Filing a Renewed License Application, 28316-28328 [2012-11418]
Download as PDF
28316
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 93
Monday, May 14, 2012
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 54
[Docket No. PRM–54–6; NRC–2010–0291]
Filing a Renewed License Application
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is denying a petition for rulemaking
(PRM) submitted by Raymond Shadis
and Mary Lampert on behalf of Earth
Day Commitment/Friends of the Coast,
Beyond Nuclear, Seacoast AntiPollution League, C–10 Research and
Education Foundation, Pilgrim Watch,
New England Coalition, and joined in
by New Hampshire State Representative
Robin Reed (the petitioners). The
petitioners requested that the NRC
amend its regulations to accept a license
renewal application (LRA) no sooner
than 10 years before the expiration of
the current license and to apply the
revised rule to all LRAs for which the
NRC has not issued a final safety
evaluation report. The petitioners also
requested a suspension of all new
license renewal activity until the
rulemaking is decided. After reviewing
the petition, the NRC is denying the
petition.
SUMMARY:
Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2010–0291 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for this petition. You may
access information related to this
petition, which the NRC possesses and
is publicly available, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
on Docket ID NRC–2010–0291. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher, telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• The NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to PDR.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced. In addition, for
the convenience of the reader, the
ADAMS accession numbers are
provided in a table in Section VI of this
document, Availability of Documents.
• The NRC’s PDR: You may examine
and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret Stambaugh, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–
7069; email:
Margaret.Stambaugh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Modifying the 20-Year Application
Timeframe
III. Ongoing and Future License Renewal
Actions
A. Suspending All Ongoing and Future
License Renewal Application Reviews
B. Applying a 10-Year Timeframe to All
Ongoing and Future License Renewal
Application Reviews
C. Petition Statements and Comments
Referencing the Seabrook Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook
Unit 1), License Renewal Application
IV. Public Comments on the Petition
V. Determination of Petition
VI. Availability of Documents
I. Background
The NRC received the petition on
August 17, 2010, and assigned it Docket
No. PRM–54–6. The NRC published a
notice of receipt of the petition and
request for public comment in the
Federal Register (FR) on September 27,
2010 (75 FR 59158).
The petitioners stated that the NRC’s
current regulation in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
54.17(c) is unduly non-conservative
with respect to its effect on the accuracy
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and completeness of LRAs, public
participation, changing environmental
considerations, aging analysis and
management, regulatory follow-through,
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance, and changing
regulations. The petitioners stated that
they seek to restore some margin of
conservatism by halving the lead time
on LRAs from 20 to 10 years.
The petitioners raised the following
seven issues in support of their request
that the NRC revise 10 CFR 54.17(c):
1. The NRC conducted the rulemaking
for 10 CFR 54.17, ‘‘Filing of
Application,’’ more than 15 years ago,
and it could not have foreseen changes
with respect to economic and regulatory
shifts that have led to an industry-wide
shift of focus from decommissioning to
power uprates and license renewals.
Such changes have affected the
dynamics of license renewal aging
analysis and management.
2. The rulemaking for 10 CFR 54.17(c)
proceeded without sufficient
consideration of the hearing rights of
affected persons.
3. Under 10 CFR 54.17(c), licensees
and the NRC can press to untenable
lengths of time the ability to predict the
following:
a. Aging deterioration of systems;
b. Alternative energy sources that may
be more available in the future; and
c. Various other factors related to
plant security and the environment.
4. Failure rates for systems, structures,
and components (SSCs) are nonlinear,
so licensees are unable to accurately
predict aging-related failures.
5. A 20-year timeframe exacerbates
the NRC staff’s and licensees’ difficulty
in tracking license renewal
commitments.
6. Regulatory changes over a 20-year
period, from application to onset of the
period of extended operation, will result
in grandfathered non-compliance issues.
7. The 20-year timeframe allowed by
10 CFR 54.17(c) conflicts with NEPA.
This conflict results in environmental
reviews of unduly limited scope and
unreasonably limits potential
alternatives.
Section II, ‘‘Modifying the 20-Year
Application Timeframe,’’ of this
document describes in detail each of the
seven issues. Section II also documents
the NRC’s responses to these issues.
The petitioners also requested that the
NRC suspend all ongoing reviews of
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
LRAs and that it apply the 10-year
timeframe requirement to all ongoing
and future LRA reviews. In addition, the
petitioners and some public comment
letters provide statements related to the
license renewal application for
Seabrook, Unit 1. Section III, ‘‘Ongoing
and Future License Renewal Actions,’’
of this document contains the NRC’s
responses to these requests and
statements.
II. Modifying the 20-Year Application
Timeframe
Issue 1
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
The petitioners stated that the NRC
last updated 10 CFR 54.17 in 1995,
before sweeping changes in NRC
oversight and before economic and
regulatory shifts that enabled
unprecedented changes in ownership
and an industry-wide shift of focus from
anticipated plant decommissioning to
power uprates and license renewals.
