 SMALL. Nuclear power plants do not contribute

intrusion). significantly to saltwater intrusion.

Ground-water quality degradation (cooling 1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may

ponds in salt marshes). degrade ground-water quality. Because water in salt

marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for plants

located in salt marshes.

[[Page 66549]]

Ground-water quality degradation (cooling 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle

ponds at inland sites). cooling ponds may degrade ground-water quality. For

plants located inland, the quality of the ground

water in the vicinity of the ponds must be shown to

be adequate to allow continuation of current uses.

See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrestrial Resources

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refurbishment impacts...................... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Refurbishment impacts are

insignificant if no loss of important plant and

animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known

whether important plant and animal communities may be

affected until the specific proposal is presented

with the license renewal application. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).

Cooling tower impacts on crops and 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or

ornamental vegetation. increased humidity associated with cooling tower

operation have not been found to be a problem at

operating nuclear power plants and are not expected

to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Cooling tower impacts on native plants..... 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or

increased humidity associated with cooling tower

operation have not been found to be a problem at

operating nuclear power plants and are not expected

to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Bird collisions with cooling towers........ 1 SMALL. These collisions have not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 SMALL. Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial

resources. ecological resources are considered to be of small

significance at all sites.

Power line right-of-way management (cutting 1 SMALL. The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on

and herbicide application). wildlife are expected to be of small significance at

all sites.

Bird collision with power lines............ 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be of small

significance at all sites.

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora 1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic

and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been

honeybees, wildlife, livestock). identified. Such effects are not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

Floodplains and wetland on power line right 1 SMALL. Periodic vegetation control is necessary in

of way. forested wetlands underneath power lines and can be

achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No

significant impact is expected at any nuclear power

plant during the license renewal term.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Threatened or endangered species........... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant

refurbishment and continued operation are not

expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered

species. However, consultation with appropriate

agencies would be needed at the time of license

renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered

species are present and whether they would be

adversely affected. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Quality

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air quality during refurbishment (non- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Air quality impacts from

attainment and maintenance areas). plant refurbishment associated with license renewal

are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust

emissions could be cause for concern at locations in

or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The

significance of the potential impact cannot be

determined without considering the compliance status

of each site and the numbers of workers expected to

be employed during the outage. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F).

Air quality effects of transmission lines.. 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is

insignificant and does not contribute measurably to

ambient levels of these gases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Use

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Onsite land use............................ 1 SMALL. Projected onsite land use changes required

during refurbishment and the renewal period would be

a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and

would involve land that is controlled by the

applicant.

Power line right of way.................... 1 SMALL. Ongoing use of power line right of ways would

continue with no change in restrictions. The effects

of these restrictions are of small significance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human Health

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiation exposures to the public during 1 SMALL. During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents

refurbishment. would result in doses that are similar to those from

current operation. Applicable regulatory dose limits

to the public are not expected to be exceeded.

[[Page 66550]]

Occupational radiation exposures during 1 SMALL. Occupational doses from refurbishment are

refurbishment. expected to be within the range of annual average

collective doses experienced for pressurized-water

reactors and boiling-water reactors. Occupational

mortality risk from all causes including radiation is

in the mid-range for industrial settings.

Microbiological organisms (occupational 1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be

health). controlled by continued application of accepted

industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker

exposures.

Microbiological organisms (public 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. These organisms are not

health)(plants using lakes or canals, or expected to be a problem at most operating plants

cooling towers or cooling ponds that except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes,

discharge to a small river). or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without

site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the

effects generically. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).

Noise...................................... 1 SMALL. Noise has not been found to be a problem at

operating plants and is not expected to be a problem

at any plant during the license renewal term.

Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Electrical shock resulting

(electric shock). from direct access to energized conductors or from

induced charges in metallic structures have not been

found to be a problem at most operating plants and

generally are not expected to be a problem during the

license renewal term. However, site-specific review

is required to determine the significance of the

electric shock potential at the site. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H).

Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects \5\ \4\ NA UNCERTAIN. Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz

electromagnetic fields have not found consistent

evidence linking harmful effects with field

exposures. However, research is continuing in this

area and a consensus scientific view has not been

reached.\5\

Radiation exposures to public (license 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public will continue at

renewal term). current levels associated with normal operations.

Occupational radiation exposures (license 1 SMALL. Projected maximum occupational doses during the

renewal term). license renewal term are within the range of doses

experienced during normal operations and normal

maintenance outages, and would be well below

regulatory limits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socioeconomics

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Housing impacts............................ 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Housing impacts are

expected to be of small significance at plants

located in a medium or high population area and not

in an area where growth control measures that limit

housing development are in effect. Moderate or large

housing impacts of the workforce associated with

refurbishment may be associated with plants located

in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth

control measures that limit housing development. See

Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Public services: public safety, social 1 SMALL. Impacts to public safety, social services, and

services, and tourism and recreation. tourism and recreation are expected to be of small

significance at all sites.

Public services: public utilities.......... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. An increased problem with water

shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of

moderate significance on public water supply

availability. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Public services, education (refurbishment). 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Most sites would experience

impacts of small significance but larger impacts are

possible depending on site- and project-specific

factors. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Public services, education (license renewal 1 SMALL. Only impacts of small significance are

term). expected.

