Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its

regulations on the environmental information required in applications

to renew the operating licenses of nuclear power plants. This amendment

expands the generic findings about the environmental impacts due to

transportation of fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power

plant. Specifically, this amendment adds to findings concerning the

cumulative environmental impacts of convergence of spent fuel shipments

on a single destination, rather than multiple destinations, and the

environmental impact of transportation of higher enriched and higher

burnup spent fuel during the renewal term. The effect of this amendment

is to permit the NRC to make a generic finding regarding the impacts so

that an analysis of these impacts will not have to be repeated for each

individual license renewal application. This action reduces the

regulatory burden on applicants for license renewal by replacing

individual plant operating license renewal reviews with a generic

review of these topics. Also, this amendment incorporates rule language

to be consistent with the findings in NUREG-1437, ``Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants''

(May 1996), which addresses local traffic impacts attributable to

continued operation of the nuclear power plant during the license

renewal term.

In analyzing the environmental impact of transporting spent fuel

and waste in the vicinity of a single repository, the NRC evaluated the

impact in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and specifically the impacts

in the vicinity of Las Vegas, NV. The NRC elected to evaluate the

impacts in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain because Yucca Mountain is the

only location currently being evaluated for a repository under the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The NRC's analysis of the impacts in the

vicinity of Yucca Mountain in this instance does not prejudge the

eventual licensing of Yucca Mountain as a repository. Rather, it

reflects NRC's existing license renewal process by reflecting current

repository activities and policies. If an application is filed by the

Department of Energy (DOE), the licensing process for a repository in

the vicinity of Yucca Mountain will constitute an entirely separate

regulatory action from the proposed final rule. Furthermore, if, based

on technical or national policy considerations, some site other than

Yucca Mountain is selected in the future for study as a repository, the

NRC will evaluate the applicability of the generic environmental impact

statement for the license renewal process to other proposed repository

sites.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3903; e-mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), the Commission published in the

Federal Register a final rule amending 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

rulemaking was based on the analyses reported in the final report of

NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS) (May 1996). The rulemaking drew on

the considerable experience of operating nuclear power plants in order

to generically assess many of the environmental impacts, so that

repetitive reviews of issues whose impacts are well understood could be

minimized. In the statement of considerations accompanying the final

rule, the Commission stated that before the final rule became

effective, the Commission was seeking comments on the treatment of low-

level waste (LLW) storage and disposal impacts, the cumulative

radiological effects from the uranium fuel cycle, and the effects from

the disposal of high-level waste (HLW) and spent fuel. In response to

the June 5, 1996, final rule, a number of commentors stated that the

requirements for the review of transportation of HLW in the rule were

unclear with respect to (1) the use and legal status of 10 CFR 51.52,

``Table S-4-- Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste

To and From One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor,'' in plant-

specific license renewal reviews; (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 HLW repository

should be considered in a plant-specific license renewal review.

After considering the comments received on the rule, the Commission

republished the rule in the Federal Register on December 18, 1996 (61

FR 66537). The rule at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) continued to require,

``The environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste shall

be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.52.'' However, in response to

comments received, the following requirement was added:

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 as a representative site for the

purpose of impact analysis as long as that site is under

consideration for licensing.

Also in response to the comments, the Commission stated that:

As part of its effort 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 burnup 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 1.1

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

\1\ In NUREG-1437 and in the rule, Category 1 issues are those

environmental issues for which the analysis and findings have been

determined to be applicable to all nuclear power plants or to plants

with specific types of cooling systems or other common plant or site

characteristics. Absent new information that significantly changes

the finding, these generic findings may be adopted in plant license

renewal reviews. Category 2 issues are those that analysis has shown

that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met and,

therefore, additional plant-specific review is required.

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

In SECY-97-279, titled ``Generic and Cumulative Environmental

Impacts of Transportation of High-Level Waste (HLW) in the Vicinity of

a HLW Repository,'' dated December 3, 1997, the NRC staff informed the

Commission that it was the staff's preliminary view that its

supplemental analyses of the generic and cumulative impacts of the

transportation of HLW and of the implications of higher burnup fuel for

transportation impacts support a reasonable technical and legal

determination that transportation of HLW is a Category 1 issue and may

be generically adopted in a license renewal application. In a Staff

Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated January 13,

[[Page 48497]]

1998, the Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with rulemaking

to amend 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) to categorize the impacts of

transportation of HLW as a Category 1 issue. In a memorandum dated July

1, 1998, the NRC staff informed the Commission of its plans for

amending 10 CFR part 51.

In that memorandum the NRC staff also proposed, as an

administrative amendment, to address local traffic impacts attributable

to continued operation of the plant during the license renewal term.

This issue was identified as a Category 2 issue in NUREG-1437, Section

4.7.3.2 and the overall issue of transportation was designated as

Category 2 in the rule (see 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1, ``Public Services, Transportation''). However, the specific

issue of local transportation impacts during the renewal term was

inadvertently omitted from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and its inclusion

in Table B-1 is not explicitly stated. The basic transportation concern

identified in NUREG-1437 is the potential adverse contribution of a

larger plant work force to traffic flow in the vicinity of the power

plant.

To address the above issues, the Commission issued proposed

amendments to 10 CFR part 51 on February 26, 1999 (64 FR 9884), and

provided a public comment period of 60 days. The supplemental analysis,

which supports this rule, is reported in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum

1, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3--`Transportation,' Table 9.1

`Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear

power plants,' Final Report.'' The draft for comment was published in

February 1999 and the final report is expected to be published in

August 1999.

The public comment period closed on April 27, 1999. Extensive

public comments were received, including concerns by some commentors

about the length of the comment period. Although the NRC did not extend

the public comment period, the NRC staff did consider comments dated as

late as June 25, 1999, and received as late as early July 1999. The NRC

staff's responses to the comments are provided below. As explained in

more detail below, the comments have led to both the use of more

conservative assumptions in the analysis reported in Addendum 1 and a

fuller explanation of the analysis. The regulatory text has been edited

for clarification but there is no material change from the proposed

rule.

Discussion

Relationship of This Rulemaking to Repository Licensing

The NRC is promulgating this rule in order to meet its National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities to consider the

environmental impact of its license renewal decisions. In 1996 (61 FR

28467 and 61 FR 66537), the NRC published a rule that codified

conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal (see

10 CFR part 51, Appendix B to subpart A). The amendment issued in the

present Notice constitutes a relatively small addition to those

previously published conclusions. In particular, as discussed above,

this amendment ensures among other things that the NRC has considered

the likely impacts of transporting spent fuel generated during the

license renewal period over a single transportation corridor in the

vicinity of a waste repository.

Because the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada currently represents the

most likely candidate for a repository, the NRC has used that site as a

representative site for its analysis in lieu of considering

transportation to an unspecified, hypothetical site. The decision to

use Yucca Mountain for the purposes of the current analysis, however,

in no way increases or decreases the likelihood that Yucca Mountain

will in fact be licensed as a repository for the nation's high level

waste. Instead, it simply provides the NRC with the information it

needs to gauge the potential impacts from licensing nuclear power

plants for an additional 20 year period. If an application is filed by

the Department of Energy (DOE), the licensing process for a repository

in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain will constitute an entirely separate

regulatory action from this final rule. Any NRC decision on a

repository license will be accompanied by separate safety and

environmental analyses that will include a thorough examination of the

environmental impacts stemming from the construction and operation of

the repository. If the analyses prepared for the repository licensing

decision yield results that are inconsistent with those reached in the

present notice, it is likely that the NRC will have to amend the

conclusions in Table B-1 of Part 51 to conform with the new findings.