The petitioners stated that the
rulemaking cannot have contemplated
how these changes have affected the
dynamics of license renewal aging
analysis and aging management
planning over a period of 40 years (20
years of the current license, plus 20
years of the extended period of
operation). The petitioners claimed that
the rule is antiquated and obsolete and
must be reconsidered.
The petitioners stated that, of 32
license renewals granted, none were
filed 20 years in advance of license
expiration and that there is only one
exception among the 14 LRAs under
consideration and filed in the last few
years—Seabrook Unit 1. The petitioners
stated that NextEra Seabrook Nuclear
LLC (NextEra) has provided no credible
justification for its very early filing of an
LRA. The petitioners stated that the
great majority of licensees have filed
applications for license renewal within
10 years of the original license
expiration without any apparent
negative consequences. The petitioners
believe that this experience is a clear
demonstration that a lead time of more
than 10 years is unnecessary and of
little benefit. The petitioners argued that
filing, reviewing, and granting LRAs
more than 10 years in advance of the
original license expiration can have
negative consequences.
NRC Response to Issue 1
The NRC recognizes that it last
revised 10 CFR part 54, ‘‘Requirements
for renewal of operating licenses for
nuclear power plants,’’ in 1995 but
disagrees that the age of the rule
negatively affects regulatory
effectiveness or plant safety. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
petitioners provided no evidence or
analysis demonstrating that regulatory
changes or corporate restructuring have
negatively affected the NRC staff’s
ability to review LRAs or the industry’s
ability to manage aging-related
degradation at nuclear power plants.
Furthermore, the petitioners presented
no evidence or analysis for the assertion
that LRAs submitted more than 10 years
before expiration have resulted in
negative consequences.
In its 1991 Statements of
Consideration for 10 CFR 54.17(c), the
Commission considered the appropriate
period for applicants to submit
applications for license renewal (Power
Plant License Renewal, Final Rule, 56
FR 64963; December 13, 1991). The NRC
established the 20-year timeframe to
balance the need to collect sufficient
operating history data to support an
LRA with the needs of a utility to plan
for the replacement of retired nuclear
power plants in the event of an
unsuccessful LRA. The Statements of
Consideration also discussed the NRC’s
finding that the lead time for building
new electric generation facilities
(alternatives to the proposed action) is
10–14 years, depending on the
technology. In addition, the
Commission considered that the NRC
staff review would add time to the
process. Thus, the NRC found that a 20year application timeframe provided a
reasonable and flexible timeframe for
licensees to perform informed business
planning. The petitioners did not
provide any reasoning to dispute this
previous consideration by the
Commission but instead introduced and
relied on the assumption that a rule
must be reconsidered because it is over
15 years old.
The petitioners cited Seabrook Unit 1
as the only case out of 32 license
renewals where an applicant filed 20
years in advance of its license
expiration. This statement is incorrect
because, as of the date of the petition,
nine reactor units were granted
exemptions from 10 CFR 54.17(c),
enabling the licensees to submit
applications more than 20 years in
advance of their license expiration.
Similarly, the NRC disagrees with the
petitioners’ assertion that ‘‘the great
majority of licensees have filed
applications for license renewal within
10 years of the original license
expiration,’’ as most (43 of the 61) units
with renewed licenses at the date of the
petition, filed their applications earlier
than 10 years before the original license
expiration. Nevertheless, neither
statement contradicted the NRC’s
original basis for its consideration in the
rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28317
Therefore, the arguments provided by
the petitioners for this issue do not
provide sufficient justification for the
NRC to revise the rule. In particular, the
petitioners did not present any new
information that would contradict the
Commission’s previous considerations
when it established the license renewal
rule or demonstrate that sufficient
reason exists to modify the current
regulations.
Issue 2
The petitioners asserted that, by
renewing the license of a nuclear power
station 20 years in advance of the
licensed extended period of operation,
the NRC removes, to the distance of a
full generation, the opportunity for an
adjudicatory hearing. They contend that
a future generation of affected residents,
visitors, and commercial interests
would be unable or unprepared to speak
for themselves. The petitioners further
stated that ‘‘10 CFR 54.17(c) introduces
the question of whether the action
proposed is obtaining the license or
entering into an extended period of
operation 20 years hence.’’ They argue
that ‘‘the safety and environmental
ramifications; the physical impact on
affected persons begins 20 years away.’’
They contended that this renders the
permission so far removed in time from
the implementation as to provide an
intellectual disconnect or, in effect, void
legal notice.
NRC Response to Issue 2
The petitioners pointed out that
renewing an application up to 20 years
in advance means that some future
residents, visitors, and commercial
interests that relocate near the plant
during the period of extended operation
would not have had the opportunity to
participate in the hearing process
associated with the LRA review.