Offsite land use (refurbishment)........... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. Impacts may be of moderate

significance at plants in low population areas. See

Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Offsite land use (license renewal term).... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Significant changes in land

use may be associated with population and tax revenue

changes resulting from license renewal. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Public services, Transportation............ 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transportation impacts are

generally expected to be of small significance.

However, the increase in traffic associated with the

additional workers and the local road and traffic

control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or

large significance at some sites. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).

Historic and archaeological resources...... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant

refurbishment and continued operation are expected to

have no more than small adverse impacts on historic

and archaeological resources. However, the National

Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency

to consult with the State Historic Preservation

Officer to determine whether there are properties

present that require protection. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K).

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment).......... 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during

refurbishment.

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term)... 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the

license renewal term.

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines 1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the

(license renewal term). license renewal term.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66551]]

Postulated Accidents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Design basis accidents..................... 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the

environmental impacts of design basis accidents are

of small significance for all plants.

Severe accidents........................... 2 SMALL. The probability weighted consequences of

atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of

water, releases to ground water, and societal and

economic impacts from severe accidents are small for

all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe

accidents must be considered for all plants that have

not considered such alternatives. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offsite radiological impacts (individual 1 SMALL. Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have

effects from other than the disposal of been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of

spent fuel and high level waste). this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts

on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid

releases including radon-222 and technetium-99 are

small.

Offsite radiological impacts (collective 1 The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S.

effects). population from the fuel cycle, high level waste and

spent fuel disposal is calculated to be about 14,800

person 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 doses projected 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.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, 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 collective effects of the fuel

cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel 1 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal

and high level waste disposal). component of the fuel cycle, there are no current

regulatory limits for offsite 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, ``Technical Bases for Yucca

Mountain Standards,'' and that in accordance with the

Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23,

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 NAS 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 annual dose limit

is about 310-3.

[[Page 66552]]

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.

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 standards in 40 CFR part 191

protect the population by imposing ``containment

requirements'' that limit the cumulative amount of

radioactive material released over 10,000 years.

Reporting performance standards that will be required

by EPA are expected to result in releases and

associated health consequences in the range between

10 and 100 premature cancer deaths with an upper

limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for

a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, 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.

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel 1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel

cycle. cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating

license for any plant are found to be small.

Low-level waste storage and disposal....... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are

in place and the low public doses being achieved at

reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the

environment will remain small during the term of a

renewed license. The maximum additional on-site land

that may be required for low-level waste storage

during the term of a renewed license and associated

impacts will be small. Nonradiological impacts on air

and water will be negligible. The radiological and

nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term

disposal of low-level waste from any individual plant

at licensed sites are small. In addition, the

Commission concludes that there is reasonable

assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal

capacity will be made available when needed for

facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC

decommissioning requirements.

Mixed waste storage and disposal........... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the

facilities and procedures that are in place ensure

proper handling and storage, as well as negligible

doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public

and the environment at all plants. License renewal

will not increase the small, continuing risk to human

health and the environment posed by mixed waste at

all plants. The radiological and nonradiological

environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed

waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are

small. In addition, the Commission concludes that

there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed

waste disposal capacity will be made available when

needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent

with NRC decommissioning requirements.

On-site spent fuel......................... 1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent

fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be

safely accommodated on site with small environmental

effects through dry or pool storage at all plants if

a permanent repository or monitored retrievable

storage is not available.

Nonradiological waste...................... 1 SMALL. No changes to generating systems are

anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and

procedures are in place to ensure continued proper

handling and disposal at all plants.

[[Page 66553]]

Transportation............................. 2 Table S-4 of this Part contains an assessment of

impact parameters to be used in evaluating

transportation effects in each case. See Sec.

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decommissioning

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiation doses............................ 1 SMALL. Doses to the public will be well below

applicable regulatory standards regardless of which

decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses

would increase no more than 1 man-rem caused by

buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the

license renewal term.

Waste management........................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license

renewal period would generate no more solid wastes

than at the end of the current license term. No

increase in the quantities of Class C or greater than

Class C wastes would be expected.

Air quality................................ 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are

expected to be negligible either at the end of the

current operating term or at the end of the license

renewal term.

Water quality.............................. 1 SMALL. The potential for significant water quality

impacts from erosion or spills is no greater whether

decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license

renewal period or after the original 40-year

operation period, and measures are readily available

to avoid such impacts.

Ecological resources....................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning after either the initial

operating period or after a 20-year license renewal

period is not expected to have any direct ecological

impacts.

Socioeconomic impacts...................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning would have some short-term

socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would not be

increased by delaying decommissioning until the end

of a 20-year relicense period, but they might be

decreased by population and economic growth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Justice

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental justice \6\.................. \4\ NA NONE. The need for and the content of an analysis of

environmental justice will be addressed in plant-

specific reviews.\6\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996).

\2\ The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:

Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or,

for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site

characteristic;

(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for

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.

Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that

one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is

required.

\3\ The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the

significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ``small,'' may be

negligible. The definitions of significance follow:

SMALL--For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing

radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in

the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table.

MODERATE--For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,

important attributes of the resource.

LARGE--For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important

attributes of the resource.

For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in

determining significance.

\4\ NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.

\5\ If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached

by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the

Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their

license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit

information on this issue.

\6\ Environmental Justice was not addressed in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' because guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 issued on February 11,

1994, was not available prior to completion of NUREG-1437. This issue will be addressed in individual license

renewal reviews.

[[Page 66554]]

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96-31945 Filed 12-17-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P