Amendments to the Rule

The current regulations require each applicant for license renewal

to review the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste

in accordance with 10 CFR 51.52, and to discuss the generic and

cumulative impacts associated with transportation in the vicinity of

the candidate HLW repository site at Yucca Mountain (see 10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M)). The NRC staff has performed a generic assessment

of these cumulative impacts, which is reported in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1,

Addendum 1. The analysis focused on Clark County, Nevada because it

represents the area with the largest population in the vicinity of the

potential repository. The final rule codifies the conclusions of this

analysis in 10 CFR Part 51. In addition, the NRC staff has generically

considered the potential impacts of transporting higher enriched and

higher burnup fuel than is currently covered in 10 CFR 51.52 and is

codifying these findings with this final rule. That assessment

concludes that the impacts of transporting fuel and waste generated

during the license renewal period are small and are consistent with the

impacts of the values in Table S-4 of the Commission's regulations

(Sec. 51.52). Under the Commission's regulations for the environmental

review of license renewal decisions (see 10 CFR part 51, subpart A,

appendix B), the Commission may reach a conclusion of ``small'' impact

for a particular issue if the:

* * * environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that

they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important

attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing

radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those

impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's

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

The final rule amends the issue of transportation of fuel and waste

from Category 2 to Category 1. In order to reach this Category 1

conclusion on an issue and thus not require site specific analysis of

the issue pursuant to Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(i), the Commission has made the

following findings in accordance with the definitions set out in 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

(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, in this case ``small'' has been

assigned to the impacts (except for collective off site radiological

impacts from the fuel cycle

[[Page 48498]]

and from high level waste and spent fuel disposal 2); and

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

\2\ This exception only applies to the two entries in Table B-1

labeled ``Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects)'' and

``Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste

disposal).

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

(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.

As a result of this Category 1 finding, neither applicants nor the

NRC staff will need to prepare a separate analysis of the issue for

individual license renewal applications as long as no new and

significant information exists. The analysis in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1,

Addendum 1 which forms the technical basis for the rulemaking, relies

on a series of conservative assumptions. As such, the results of the

analysis overestimate the environmental impacts of spent fuel shipments

converging on one location, such as Yucca Mountain. Although the NRC

staff has assessed these impacts as if Yucca Mountain would be the only

HLW repository, the NRC staff believes that the impacts calculated for

Yucca Mountain bound the impacts that would be experienced for a site

other than Yucca Mountain. It is unlikely that any other repository

site would have an exposed population greater than that assumed for Las

Vegas and it is unlikely that spent-fuel shipments from all points of

origin converge on and are transported through one metropolitan area.

If an alternative to a high level waste repository at Yucca Mountain is

considered in the future, the NRC may need to determine whether such an

alternative includes new and significant information that may change

the regulatory outcome.

In addition to considering the cumulative impacts of transportation

in the vicinity of a repository, the NRC also considered whether use of

higher burnup or higher enriched fuel that is shipped to a repository

results in impacts consistent with the NRC regulations

(Sec. 51.52,`Table S-4--Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel

and Waste To and From One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor').

The environmental consequences of incremental increases in the burnup

of fuel and the associated use of higher enrichment fuel are discussed

in Section 6.2.3 of NUREG-1437. Section 6.2.3 addresses the sensitivity

of the data presented in Table S-3 and Table S-4 to the growing use of

higher enriched fuel and higher fuel burnup. Table S-3 summarizes

natural resource use and effluents to the environment for the uranium

fuel cycle, from mining to ultimate disposal of spent fuel. The

discussion of the implications for the environmental impact data

reported in Table S-4 was not repeated or referenced in Section 6.3,

which addresses the incremental impacts of license renewal on the

transportation of fuel and waste to and from nuclear power plants.

Addendum 1 and this final rule clarify the NRC findings on the

sensitivity of values in Table S-4 to the use of higher enrichment fuel

and higher burnup fuel presently in use. The analysis concludes that

shipment of higher enriched or higher burnup fuel results in impacts

consistent with the impacts in Table S-4, 10 CFR 51.52. It should be

noted that cask designs used to transport or store higher enriched fuel

and higher burnup fuel require specific NRC review and approval.

In the course of preparing the final rule, several non-substantive

changes to the wording and organization of the regulatory text were

made in order to maintain the rule's internal consistency. First, the

content of the proposed language in Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) regarding

local transportation impacts in the vicinity of the licensed plant was

also placed into Table B-1 under ``Public Services, Transportation''

under the Socioeconomics section of the Table. Similarly, the proposed

language in Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) has not been included in the final

rule because the matters covered by Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii) only apply to

Category 2 issues and, as such, the inclusion of matters related to a

Category 1 issue in that section would not have been appropriate.

Instead, the content of the language that had been proposed for

Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) is adequately covered by the amended entry in

Table B-1 itself under the issue of ``Transportation'' in the Uranium

Fuel Cycle and Waste Management section.

Response to Comments

Thirty-one comment letters were received on the proposed rule from

power reactor licensees, State and local Government agencies, the

nuclear power industry and its legal affiliations, a public interest

group, and an individual. Most of the comments were from the State of

Nevada, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada, and local government entities

in Nevada. These comments focused on the NRC not involving Nevada in

scoping and designing the study in Addendum 1 and on perceived

deficiencies in the scope and thoroughness of the analysis in the

Addendum. The State of Utah also submitted extensive comments that

focused on concerns with the scope and thoroughness of the supporting

analysis in Addendum 1, including the lack of consideration of the

proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility at Skull Valley, Utah. Industry

comments focused on clarifications in the rule language.

The written comments have been summarized and grouped into issue

categories. As a result of the NRC staff's review of all written

comments, some modifications and clarifications have been incorporated

into Addendum 1--notably, the use of more conservative assumptions in

the analyses and a fuller explanation of those analyses. In addition,

the rule language has been edited for clarification. The NRC staff has

also prepared responses, given below, to the issues raised by the

commentors.

Issue 1--Public Notice

Comment: The titles of the notices published in the Federal

Register were inaccurate and misleading because they do not clearly

indicate the subject matter of the proposed rule and Addendum 1 that

addresses transportation of spent nuclear fuel.

Response: The NRC believes that the titles properly reflect the

regulatory action being taken. As required by NRC

regulations,3 a notice of the proposed rule and a Notice of

Availability of Addendum 1 were published in the Federal Register (64

FR 9884 and 64 FR 9889, February 26, 1999). While the notice's title

did not include the specific term ``transportation,'' the titles define

the subject matter of the regulation to be affected; the title of the

proposed rule is ``Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.'' The title of the

Notice of Availability is ``Changes to Requirements for Environmental

Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses,

Availability of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.'' Addendum

1 supplements specific sections of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (May 1996). This

limited function is indicated by the title of Addendum 1, Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:

Main Report Section 6.3--``Transportation,'' Table 9.1 ``Summary of

findings on NEPA issues

[[Page 48499]]

for license renewal of nuclear power plants,'' Draft Report for

Comment.

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

\3\ 10 CFR 2.804, ``Notice of proposed rulemaking'' and 10 CFR

51.117, ``Draft environmental impact statement'notice of

availability.''