However, the interests of those future
affected persons would be sufficiently
represented by those currently located
in the area. Any impacts from plant
operation on persons currently in the
area of the plant are expected to be the
same or representative of those impacts
on persons who will be located near the
plant in the future. It is also an
untenable legal standard to provide a
hearing opportunity for unknown future
residents, visitors, and commercial
interests, as it would delay the hearing
process or deprive persons currently
affected of a timely hearing opportunity.
Further, the future residents, visitors,
and commercial interests located near
the plant may avail themselves of the
petition process set forth in 10 CFR
2.206, ‘‘Request for action under this
subpart,’’ which allows for a request
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
28318
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
that an existing license be modified,
suspended, or revoked. Future
residents, visitors, and commercial
interests can also raise generic issues by
requesting modification of the NRC’s
regulations under 10 CFR 2.802,
‘‘Petition for rulemaking.’’
The petition statements in Issue 2 do
not provide sufficient justification for
the NRC to revise the rule.
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Issue 3
The petitioners stated that 10 CFR
54.17(c) allows licensees and the NRC
staff to press to untenable lengths of
time the unproven ability to predict the
aging and deterioration of SSCs. The
petitioners also claimed that 10 CFR
54.17(c) promotes failure of the LRA to
encompass the potential effects of an
environment that is arguably changing
at an unprecedented and unpredictable
rate. As a result, the petitioners
questioned whether a rise in ocean
temperatures in the future would
eventually lead to additional impacts,
such as an increase in species affected
by the thermal discharge plume or
cooling intake. The petitioners also
pointed out that ‘‘more environmentally
benevolent alternative energy sources’’
may be more available in the future
(e.g., photovoltaic solar and wind
power) but cannot be credibly projected
over 20 years. In addition, the
petitioners raised the future uncertainty
of the global threat of terrorism and its
impact on security and the availability
of offsite storage for spent fuel and lowlevel radioactive waste. The petitioners
noted that the predicted failure rates for
complex systems tend to increase
exponentially with respect to the length
of time until the prediction matures.
NRC Response to Issue 3
Under Issue 3, the petitioners argued
that the LRA fails to encompass the
potential effects of a changing
environment, and then raised several
issues of concern stemming from the
length of time allowed by 10 CFR
54.17(c). The examples range from aging
degradation to environmental concerns
to terrorism and security. The
petitioners’ issues related to aging
management are similar to those raised
under Issue 4; therefore, the NRC will
address this aspect of the petitioners’
concern in its response to that issue.
Likewise, the petitioners’ environmental
concerns as well as the broader concern
of a changing environment are similar to
the NEPA issues raised under Issue 7;
the NRC will address the environmental
questions in its response to that issue.
This response to Issue 3 addresses the
remaining questions related to future
uncertainty related to acts of terrorism.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
While security of the nuclear facilities
the NRC regulates has always been a
priority, the terrorist attack of
September 11, 2001, brought heightened
scrutiny and spurred more stringent
physical security requirements. The
NRC staff regularly inspects and
enforces against these security
requirements as part of its oversight
role, regardless of a plant’s status with
respect to license renewal. Moreover,
acts of terrorism are not aging-related
issues and are, therefore, outside the
scope of license renewal hearings.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units
2 and 3), CLI–04–36, 60 NRC 631, 638–
40 (2004). Therefore, where the
petitioners raised questions regarding
the license renewal review’s ability to
encompass uncertainties associated
with future threats and developments
related to acts of terrorism, such
concerns are addressed by separate NRC
requirements for physical security (10
CFR Part 73) and are not related to the
rules and regulations pertaining to
license renewal under 10 CFR part 54.
The petitioners did not present new
information in Issue 3 that would
demonstrate that sufficient reason exists
to modify the current regulations.
Issue 4
The petitioners stated that submitting
an application for license renewal at
midterm of the current license finds the
licensee at a time in SSC service life
when, in industry experience, few
failures are observed and, generally,
those that are observed are episodic or
anomalous and cannot be readily
plotted as a trend for predictive
purposes. The period of increased
failure rates due to design,
manufacturing, and construction defects
has passed and is irrelevant to aging
management in the proposed extended
period of operation. The petitioners
stated that the anticipated end-of-design
life and aging issues have barely begun
to emerge. Therefore, little or no plantspecific information on how a given
plant will age is available to be trended,
provide lessons, or otherwise illuminate
the path forward. The petitioners
continued that it is generally observed
that for many SSCs the information flow
rates increase rapidly in the fourth
quarter and toward the end of a license.
They argued that this SSC reliability
progression is well known and often
illustrated in the so-called ‘‘Bath Tub
Curve,’’ and corrosion risk is a function
of time. As an example, the petitioners
contended that the Beaver Valley Power
Station containment issue provides an
example of operating experience
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emerging at a late date in a way that
affected license renewal.