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

The rule change and the supporting Addendum 1 affect only the

plant-specific environmental analysis required to be submitted in the

Environmental Report of an applicant for the renewal of a nuclear power

plant operating license and the plant-specific supplemental

environmental impact statement prepared by the NRC. Even though the

analysis in Addendum 1 focuses on spent-fuel shipments converging on

the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, that analysis and

the resulting rule affect only the review requirements for renewal of

an individual nuclear power plant operating license. It is not intended

that Addendum 1 or the revised rule support any other regulatory

decision by the NRC.

Issue 2--Communications

Comment: NRC failed to consult with Nevada State agencies, Nevada

local governments, and with Nevada Indian Tribes.

Response: As discussed above, a variety of organizations and

government agencies submitted substantive comments in response to the

proposed rule. The NRC has considered these comments and, in many

cases, altered its analysis as a result of this input. Prior to

issuance of the proposed rule for comment, however, the NRC did not

seek any pre-publication input from Nevada state agencies, Nevada local

Governments, and Nevada Indian Tribes for the following reasons. First,

the rule involves a narrow aspect of the environmental review of

individual nuclear power plant license renewal decisions, which is a

regulatory decision completely separate from the regulatory

requirements that will guide the NRC licensing review of a HLW

repository and from the decision process leading to a DOE site

recommendation on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the site DOE currently has

under study. This rule amends the December 18, 1996, rule with respect

to two questions not adequately answered:

1. Are the current environmental impact values in Table S-4, based

on several destinations, still reasonable to incorporate in a license

renewal review that assumes a single destination for spent fuel at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada?

2. Are the current environmental impact values in Table S-4 (which

are based on fuel enriched to no greater than 4 percent, the average

level of irradiation of spent fuel not exceeding 33,000 MWd/MTU, and

shipment no less than 90 days after discharge from the reactor) still

reasonable to incorporate in a license renewal review of plants that

may use fuel enriched up to 5 percent and potentially ship spent fuel

with a burnup of up to 62,000 MWd/MTU?

The amendment has no direct regulatory impact on any entity within

Nevada. The selection of Yucca Mountain for the generic evaluation of

transportation impacts was made because that site is currently the only

one under consideration for a high-level-waste (HLW) repository. Before

HLW is actually transported to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the State, local

Governments, Indian Tribes, and the public have the opportunity to

provide input on site-specific transportation impacts by commenting on

DOE's draft EIS for the proposed repository at the Yucca Mountain site,

which was made available for a 180-day comment period beginning on

August 13, 1999 (http://www.ynp.gov).

Also, the need for and scope of the current rule amendment were

identified within the context of a preceding rulemaking that specified

the plant-specific content of the environmental review of applications

for the renewal of individual nuclear power plant operating licenses.

The previous final rule was published in the Federal Register first on

June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), and again with minor modifications on

December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537). The Commission stated in the December

Federal Register notice, ``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.''

Issue 3--Transportation Analysis

Comment: NRC failed to consult relevant Yucca Mountain

transportation risk and impact studies.

Response: The publications cited by commentors have been reviewed

for information that may be of direct use within the limited focus and

purpose of the current rule. Most of the information in these documents

was found to be potentially more relevant to a detailed site-specific

review of Yucca Mountain than to the generic analysis for this rule.

That information has been brought to the attention of those

organizational units within the NRC responsible for activities relating

to DOE's study on the Yucca Mountain site so they can appropriately

consider the information in any future prelicensing activities

involving Yucca Mountain. Specific to the current rule, the demographic

data used as inputs to the RADTRAN computer code, which was used to

generate the impact analysis in Addendum 1 were more current than data

used in many of the studies cited by the commentors.

Comment: NRC failed to consult the full spectrum of transportation

mode and route scenarios.

Response: The purpose of this rule and associated analysis is to

reach conclusions regarding the likely environmental impact of license

renewal. As noted above, this amendment is an addition to generic

assessments of license renewal environmental impacts already codified

in the Commission's regulations at 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix

B. It is not an environmental impact statement for a repository at

Yucca Mountain for which DOE is responsible and, as such, does not

delve into the expansive range of different transportation modes and

route scenarios that would be considered in the context of a decision

on Yucca Mountain as the possible site for the facility itself.

Instead, the NRC has sought to determine a conservative estimate of the

likely impacts from transporting fuel and waste generated, during the

license renewal term, in the vicinity of a potential repository. In

doing so, the NRC considered only those transportation modes and route

scenarios that would likely result in the greatest impacts. For the

proposed rule, the NRC staff--in consultation with the DOE staff--

determined that truck shipments through densely populated areas of

Clark County, Nevada, would have the highest potential impacts among

the alternative transportation scenarios and modes that would receive

serious consideration in decisions relating to the suitability of the

site undergoing study for a repository at Yucca Mountain. The NRC

continues to believe that using these route scenarios and modes to

generate conservative estimates is reasonable for the purpose of this

rulemaking.

Comment: There was insufficient consideration of routine

transportation radiological risks due to use of an average dose rate

lower than the regulatory limit.

Response: The RADTRAN analysis reported in the final Addendum 1 has

been modified to use the most conservative assumption that the

radiation levels for all shipments are at the regulatory limit of 0.1

mSv/hour [10

[[Page 48500]]

mrem/hour] at 2 m [6.6 ft] from the shipment vehicle surface. As noted

in Section 2.2.3 of Addendum 1, this assumption is sufficiently

conservative to bound the analysis of routine transportation

radiological risk and allow a reasonable assessment of that risk.

Actual average radiation levels and associated doses would be much

lower because shipments must be designed so that the regulatory limits

are not exceeded. The use of the regulatory limits in the revised

analysis results in higher dose estimates for incident-free

transportation. However, these revised estimates are still small as

defined in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Consequently, the

conclusion regarding the radiological risks of routine transportation

remains valid.

Comment: There was insufficient consideration of routine

transportation radiological risks to members of the public residing,

working, or institutionally confined at locations near shipping routes.

Response: The analysis encompasses members of the public residing,

working, or institutionally confined at locations near shipping routes

by assuming that the resident population along the transportation

routes is exposed to every shipment. The text of Sect. 2.3 of Addendum

1, has been revised to state this assumption and its effects on the

revised analysis more clearly. In addition, more conservative

assumptions of truck speed have been used in the revised RADTRAN

analysis thus extending the exposure time to individuals along the

transportation route. These assumptions further ensure that members of

the public cited by the commentors would be encompassed by the dose and

risk assessments. As expected, the use of these more conservative

assumptions leads to higher estimates of radiation dose to the public.

However, these revised dose estimates remain well below regulatory

limits for members of the public and small compared to natural

background and other sources of radiation exposure.

Several commentors indicated that Addendum 1 should focus on unique

and location-specific circumstances of the transportation routes and

population centers. However, the analysis in Addendum 1 is generic and

was designed to support only the limited scope of the decision

regarding this rule change. The NRC believes that the routes chosen

represent a conservative analysis due to the higher number of people

who live along these routes. Because the purpose of this rule is to

provide a generic analysis for the limited purpose of determining the

likely impact of transportation during the license renewal term, the

large analytical effort required for the identification of specific

population locations and traffic circumstances is not warranted within

the context of the current rule. Although the comments raise valid

issues, those concerns should be resolved within the context of

studying, and making decisions concerning, the suitability of the

candidate repository site at Yucca Mountain and regulatory requirements

governing transportation of spent fuel.