Additionally, the petitioners included
the example that Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station also provides a
series of later-life structural failures.
The petitioners stated that it is
appropriate, from a regulatory audit
standpoint, to wait until data on the
applicable failure rate and observed
aging phenomena are in hand before
attempting time-limited aging analysis
or aging management planning; less
than 10; not less than 20 years in
advance of operating license expiration.
NRC Response to Issue 4
The petitioners asserted that a plant
with only 20 years of operating history
will not have gathered sufficient plantspecific aging data to make an informed
decision about license renewal. The
Commission considered this issue in the
1991 rulemaking promulgating the
license renewal rule. In the Statements
of Consideration from 1991, the
Commission stated that a minimum of
20 years provides a licensee with
substantial amounts of information and
would disclose any plant-specific
concerns with regard to age-related
degradation (56 FR 64963; December 13,
1991).
With respect to the petitioners’ claim
that the licensees and the NRC cannot
prove the ability to predict the aging
and deterioration of SSCs in the future,
the Commission recognized this in its
1991 Statements of Consideration and
acknowledged that the ongoing
regulatory processes at the time did not
fully address the safety issues of
extended operation beyond the initial
40-year license term (56 FR 64965;
December 13, 1991). Therefore, the
Commission concluded that a formal
review of the adverse effects of aging on
a SSC’s ability to perform its intended
function would be needed at license
renewal to ensure that operation during
the period of the extended license
would not be inimical to public health
and safety. As such, the resulting
licensing basis for a nuclear power plant
during the renewal term consists of the
current licensing basis (CLB), as well as
any additional obligations to monitor,
manage, and correct the adverse effects
of aging. In other words, the intent of
license renewal is to actively manage
aging effects with aging management
programs rather than just predicting
future deterioration.
The bathtub curve analogy made by
the petitioners would only apply to a
scenario where component failures
could occur if no aging management
programs were used. The petitioners do
not provide convincing evidence or
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
analysis to show that the bathtub curve
phenomenon actually exists at nuclear
power plants. Where the petitioners
cited Beaver Valley and Vermont
Yankee as two examples, neither
example conclusively demonstrated
how component failures were linked to
the presence of a bath-tub trend, other
than the fact that both plants happened
to be in the later segments of their
respective licenses. Nuclear power plant
licensees are required to maintain aging
management programs as part of their
CLB following the license renewal
review, to ensure that the effects of
aging are adequately managed such that
SSC’s are able to perform their intended
functions over time. The aging
management programs, which are
evaluated by the NRC, provide
reasonable assurance that the effects of
aging will be managed under the
renewed license.
The petition statements in Issue 4 do
not provide new information that would
contradict positions taken by the
Commission when it established the
license renewal rule, nor do they
demonstrate that sufficient reason exists
to modify the current regulations.
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Issue 5
The petitioners stated that the current
rule exacerbates the difficulty the NRC
staff and licensees have in following
license renewal commitments. They
argued that LRAs are often approved
with the proviso that certain
commitments be made and fulfilled,
generally before the period of extended
operation begins. These commitments
often include inspections, tests, and
analyses, as well as the development of
programs vital to safety and
environmental protection.
The petitioners stated that regulatory
experience shows NRC staff turnover, as
well as changes in oversight and
licensee staff and ownership, will
complicate and place increased
emphasis on the proper handoff of
unfulfilled licensee commitments.
NRC Response to Issue 5
The NRC agrees that it is important
for licensees to fulfill commitments
made in LRAs and for the NRC to verify
that those commitments are met.
Commitments are one part of the LRA
review and approval process. A license
renewal review can result in new
license conditions and updates to final
safety analysis reports (FSARs), as well
as commitments. In those instances
where the NRC staff makes a finding of
reasonable assurance based on a
commitment proposed by a licensee, the
NRC staff elevates the commitment to a
legal obligation, which is enforced in a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
license condition. Following the
issuance of a renewed license, the NRC
performs inspections, under License
Renewal Inspection Procedure (IP)
71003, ‘‘Post-Approval Site Inspection
for License Renewal,’’ as part of its
oversight process. One objective of the
IP 71003 inspection is to review the
licensee’s implementation of aging
management programs, license
conditions, and commitments
associated with the license renewal
review under 10 CFR part 54. Generally,
these inspections are coordinated by the
NRC regional staff and take place just
before plants enter the period of
extended operation. Findings are
documented in Inspection Reports
following each inspection. In addition
to IP 71003 inspections, regulatory
commitments that have not been made
legal obligations are subject to triennial
audits by the NRC staff. Where the
petitioners claimed that the current rule
for license renewal complicates the
conduct of these inspections or other
processes to verify license renewal
commitments, they do not provide any
evidence to demonstrate their claim.