Comment: There was insufficient consideration of radiological risks

resulting from traffic gridlock incidents.

Response: Traffic gridlock incidents are not specifically analyzed

in NUREG-1437 because of the limited scope and generic nature of the

analysis (see response to comment on consideration of risks to members

of the public, above). However, the revised RADTRAN analysis

conservatively includes approximately two hours of stationary time in

Clark County (during a 100 to 140 mile trip depending upon the route)

for each truck shipment; and traffic gridlock could be one of the

reasons for the truck being stationary.

To a limited extent, the incorporation of more conservative

assumptions of truck speed into the revised RADTRAN analysis

compensates for an analysis of traffic gridlock by allowing for

increased exposure time at any given point during transport. As noted

earlier, these revised assumptions lead to higher but still small dose

estimates. In addition, the routes used in the analysis in Addendum 1

were deliberately chosen to maximize estimated dose. Actual routes

would be less likely to have significant areas where traffic gridlock

occurs. The selection of the actual routes, for example, would comply

with the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway

Administration regulations (49 CFR Part 397, Subpart D) that require

minimizing the time in transit (i.e., avoiding periods of great traffic

congestion) for routing radioactive shipments.

Comment: There was insufficient consideration of routine

transportation radiological risks to vehicle inspectors and escorts.

Response: The RADTRAN analysis in the revised Addendum 1 uses the

regulatory dose rate limit of .02 mSv/hour (2 mrem/hour) for the

vehicle crew. In addition, a discussion of potential doses to escorts

has been included in Addendum 1, Section 2.2.3. In the analysis, both

the escorts and drivers are assumed to be exposed to the regulatory

limit, although the dose to the escorts would realistically be less

than that to the drivers. Even with these more conservative

assumptions, the estimated dose and risk to the crew are small and

below regulatory limits.

The risk to vehicle inspectors would be encompassed by the addition

of stationary time for the transport truck in Clark County (see

response to comment about traffic gridlock, above). Again, the

estimated dose and risk are increased by the use of more conservative

assumptions; but they remain small and below regulatory limits.

Comment: There was insufficient consideration of severe

transportation accident risks.

Response: The Commission has evaluated the potential radiological

hazards of severe transportation accidents involving truck and rail

spent nuclear fuel (SNF) shipments (NUREG/CR-4829, ``Shipping Container

Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions'' February

1987, commonly referred to as the modal study). The modal study

evaluated SNF shipping casks certified to NRC standards against thermal

and mechanical forces generated in actual truck and rail accidents.

This evaluation included an assessment of cask performance for a number

of severe transportation accidents, including the Caldecott Tunnel

fire. The modal study concluded that there would be no release in 994

of 1,000 real accidents, and that a substantially lower fraction of

accidents could result in any significant release. These results when

combined with the probability of a severe accident involving a shipment

of SNF, demonstrate that the overall risk associated with severe

accidents of SNF shipping casks is very low. The results of the modal

study were factored into the analysis for this rulemaking, as an input

to the RADTRAN computer code. Additional analyses were performed to

address the possible impacts of accidents involving higher burnup fuel.

The consequences associated with an individual SNF shipment have an

upper bound, based on the amount of material in the package, the

availability of mechanisms to disperse the radioactive contents, the

locations and number of receptors, and post-event intervention than

would occur. Further, this upper bound in transit might reasonably be

expected to be less than that at the origin or destination points

(where more SNF would be stored), and some events themselves might be

expected to have greater consequences than the damage they cause to the

SNF cask. The NRC recognizes that there are some conceivable events

(not necessarily traditional `transportation accidents'), that might be

hypothesized to occur to a SNF cask while in transport. Even

[[Page 48501]]

though these events have an extremely low probability of occurring,

they might result in high consequences if they were to occur. The NRC

considers these events to be remote and speculative and thus, does not

call for detailed consideration. Because the NRC traditionally

considers risk to be the product of the probability of an event and its

resultant consequences, events with such low probability of occurring

have a negligible contribution to the overall risk. In addition, as the

probabilities of the events become very low, the value of insights to

be gained, for use in regulatory decisions, is not apparent.

Comment: The study underestimates Clark County's residential

population and growth rate. In addition, the study does not account for

the large nonresident population, resulting in underestimates of risk

and impacts.

Response: In keeping with the generic nature and limited intent of

the analysis, the original analysis used best available data and best

estimates of existing population and population growth rates. In

response to commentors' concerns and to reflect the potentially large

population growth rate of Clark County, the NRC staff has incorporated

higher population estimates into the analysis to provide conservative

(higher than best estimate) assessments of potential impacts. However,

as indicated by the comment, the task of estimating the impacts on the

area population is more complex than assuming a population growth rate.

Both the rate of growth of the population and changes in location of

the population within the county are important. As stated in Addendum

1, populations within a half mile of the transportation route are the

most affected by the transportation activities. Therefore, in order to

ensure that the size of the affected population is conservative, the

NRC staff's analysis not only increases over time the existing

population densities along the assumed transportation routes, but also

forecasts increased residential, business, and transient/tourist

populations in the areas of likely development.

Issue 4--Cumulative Impacts

Comment: NRC failed to consider cumulative impacts of all spent

fuel, HLW, and low-level-waste shipments.

Response: Table S-4 shows the environmental impacts of

transportation of fuel and waste directly attributable to one nuclear

power plant. The current rulemaking was narrowly focused on the

question of whether the impact values given in Table S-4 would be

different with spent fuel shipments converging on one destination,

Yucca Mountain--the candidate site under study by DOE for a repository,

rather than several destinations. Table S-4 does not consider non-

commercial power reactor shipments of fuel and waste. Nevertheless, a

discussion of the cumulative impacts of transporting spent fuel, HLW,

and low-level waste through southern Nevada has been added to Addendum

1 (Section 2.4). To estimate the potential cumulative effects of DOE

shipments of LLW to the Nevada Test Site as well as shipments of HLW to

a possible repository, the NRC staff used information published in

DOE's Waste Management Programmatic EIS (DOE/EIS-0200--F) May 1997. To

ensure that cumulative impacts are not underestimated, the NRC staff

selected alternatives in the EIS that led to the highest numbers of

shipments to the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain. The results of

the analysis indicate that the cumulative doses and expected cancer

fatalities resulting from the civilian SNF and the DOE shipments are

small compared to the risk of cancer from other causes.

Comment: Commentors stated that cumulative impacts along the

Wasatch Front must be considered.

Response: The State of Utah maintains that a study similar to the

one conducted for Las Vegas and Clark County must be conducted for the

cumulative impacts along the Wasatch Front that would originate from

the proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility to be located at Skull

Valley, Utah. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this generic

rulemaking because the Commission directed that cumulative impacts

attributed to transportation be analyzed only in the vicinity of Yucca

Mountain. However, the NRC is currently reviewing a site-specific

application for construction and operation of the proposed Private Fuel

Storage Facility at Skull Valley in a separate regulatory action. A

site-specific study of the cumulative impacts of transportation is part

of that review. The study will be reported in a draft Environmental

Impact Statement to be published for public comment. Its availability

will be noticed in the Federal Register.

Issue 5--Legal Requirements

Comment: NRC failed to conduct a legally sufficient risk

assessment. Use of a model such as RADTRAN is not in and of itself

sufficient to meet the requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act. The NRC must consider consequences of low-probability,

high-consequence accidents not included in RADTRAN, including unique

local conditions, unforeseen events, sabotage, and human error in cask

design. The NRC should adopt the comprehensive risk assessment approach

for SNF and HLW transportation described in Golding and White,

Guidelines on the Scope, Content, and Use of Comprehensive Risk

Assessment in the Management of High-Level Nuclear Waste Transportation

(1990).

Response: See the response above regarding consideration of severe

accident risk (low probability, high consequence accidents) during

transportation.

The NRC's regulatory program will continue to ensure that the risk

of severe transportation accidents are minimized. Physical security for

spent fuel transportation is regulated under 10 CFR 73.37. The

regulatory philosophy is designed to reduce the threat potential to

shipments and to facilitate response to incidents and recovery of

packages that might be diverted in transit. Although the analysis

supporting the current rule does not account for the potential for

human error, activities related to the design, fabrication,

maintenance, and use of transportation packages are conducted under an

NRC-approved Quality Assurance Program. This helps to provide

consistency in performance and helps reduce the incidence of human

error. While a location-specific transportation risk assessment is

included in the DOE EIS for the decisions relating to a possible Yucca

Mountain repository, the NRC staff believes that the analysis conducted

for this rulemaking provides an adequate consideration of the impacts

from license renewal. Further, through its regulatory, licensing, and

certification functions, the NRC has tried to ensure that

transportation of SNF is performed safely with minimum risk to the

public, and that vehicle crashes while transporting SNF do not result

in severe accidents. Similarly, DOE is expected to ensure that the

routes and procedures chosen for SNF transport to the repository

provide ample protection of the public health and safety and the NRC

reviews and approves the selected routes.

The analysis in Addendum 1 shows that even with conservative

assumptions, the cumulative radiological and non-radiological accident

risks of SNF transport in Clark County are small. However, there are a

number of opportunities to further reduce human health impacts. These

include transporting SNF by rail rather than by truck. This would

reduce human health effects by reducing the number of shipments and the

likelihood

[[Page 48502]]

of accidents. In addition, shipping SNF via the proposed beltway would

reduce health impacts compared to shipping via the current interstate

highway system. The implementation of such mitigative measures must

await future decisions that fall well outside of the scope of this

rulemaking. In addition, for the purposes of individual license renewal

rule decisions, no plant specific mitigation measures were found

appropriate for addressing the impacts identified in the Addendum. The

NRC staff notes that DOE addresses transportation impacts, mitigation

measures, and alternative transportation modes in its EIS for the

proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

Issue 6--Socioeconomics

Comment: NRC failed to consider socioeconomic impacts.

Response: Several commentors raised an issue of public perception

of risk of waste shipments and its effect on tourism and property

values. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NRC is

obligated to consider the effects on the physical environment that

could result from the proposed action. Effects that are not directly

related to the physical environment must have a reasonably close causal

relationship to a change in the physical environment. The Supreme Court

ruling in Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460

U.S. 766 (1983) has narrowly circumscribed, if not entirely eliminated,

an agency's NEPA obligation to consider impacts arising solely from the

public's perception that an agency's action has created risks of

accidents. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider the impacts on

tourism and property values from the public's perception of risk.

The socioeconomic impacts of plant refurbishment and continued

operation during the renewal period are discussed in the plant-specific

supplement to the GEIS for each individual license renewal applicant.

The NRC recognizes that there will likely be increased costs in the

unlikely event of an accident. However, for the majority of

transportation accidents that may occur, the associated costs are

small. For the most severe accidents analyzed by the RADTRAN computer

code, the costs could be substantial. Given the low probability of such

accidents, the socioeconomic impacts of transportation of SNF do not

alter the Commission's conclusions regarding the impacts of this issue.

Issue 7--Higher Burnup Fuel

Comment: There was insufficient consideration of extended fuel

burnup issues.

Response: Section 3 of Addendum 1 addresses the issues associated

with extended fuel burnup in detail. The NRC staff's analysis of higher

burnup fuel examined the issues of radiation doses due to higher dose

rates during shipment, higher radiation doses in the event of

transportation accidents, and the potential for a criticality in the

very unlikely event that high burnup fuel geometry is altered during a

transportation accident.

The analysis done by the NRC staff concluded that higher burnup

fuel would likely cause higher dose rates during transportation and

that dose rates following transportation accidents with radiological

releases would also increase, all other things being equal. However,

despite the increased dose rates the potential impacts on the transport

crews and the affected members of the public would still be acceptably

small. The analysis of the potential for criticality following a change

in fuel geometry as the result of a transportation accident determined

that such an event was not a concern.

Issue 8--Environmental Justice

Comment: NRC failed to consider Environmental Justice.

Response: The analysis suggests that the routes through downtown

Las Vegas, Nevada may run through areas containing a higher proportion

of low-income and minority groups than the beltway routes. However, as

discussed in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 Addendum, the radiological and

nonradiological impacts of transportation of SNF are small. In

addition, these small impacts are dispersed throughout the entire

routes and do not appear to fall disproportionately in any one area.

Based on the analysis performed the NRC staff concludes the overall

impacts of transportation of SNF will not likely be disproportionately

high or adverse for any minority or low-income population.

Issue 9--Regulatory Text

Comment: Several suggestions for clarifying the regulatory text

were offered.

Response: The rule has been revised to make it clear that the

environmental impact values in Table S-4 (10 CFR 51.52) may be used to

account for the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and

waste to and from a nuclear power plant at a repository such as Yucca

Mountain, Nevada, which is under consideration as a HLW repository. If,

in the future, Yucca Mountain is removed from consideration as a HLW

repository, the Commission will evaluate whether the generic analysis

performed for the current rule is applicable to other sites that are

considered. If fuel enrichment greater than 5 percent Uranium-235 and

fuel burnup of greater than 62,000 MWd/MTU are approved by the

Commission, the Commission will consider a rulemaking to assess the

continuing generic applicability of Table S-4 to environmental reviews

for license renewal.

Comment: The addition to the rule of local transportation impacts

associated with continued operation of a plant during the license

renewal period needs further clarification in the rule language and in

the Supplementary Information.

Response: The rule was revised to clarify that the issue of

``Public services, Transportation'' in Table B-1 of Appendix B to

Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 involves the contribution of highway

traffic directly attributable to refurbishment and continued operation

of a plant during the license renewal period to changes in the service

levels of highways in the vicinity of the plant. The majority of

traffic directly attributable to a plant is commuting plant workers.

Comment: Paragraph (M) of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) should be deleted.

Response: The rule language has been amended and Paragraph (M) has

been deleted. This change from the proposed rule was necessary in order

to provide consistency with 51.53(c)(3)(ii), as this section only deals

with Category 2 issues. Since the cumulative impacts of transportation

of SNF in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain is no longer a Category 2

issue, inclusion in 51.53(c)(3)(ii) is no longer necessary.

Other Comments

This section addresses the comments that are not encompassed by the

issue summaries and responses given above. In addition, some comments

were received after the close of the comment period. These comments

were reviewed, and most were found to be similar to comments already

addressed by the issue summaries and responses. However, the comments

that raised new ideas relevant to Addendum 1 are also presented in this

section. For these late comments, revisions to Addendum 1 were

necessarily minimal.