Therefore, the petitioners’ statements
in Issue 5 do not provide a sufficient
justification for the Commission to grant
the petition for rulemaking.
Issue 6
The petitioners stated that the 20
years that pass from an application to
the onset of the extended operation will,
based on regulatory history, certainly
see an inordinate amount of applicable
regulatory change, resulting in
grandfathered non-compliance issues.
The petitioners stated that current
issues under consideration for treatment
in the license renewal process include
aging management for underground,
buried, or inaccessible pipes that carry
radionuclides and aging management
for safety-related, low-voltage cables
that are below-grade and not qualified
for a wet environment.
NRC Response to Issue 6
The Commission addressed
compliance with future regulatory
changes during the period of license
renewal in promulgating the initial rule
(56 FR 64963; December 13, 1991). The
Commission previously responded to a
similar comment, stating that comments
to the rule ‘‘incorrectly suggest that new
information about plant systems and
components as well as age-related
degradation concerns discovered after
the renewed license is issued would not
be considered by the NRC or would not
be factored into a plant’s programs. The
CLB of a plant will continue to evolve
throughout the term of the renewed
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28319
license to address the effects of agerelated degradation as well as any other
operational concern that arises. The
licensee must continue to ensure that
the plant is being operated safely and in
conformance with its licensing basis. As
regulations change over time, the
current licensing basis is updated to the
extent that the regulation is applicable
to the plant. Thus, a regulatory change
does not result in grandfathering noncompliance with applicable regulations.
The NRC’s regulatory oversight
activities will also assess any new
information on age-related degradation
or plant operation issues and take
whatever regulatory action is
appropriate for ensuring the protection
of the public health and safety.’’ In
addition, the petitioners do not further
develop their case in explaining how
the examples of underground, buried, or
inaccessible piping and cables
demonstrate their claim of noncompliance issues being grandfathered.
In fact, the aging management for these
SSCs are some examples of how ongoing
operating experience informs the
licensees’ aging management programs
over time in order to ensure compliance
with 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3). Such programs
are expected to evolve as necessary to
address new operating experience. In
addition, regulatory oversight activities
such as IP 71003 inspections also
provide the means for the NRC staff to
verify and assess the ongoing
effectiveness of licensees’ aging
management efforts.
The petitioners did not present new
information in Issue 6 that would
contradict positions taken by the
Commission when it established the
license renewal rule or demonstrate that
sufficient reason exists to modify the
current regulations.
Issue 7
The petitioners argued that the
regulation conflicts with, circumvents,
and frustrates the letter, spirit, object,
and goals of NEPA. The petitioners
stated that ‘‘NEPA provides at Section
1500.2, that the Federal agencies, ‘shall
to the fullest extent possible: (e) Use the
NEPA process to identify and assess the
reasonable alternatives to proposed
actions that will avoid or minimize
adverse effects of these actions upon the
quality of the human environment.’’’
The petitioners stated that the ‘‘Act
provides at Section 1501(b) that ‘NEPA
procedures must insure [sic] that
environmental information is available
to public officials and citizens before
decisions are made and before actions
are taken. The information must be of
high quality. Accurate scientific
analysis, expert agency comments, and
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
28320
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
public scrutiny are essential to
implementing NEPA. Most important,
NEPA documents must concentrate on
the issues that are truly significant to
the action in question, rather than
amassing needless detail.’ ’’
The petitioners also presented
arguments under Issue 3 related to
environmental considerations that will
be addressed here. These arguments
include the potential availability of
energy sources that may be more
available in the future (e.g., photovoltaic
solar and wind power) but cannot be
credibly projected over 20 years, the
failure of the LRA to encompass effects
of a changing environment, the effect of
a rise in ocean temperatures on species
affected by a thermal discharge plume
or cooling intake, the availability of
offsite storage for spent fuel and lowlevel radioactive waste, and the status of
threatened or endangered species.
NRC Response to Issue 7
The NRC disagrees that the regulation
conflicts with, circumvents, or frustrates
the intent of NEPA. Rather, the twin
aims of NEPA do not conflict with the
licensing authority granted under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(AEA). Section 103(c) of the AEA states
that ‘‘each [operating] license shall be
issued for a specified period, as
determined by the Commission,
depending on the type of activity to be
licensed, but not exceeding forty years,
and may be renewed upon the
expiration of such period.’’ Consistent
with the AEA, the NRC’s license
renewal regulation allows for a renewed
license providing up to 40 years of
operation (up to 20 years of the existing
license plus 20 years of extended
operation). As previously discussed in
response to Issue 1, the Commission
found that a 20-year application
timeframe provided a reasonable and
flexible period for licensees to perform
informed business planning. The NRC
fulfills its NEPA obligations and meets
NEPA’s twin aims by examining the
reasonably foreseeable impacts and
alternatives to issuing a renewed license
for a period of up to 40 years. The
petitioners did not provide any
reasoning to dispute that the renewed
license period of up to 40 years was
consistent with the AEA, nor did the
petition provide information to show
that if the NRC, consistent with the
AEA, issues a renewed license for up to
40 years, that the agency is, therefore,
unable to meet NEPA’s twin aims.