Comment: Addendum 1 assumes that truck transport would have the

highest doses. This assumption is not necessarily valid. Also, a

different route that avoids Las Vegas should be

[[Page 48503]]

addressed. (A route through Nellis Air Force Base and down US-95 is

being considered by DOE and it has been shown to have higher risks of

accident fatalities and to increase the radiological risk.) Routes

chosen in Addendum 1 do not bound the analysis properly.

Response: The transportation and route scenarios and their

underlying assumptions were designed to reflect situations that most

likely would result in highest doses in order to bound the analysis

properly as the routes chosen for this analysis were the most populated

routes in the State of Nevada. Also, as noted in an earlier response,

the NRC staff consulted DOE in determining that truck shipments through

densely populated areas of Clark County, Nevada, would have the highest

potential impacts among the alternative transportation scenarios that

would be given serious consideration in decisions relating to the

suitability of the site undergoing study for a repository at Yucca

Mountain.

The comment that a route from Nellis Air Force Base down US-95 is

higher risk than those selected by the NRC staff provided no specific

details concerning that assertion. In the NRC staff's view, any route

that bypasses major centers of population will have significantly lower

radiological impacts. With regard to traffic accident rates, while it

may be true that certain routes will have accident rates that are

higher than average, the average rates are low enough that modest

increases from the average will not significantly change the staff's

conclusions.

Comment: SNF from California would go through Las Vegas twice (in

route to Skull Valley and subsequently to Yucca Mountain), resulting in

increased risk.

Response: If the proposed SNF storage facility is licensed and

built, some SNF may go through Clark County on the way to Skull Valley,

Utah. The NRC staff has not analyzed this possible impact because it is

not clear at this time that the proposed Skull Valley facility will be

licensed or that the SNF would go through Las Vegas if the facility

were built. In addition, SNF from California makes up only a small

fraction of the SNF that would be shipped. The NRC staff concludes that

the conservative assumptions used in the analysis more than compensate

for minor changes in transportation plans that may develop for that

fraction of the total SNF.

Comment: The NRC should provide affected parties with some

statement of the regulatory effect of the interrelationships between

the numerous other similar analyses.

Response: As a general matter, the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to perform an environmental

review for certain actions they propose to conduct. In the context of

nuclear waste management, several agencies have regulatory and

operational responsibilities which may involve various proposed actions

that, in turn, require the preparation of environmental impact

statements (EISs). Inevitably, there may be a degree of overlap in the

types of impacts discussed in these various EISs. However, the analysis

developed by the NRC for the purposes of license renewal is not binding

on future actions and associated environmental impact analyses.

The NRC proposed action that has triggered the preparation of this

rulemaking and the associated analysis of environmental impact is the

agency's responsibility to review applications for the renewal of

nuclear power plant licenses. In light of the discrete purpose of this

rulemaking, the NRC has sought to gauge the impacts of license renewal

given the information currently available on those impacts including

the transportation of spent fuel. Even though these impacts do not

occur at the plant site during license renewal, the NRC has considered

them here pursuant to its NEPA responsibilities.

Future EISs prepared by other agencies on proposed actions in the

waste management arena (e.g., any recommendation by DOE on approval of

the Yucca Mountain site for development of a repository) will

undoubtedly address some of the same impacts covered by the analysis

described in this notice. Some of these other impact statements are

anticipated to be more detailed given their purpose and the

availability of additional information in the future. This, however,

does not diminish the adequacy of the NRC's action. This analysis is

sufficient for the purpose it serves and it provides the Commission

with the information needed to weigh the likely environmental impacts

of SNF transportation for individual license renewals applications and

reach informed decisions regarding the acceptability of these

applications. The rule does not, however, dictate any particular result

for future actions taken with regard to a waste repository or other

waste management matters. Specifically, any generic conclusions by the

Commission concerning the cumulative environmental impacts of

transportation associated with nuclear power plants would in no way

affect any DOE decision concerning the suitability of Yucca Mountain or

any consideration that DOE may give to transportation impacts in making

that decision.

Comment: Addendum 1 is not meaningful to the public. For example,

it is impossible to determine if the spent fuel isotope inventory shown

in the sample pages of the RADTRAN printout matches the fuel considered

in the Addendum.

Response: In preparing Addendum 1, the NRC staff has attempted to

write to a broad and diverse audience as much as possible. The NRC

staff acknowledges that this rulemaking involves complicated, technical

issues. However, the NRC staff has attempted to present these matters

in the most clear manner possible. Addendum 1 has been revised and

Table 2 provides the fuel isotope inventory that can be compared to the

sample pages of the RADTRAN computer code printout.

Comment: The study area is inaccurately defined and the location of

some cities is incorrectly stated.

Response: During the preparation of Addendum 1, the initial study

area selected for analysis emphasized the urban areas in and near Las

Vegas. Route selections were based in part on their proximity to those

areas, not to county borders. However, in response to public comments,

the study area was expanded to include the entire county. Consequently,

the ``entry'' point for SNF shipments shifted to cities such as

Mesquite.

Comment: Addendum 1 should discuss potential mitigation measures,

not rely on the DOE Yucca Mountain EIS for that discussion.

Response: The analysis in Addendum 1 shows that, even with

conservative assumptions, the cumulative radiological and non-

radiological accident risks of SNF transport in Clark County are small.

However, there are a number of opportunities to further reduce human

health impacts. These include transporting SNF by rail rather than by

truck. This would reduce human health effects by reducing the number of

shipments and the likelihood of accidents. In addition, shipping SNF

via the proposed beltway would reduce health impacts compared to

shipping via the current interstate highway system. The implementation

of such mitigative measures must await future decisions that fall well

outside of the scope of this rulemaking. In addition, for the purposes

of individual license renewal rule decisions, no plant specific

mitigation measures were found appropriate for addressing the impacts

identified in the Addendum. The NRC notes that DOE addresses

transportation

[[Page 48504]]

impacts, mitigation measures, and alternative transportation modes in

its EIS for the proposed action to develop a repository at Yucca

Mountain.

Comment: Addendum 1 does not mention that the proposed repository

which is the destination for shipments of spent nuclear fuel is in Nye

County.

Response: A statement noting that the proposed Yucca Mountain

repository is in Nye County has been added to Addendum 1.

Comment: No statements of baseline conditions are given in Addendum

1.

Response: Addendum 1 uses background and natural radiation levels

as the baseline conditions against which dose estimates can be

compared. Both are presented in Addendum 1 and are based in large part

on information published by the National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements.

Comment: The analysis in Addendum 1 is limited to human health

effects. Other potential impacts should be considered.

Response: Addendum 1 was prepared to provide information regarding

a proposed rule to determine whether the transportation of higher

enriched, higher burnup fuel to a single destination is consistent with

the values of Table S-4. Because the pertinent section of Table S-4

concerns impact values for human health effects, Addendum 1

concentrates on potential cumulative impacts to human health. However,

Section 2.3 of Addendum 1 has been revised to look at the potentially

most significant non-human health effect which is the potential

increase in traffic volume in Clark County as the result of the

transportation of SNF. The NRC staff conclusion is that the impacts are

small.

Comment: The analysis assumes the use of the large-capacity GA-4/9

truck cask, which has not been certified and must be used in

combination with specially designed trucks that have not been tested.

It also assumes that these cask and truck systems will be available in

sufficient quantity for the shipments. The commentor seeks assurance

that the assumed truck cask system is feasible and that DOE's proposed

regional service contractor approach would feasiblely result in the use

of such a system for all shipments in the potential truck shipment

campaign.

Response: The analysis done by the NRC staff assumes that an

adequate number of certified casks would be available. Addendum 1 used

extremely conservative assumptions regarding SNF shipments and casks to

ensure that the analysis would lead to maximum dose estimates. For

example, the analysis of incident-free transportation impacts assumes

the use of legal-weight trucks for shipment of the SNF, which results

in more and smaller shipments. For the accident analysis, the use of

the largest-capacity casks was assumed in order to maximize the amount

of SNF that would be involved in the accident. These parameters were

intended to bound the parts of the analysis, not to describe parts of

the actual SNF shipment protocol such as the specific casks that will

be used.

Comment: The analysis appears to assume that oldest spent nuclear

fuel would be shipped first to the repository. If so, how will

institutional measures achieve this sequencing? If they do not, how

will the maximum potential radioactive risk in shipment and storage or

disposal be addressed?

Response: The spent fuel will be shipped in casks certified by the

NRC. In fact, the current practice of NRC issuing certificates of

compliance for casks used for shipment of power reactor fuel is to

specify 5 years as the minimum cooling period in a certificate.

Comment: Addendum 1 uses national accident rate statistics. State

and/or local rates would be more appropriate.

Response: For the analysis of radiological accidents, data specific

to Nevada were used in the RADTRAN computer code runs. However, for the

analysis of non-radiological accidents, the NRC staff required data

regarding not only accident rates but also injury and fatality

statistics. Those data were not available except from the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

Comment: Water resource supplies within boundaries of the State of

Nevada belong to the public. All waters are subject to appropriation

for the beneficial use only under state law.

Response: The water resources of the state will be unaffected by

the transport of SNF through Clark County.

Comment: Report failed to provide conditions for informed consent

which requires disclosure to those affected, their understanding , and

voluntary acceptance.

Response: NRC regulations already contain values that the NRC

considers to be acceptable environmental impacts from the shipment of

SNF and other radioactive waste. In Addendum 1 the NRC staff is, in

part, ensuring that the overall impacts of the transportation of the

additional SNF that will be generated as the result of nuclear power

plant license renewal are bounded, given the best information the NRC

staff has at this time, by those values previously found acceptable.

The values specified in the regulations are supported by analysis and

were adopted into the regulations only after providing opportunity for

public comment as part of the NRC's rulemaking process. As such, the

NRC has followed all applicable legal requirements and appropriately

carried out its responsibility to consider the environmental impacts of

its license renewal decision.

Comment: The NRC staff uses ``flawed'' science as evidenced by

factors including a questionable definition of risk which fails to

account for severe accidents, use of misleading if not false average

radiation dose rates, manipulation of dose rate data to obtain

acceptable results and lack of empirical data especially that

applicable to transportation of SNF.

Response: The decision before the Commission is whether the impacts

of license renewal are so severe that they should preclude the option

of license renewal. As such, the Commission has considered a reasonable

estimate of impacts and not included remote and speculative scenarios

that do not add to our regulatory decision (see also response to

comment on severe accidents, above).

In the analyses described in Addendum 1 the NRC staff uses dose

rates that reflect the applicable regulatory limit rather than average

dose rates. Even with these very conservative assumptions for dose

rates, transportation modes, transportation routes, and a number of

other factors, radiation impacts on the transport crews and the general

public were not only found to be within all regulatory limits but small

as well and there was no need to adjust the assumptions.

Throughout Addendum 1 the NRC staff discusses the assumptions that

were made and where applicable the empirical data used to support those

assumptions is referenced. With respect to making judgements about the

shipment of spent fuel the NRC staff has the benefit of data from over

40 years of experience in shipping SNF in this country as well as

overseas.

Comment: High level waste management and transportation should not

be a generic issue and Yucca Mountain should not be used for the study

as DOE is behind schedule and it is not an approved site for SNF.

Response: Given that the potential environmental impacts of the

transportation of SNF resulting from license renewal are similar for

all nuclear power plants who seek to renew their operating licenses,

and that the NRC staff's analysis contained in Addendum 1 concludes

that the impacts are likely to be small, the Commission feels it is

appropriate to reclassify the issue as a Category 1 issue. Use of Yucca

[[Page 48505]]

Mountain, Nevada for purposes of the staff's analysis, as the

destination of the SNF is appropriate as it is the only site presently

under study. It must be emphasized that this generic environmental

impact statement is required to make use of the best information

available and at this time the assumption that Yucca Mountain is the

destination is reasonable for purposes of the staff's analysis. If in

the future, conditions change, the assumption made for this analysis

may need to be reevaluated.

Comment: Need to consider the intermodal option being considered by

Congress for Caliente, Nevada.

Response: The shipment of SNF by rail to Caliente and then

transferring it to truck for shipment to Yucca Mountain is one of many

options under consideration by DOE. Rather than speculate on which

transportation option or options will ultimately be selected, the NRC

staff has chosen a mode and routes to Yucca Mountain which in its

judgement will have the greatest potential environmental impacts in

order to do a bounding analysis for the purpose of this rulemaking.

Comment: The analysis needs to address the impacts of above ground

nuclear weapons testing being done at the Nevada Test Site.

Response: For the purposes of considering the environmental impacts

of license renewal, there does not appear to be a relevant connection

between transportation impacts from civilian SNF and defense related

weapons testing at the Nevada test site.

Comment: The analysis relies on assumptions that are 25-30 years

old and that have a number of problems including omission of important

radionuclides (Iodine-129, Chlorine-36 and Cobalt-60), unrealistic

RADTRAN assumptions including inadequate consideration of severe

accidents, outdated assumptions from NUREG-0170 and WASH-1238 including

the failure to consider the degradation of cladding during extended dry

storage, and failure to consider the rail-heavy haul truck option.

Response: With regard to the radionuclides, as indicated in Table 2

of Addendum 1, Cobalt-60 is considered. While both Iodine-129 and

Chlorine-36 are long lived, neither is a significant contributor to

overall dose. Iodine-129 has a very low specific activity and Chlorine-

36 is a beta emitter.

The issue of the severity of accidents considered in the NRC

staff's analysis was addressed in an earlier response to comment. The

assumptions that are used in the NRC staff's analysis have been

periodically reviewed and found adequate. The hypothetical accident

conditions of 10 CFR 71.73 have been evaluated against actual

conditions encountered in highway and railway accidents and were found

to be bounding as documented in NUREG/CR-4829, February 1987,

``Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident

Conditions.'' As noted in Table 3 of Addendum 1, the version of RADTRAN

used is updated to March 1999.

Section 3 of Addendum 1 does consider the possible effect of

cladding degradation on criticality in the context of increased burnup.

That analysis would be equally applicable to any cladding degradation

that might occur during prolonged dry storage of the SNF.

With regard to what is asserted to be inadequate consideration of

the potential radiological impacts of the rail-heavy haul truck option,

the NRC staff has analyzed the radiological impacts of the truck mode

along various routes through and around Las Vegas and concludes that

they are the limiting scenarios. The largest doses in the incident-free

conditions are now to the public. If the rail-heavy haul transport

scenario was adopted, a substantial portion of the public exposure

would be avoided, since in this scenario, the slow moving heavy haul

truck transport would not move through a major population center.