The petitioners also argued that the
timing of LRAs affects the
implementation of NEPA with regard to
the consideration of alternatives. The
NRC notes that the petitioners quoted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations in support of their
arguments rather than NEPA, but
neither the statute nor the CEQ
regulations support their petition. The
extent of the environmental review is
not directly limited by the timing of the
application submittal, nor does the NRC
staff limit its analysis to the information
provided in the environmental report.
However, the NRC does apply the rule
of reason in conducting its
environmental analysis under NEPA,
which may limit the extent of the
environmental analysis to only those
environmental impacts and alternatives
that are reasonably foreseeable. This
means that, while the environmental
review considers various impacts and
alternatives, the NRC is not required to
analyze every possible future or
speculative development, particularly
those that cannot be reasonably assessed
to inform its decision-making process.
For example, the NRC analyzes
alternative energy sources, but is not
required under NEPA to consider
speculative technological advances in
alternative energy sources, which may
or may not be available at the time of
extended operation. The NRC must
complete its NEPA review before it
issues a renewed license in order to
inform the agency’s decision on license
renewal, and the agency meets the twin
aims of NEPA by analyzing those
alternatives that are reasonably
foreseeable at the time that the renewed
license is issued. The petitioners did not
provide information showing that the
rule precludes the NRC from
considering reasonable alternatives
within the licensing action timeframe.
With respect to assessing the potential
future environmental impacts associated
with the issuance of a renewed license,
the NRC complies with the statutory
requirements of NEPA through its
consideration of impacts in the generic
and supplemental environmental
impact statements (SEISs) for license
renewal prepared in accordance with 10
CFR part 51, ‘‘Environmental protection
regulations for domestic licensing and
related regulatory functions.’’ As part of
this environmental review process, the
NRC evaluates the environmental
impacts associated with operating a
plant for an additional 20 years. This
evaluation includes generic
determination in its Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal (GEIS) of issues such
as the future storage of spent fuel for the
period of extended operation (see 10
CFR part 51, subpart A, Table B–1). The
environmental review also addresses
concerns such as those cited by the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
petitioners in Issue 3 related to the
changing environment (e.g., rise in
ocean temperatures on species affected
by a thermal discharge plume or cooling
intake), in addressing environmental
impacts and alternatives that are
reasonably foreseeable for each site.
Furthermore, the petitioners did not
provide new information to demonstrate
that the changing environment would
have a significant impact to affect the
NRC’s environmental analysis.
The petitioners also raised a concern
in Issue 3 related to the potential change
in status of threatened or endangered
species over the renewed license period;
such changes are accounted for in the
NRC’s ongoing consultations with other
Federal agencies under the Endangered
Species Act, which may result in
imposing incidental take limits or
monitoring for certain species,
depending on the facility and its
environment. To the extent that future
developments or events may occur that
require reinitiation of consultations, the
NRC staff must consult with the relevant
agency or agencies, regardless of
whether the power plant has a renewed
license.
Therefore, the change to license
renewal regulations proposed by the
petitioners would not affect the NRC’s
response to events related to the
Endangered Species Act.
In Issue 7, the petitioners stated that
the rule ‘‘sets the [license renewal]
application’s environmental review at a
maximum of 20 years in advance of the
impacts from the Federal action.’’ Other
parts of the petition made similar
statements to imply that the actual
‘‘action’’ taken by the NRC is not going
to occur until up to 20 years into the
future. For clarification, the ‘‘proposed
action’’ before the NRC for license
renewal is the ‘‘issuance’’ of a new and
superseding license that allows
operations for up to 40 years (any
remaining time on the initial license
plus up to 20 years of extended
operation), which is discussed further in
response to Issue 2. Therefore, NEPA
requires the NRC to perform and
complete an environmental review to
support the agency’s decision-making
process with respect to issuance of the
renewed license. As previously stated, a
40-year license is consistent with the
AEA, and the NRC performs its NEPA
analysis as part of the LRA review
process. The petitioners did not provide
new information that demonstrates that
the NRC ought to perform its NEPA
analysis at some time other than before
it issues a renewed license.
Finally, in their arguments supporting
Issue 7, the petitioners discussed the
LRA submitted for Seabrook Unit 1. The
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
NRC considers these issues as intended
by the petitioners and commenter to be
examples of a specific case for which
the petitioners believe the rule is
deficient. Section III.C, ‘‘Petition
Statements and Comments Referencing
the Seabrook Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook Unit 1),
License Renewal Application,’’ of this
document contains a detailed response
to the Seabrook example.