Comment: NRC must consider potential Indian Tribe claims of

authority to regulate shipments across reservation lands.

Response: This analysis is a generic study that assumes certain

routes for the purpose of evaluating environmental impacts. Because the

purpose of this study is neither to propose nor approve routes, the NRC

does not need to consider tribal claims of authority to regulate

shipments in the context of this analysis.

Comment: The beltway is a county road, not part of the Federal

highway system; it is not clear it can be used for shipments.

Response: The DOT regulations do not require that SNF shipments

only use federal highways. Therefore, the NRC assumed that the beltway

is a possible route around Las Vegas.

Comment: The NRC should address the implications of higher

enrichment, higher burnup fuel for consequences of radiological

sabotage, as NRC has done so far for the increase in burnup from 33,000

MWd/MTU to 40,000 MWd/MTU (see 49 FR 23867, Proposed Revisions to 10

CFR 73, Modification of Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel

Shipments, 6/8/84).

Response: The NRC has not quantified the likelihood of the

occurrence of sabotage in this analysis because the likelihood of an

individual attack cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

Nonetheless, the NRC has considered, for the purposes of this

environmental impact statement and rulemaking, the environmental

consequences of such an event. In the determination of the consequences

of such an event, higher burnup is only one factor. Based on the

staff's study of higher burnup fuel (NUREG-1437, Vol.1, Addendum 1,

Table 2), the consequences of a sabotage event involving such fuel

could be larger than those in the studies referenced by the commentor.

However, given that the consequences of the studies referenced by the

commentor were small, even modest increases due to the effects of

higher burnup fuel would not result in unacceptably large consequences.

Because burnup is not the only factor that could affect the

consequences of a sabotage event, the staff continues to study this

area. Should new and significant information result from the further

study, actions addressing such information will be considered.

Nevertheless, the extensive security measures required by NRC

regulations make sabotage events extremely unlikely. Moreover, the

casks required to be used to transport spent fuel are designed to

withstand very substantial impacts during transport without loss of

containment integrity. The cask designs should serve to further reduce

the likelihood of release of radioactive material in the extremely

unlikely event of sabotage. In view of the fact that NRC safeguards

regulations make sabotage events extremely unlikely, and the fact that

the cask designs themselves should make a release of radioactive

material unlikely even were sabotage to occur, and based on our

judgement that, in the extremely unlikely event that sabotage and

releases did occur, the consequences from higher burnup fuel would not

be unacceptably large, we have concluded that a more extensive study of

higher burnup fuel consequences is not warranted for this environmental

impact statement and rulemaking.

On June 22, 1999, the Nevada Attorney General filed a petition with

the Commission which requested the NRC to amend regulations governing

safeguards for shipments of spent nuclear fuel against sabotage and

terrorism and to initiate a comprehensive assessment. In particular,

the petition indicated that

[[Page 48506]]

NRC should factor into its regulations the changing nature of threats

posed by domestic terrorists, the increased availability of advanced

weaponry and the greater vulnerability of larger shipping casks

traveling across the country. If, as a result of reviewing this

petition, the NRC reaches conclusions that are inconsistent with the

results or assumptions in the present rulemaking, the Commission will

need to revisit the analysis presented here.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action

described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore,

neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental

assessment has been prepared for this regulation. This action is

procedural in nature and pertains only to the type of environmental

information to be reviewed.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final rule decreases unnecessary regulatory burden on

licensees by eliminating the requirement that license renewal

applicants address the generic and cumulative environmental impacts

associated with transportation operation in the vicinity of a HLW

repository site (-400 hours, -2 responses), and adds a new requirement

to address local traffic impacts attributable to continued operation of

the plant during the license renewal term (+20 hours, +2 responses).

The public burden for these information collections is estimated to

average a reduction of 200 hours for each of 2 responses for the

elimination of the above mentioned requirement, and an increase of 10

hours for each of 2 responses for the new requirement, for a net burden

reduction of 380 hours. Because the burden for this information

collection is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

clearance is not required. Existing requirements were approved by the

OMB, approval number 3150-0021.

Public Protection Notification

If a means used to impose an information collection does not

display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct

or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information

collection.

Regulatory Analysis

The regulatory analysis prepared for the final rule published on

June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), and amended on December 18, 1996 (61 FR

66537), to make minor clarifying and conforming changes and add

language unintentionally omitted from the June 5, 1996 final rule. The

rule is unchanged except for an increase in benefits derived from a

reduction in the applicant burden of 190 hours of effort in preparing

an application for renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license.

This change increases the substantial cost saving of the final rule

estimated in NUREG-1440, ``Regulatory Analysis for Amendments to

Regulations for the Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power

Plant Operating Licences.'' NUREG-1440 is available for inspection in

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

Washington, DC. In addition, copies of NRC final documents cited here

may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, PO Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are

also available for purchase from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

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 will reduce the amount of information to be submitted by nuclear

power plant licensees to facilitate NRC's obligations under the

National Environmental Policy Act. 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).

Backfit Analysis

The Commission has determined that these amendments do not involve

any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR

50.109(a)(1); therefore, a backfit analysis need not be prepared.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a

major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub.

L 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards

developed by or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless

the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. There are no consensus standards that apply to

the analysis and findings process, nor to the requirements imposed by

this rule. Thus the provisions of the Act do not apply to this rule.

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 to this notice 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;

and sec.193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835, (42 U.S.C. 2243).

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. In Sec. 51.53, paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(M) is removed and reserved

and paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(J) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 51.53 Post-construction environmental reports.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

[[Page 48507]]

(J) All applicants shall assess the impact of highway traffic

generated by the proposed project on the level of service of local

highways during periods of license renewal refurbishment activities and

during the term of the renewed license.

* * * * *

(M) [Reserved].

* * * * *

3. The ``Public services, Transportation'' issue under the

Socioeconomics Section and the ``Transportation'' issue under the

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Section of Table B-1, Appendix

B to Subpart A to 10 CFR Part 51 are revised to read as follows:

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

Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant

* * * * *

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

Nuclear Power Plants \1\

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

Issue Category Findings

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

* * * *

* * *

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

Socioeconomics

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

* * * *

* * *

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

Public services, Transportation.. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR

LARGE. Transportation

impacts (level of

service) of highway

traffic generated

during plant

refurbishment and

during the term of the

renewed license are

generally expected to

be of small

significance. However,

the increase in traffic

associated with

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).

* * * *

* * *

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

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

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

* * * *

* * *

Transportation................... 1 SMALL. The impacts of

transporting spent fuel

enriched up to 5

percent uranium-235

with average burnup for

the peak rod to current

levels approved by NRC

up to 62,000 MWd/MTU

and the cumulative

impacts of transporting

high-level waste to a

single repository, such

as Yucca Mountain,

Nevada are found to be

consistent with the

impact values contained

in 10 CFR 51.52(c),

Summary Table S-4--

Environmental Impact of

Transportation of Fuel

and Waste to and from

One Light-Water-Cooled

Nuclear Power Reactor.

If fuel enrichment or

burnup conditions are

not met, the applicant

must submit an

assessment of the

implications for the

environmental impact

values reported in Sec.

51.52.

* * * *

* * *

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

\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, ``Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants''

(May 1996) and NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, ``Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report

Section 6.3--`Transportation,' Table 9.1 `Summary of findings on NEPA

issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,' Final Report''

(August 1999).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of August, 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 99-22764 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P