Therefore, the petitioners’ arguments
in Issue 7 do not demonstrate that
sufficient reason exists to modify the
current regulations.
III. Ongoing and Future License
Renewal Actions
A. Suspending All Ongoing and Future
License Renewal Application Reviews
The petitioners requested that,
pending promulgation of a rule to revise
10 CFR 54.17(c), the NRC suspend all
ongoing and future reviews of LRAs.
The review of LRAs is not a rulemaking
issue and thus will not be addressed in
this response to a petition submitted
under 10 CFR 2.802. The FR notice of
receipt for the petition stated that the
NRC will address the request to suspend
ongoing and future LRA reviews in a
separate action. Subsequently, the
Commission denied the petitioners’
request to suspend licensing actions; the
Commission’s denial can be found in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML110250087.
B. Applying a 10-Year Timeframe to All
Ongoing and Future License Renewal
Application Reviews
Under the presumption that the NRC
would revise 10 CFR 54.17(c) to 10
years, the petitioners requested that the
NRC apply the 10-year requirement to
the review of all ongoing and future
LRAs. In this case, since the NRC is
denying the petition, a 10-year
requirement will not be applied to
ongoing or future LRA reviews.
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Petition Statements and Comments
Referencing the Seabrook Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook
Unit 1), License Renewal Application
The petitioners made multiple claims
about license renewal that refer
specifically to Seabrook Unit 1. One
commenter raised similar claims. The
NRC considers these issues as intended
by the petitioners and commenter to be
examples of a specific case for which
the petitioners or commenter believe the
rule is deficient. The petition and
comment claims are similar to the
claims the petitioners have submitted in
a Seabrook adjudicatory proceeding,
some of which the Atomic Safety and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
Licensing Board Panel admitted as
contentions in that proceeding
(including contentions related to
alternatives the applicant considered in
its environmental report).
To the extent that the petitioners’
concerns relate specifically to Seabrook
and the ongoing license renewal
proceeding for that facility, the
petitioners must pursue those issues
through the adjudicatory process.
Furthermore, to the extent that the
petitioners or commenter raised issues
about a specific licensing proceeding,
the issues and comments are considered
only as examples of specific cases where
the petitioners believe the current rule
is unduly burdensome, deficient, or
needs to be strengthened, in support of
the petition to amend 10 CFR 54.17(c).
Any other comments regarding a
specific licensing proceeding are
beyond the scope of a petition for
rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802 and are
not considered further in the NRC’s
responses.
IV. Public Comments on the Petition
The NRC received six letters
containing comments on the proposed
rulemaking from Mark Strauch, Marie
Mackowoliez, NextEra Energy, the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Beyond
Nuclear, and Strategic Teaming and
Resource Sharing. The comments are
grouped into eight comment categories.
Individual comments and their grouping
can be found in the Public Comment
Matrix in ADAMS under Accession
Number ML113540177. The NRC also
received a letter from New Hampshire
State Representative Robin Reed asking
to be added as a petitioner. The NRC
accepted the request from State
Representative Reed and considers her
to be a petitioner for the purposes of this
response.
Comment Category 1: The NRC wrote
10 CFR 54.17 before economic and
regulatory changes took place that
would affect license renewal.
Comment 1.1
The petitioners stated that the NRC
last updated the rulemaking for 10 CFR
54.17 in 1995, before changes in NRC
oversight and economic and regulatory
shifts that enabled unprecedented
changes in oversight and an industrywide shift of focus from anticipated
decommissioning to uprate and license
renewal. The petitioners further stated
that the rulemaking did not consider
how such changes would affect aging
analysis in LRA reviews or aging
management planning. One commenter
stated that the petition does not
demonstrate that the rule is out of date
and that the petitioners provided no
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28321
supporting information for the
statement. Two commenters stated that
all applicants for license renewal must
comply with 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR
part 54, regardless of their corporate
structure, and both commented that the
petition did not include an analysis of
how deregulation has affected aging
management. One commenter added
that the petitioners’ attempts to provide
new information that the NRC allegedly
did not consider in its rulemaking fails
to explain what that new information is
and thus fails to demonstrate that
sufficient reason exists to modify the
current regulations. The commenter also
stated that the petition fails to identify
which changes in NRC oversight have
affected aging management. Lastly, a
commenter noted that 10 CFR part 54
considers the present context for a plant
by requiring that each plant maintain its
CLB.
NRC Response
The NRC recognizes that it last
revised 10 CFR part 54 in 1995 but
disagrees that the age of the rule
negatively affects regulatory
effectiveness or plant safety. The NRC
agrees with the commenter that the
petitioners provided no evidence or
analysis to demonstrate that changes in
regulatory structure or corporate
structure of licensees have negatively
affected aging analysis practices, aging
management programs at plants, or the
review of LRAs. This comment does not
provide new information that would
justify revising the rule.
Comment 1.2
A commenter stated that Seabrook
Unit 1 is the only plant to file for license
renewal 20 years in advance of the
expiration of its operating license. The
commenter also stated that, given the
preponderance of license renewal
review times for submittals and the
agency approvals to date, no more than
10 years in advance is warranted for an
application, which will significantly
improve the quality and reliability of
the agency’s environmental impact
statements (EISs) and the environmental
reports upon which they rely, as
required by NEPA. Finally, the
commenter stated that the
preponderance of the license renewal
reviews and approvals conducted to
date do not come close to requiring 10
to 20 years to complete and, therefore,
the basis of the 20-year advance
application date is invalid.
Two other commenters stated that
Seabrook Unit 1 is not the first LRA
filed 20 years in advance of the
operating license expiration, and the
plant is not an outlier in that respect.
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
28322
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Both commenters also noted that the
NRC has granted several LRAs at or near
the 20-year timeframe, and the NRC also
has granted exemptions to the 20-year
requirement for special circumstances.
One commenter further stated that the
need for sufficient lead time for
corporate decision-making, which
underlies 10 CFR 54.17(c), applies
whether companies opt for license
renewal of their nuclear facilities or
development of alternative sources of
generating capacity. Completion of the
business planning process requires
decisions about future generating
capacity to be made many years in
advance.
NRC Response
The comment that Seabrook Unit 1 is
the only plant to submit an application
20 years before expiration of its license
is incorrect. As discussed in response to
Issue 1, at the time of the petition, nine
reactor units were granted exemptions
from 10 CFR 54.17(c), enabling the
licensees to submit applications more
than 20 years in advance of their license
expiration.
The data does not support the
commenter’s corresponding conclusion
that no more than 10 years is warranted
in which to submit an LRA. Thus, the
NRC agrees with the other comments
that the Seabrook Unit 1 LRA is not an
outlier with respect to the timeframe in
which the application was submitted.
A commenter also concluded that,
since the NRC does not need 20 years
to review an LRA, the basis for the 20year application timeframe is invalid.
The NRC acknowledges that 20 years is
not necessary to perform its review of an
LRA, as noted by a commenter. The
NRC typically reviews an application in
about 2 years, when no hearings are
requested and when the review is
appropriately supported by the
applicant. Applications for which
hearings are requested would take
longer than 2 years. Rather, the NRC
established the 20-year timeframe to
balance the need to collect sufficient
operating history data to support an
LRA with a utility’s need to plan for the
replacement of retired nuclear power
plants in the case of an unsuccessful
LRA. In promulgating the 1991 license
renewal rule, the Commission
considered the appropriate length of
time for applicants to submit
applications for license renewal (56 FR
64963; December 13, 1991). The
Statements of Consideration discuss the
NRC finding that the lead time for
building new electric generation
facilities (alternatives to the proposed
action) is 10–14 years, depending on the
technology. The NRC found that a 20-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
year application timeframe provided a
reasonable and flexible period for
licensees to perform informed business
planning. Therefore, the comment does
not present new information that
contradicts positions taken by the
Commission when it established the
license renewal rule.
The NRC response to comments under
Comment Category 7 discusses the
issues raised in the above comments
related to environmental reviews and
EISs.
Comment 1.3
The petition noted that Seabrook Unit
1 provided no credible justification for
its very early filing of an LRA. A
commenter stated that, to the extent
petitioners argued that the LRA is
deficient, their claims are inappropriate
in a rulemaking petition and should be
raised in the ongoing adjudicatory
proceeding, in which several of the
petitioners are currently participating
and have already raised similar claims.
NRC Response
As is discussed further in Section III.C
of this document, the petition and
commenter statements that raised issues
about a specific licensing proceeding are
beyond the scope of a petition for
rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802 and are
not considered in the NRC’s responses
in this document. However, it should be
noted that the rule language in 10 CFR
part 54 contains no requirement for an
applicant to justify the year in which it
applies to renew a license.
The comments related to Comment
Category 1 do not present new
information that would contradict
positions taken by the Commission
when it established the license renewal
rule or demonstrate that sufficient
reason exists to modify the current
regulations.
Comment Category 2: The rulemaking
for 10 CFR 54.17 proceeded without
sufficient consideration of the hearing
rights of affected persons.
Comment 2.1
The petitioners stated that, by
renewing the license of a nuclear power
station 20 years in advance of the
licensed extended period of operation,
the NRC removes, to the distance of a
full generation, the opportunity for an
adjudicatory hearing. They contended
that a coming generation of affected
residents, visitors, and commercial
interests would be unable or unprepared
to speak for themselves.
A commenter noted that, according to
the petitioners’ logic, with even a 5-year
renewal application period, some
people might be unable or unprepared
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to speak for themselves. The commenter
also raised the point that the 20-year
renewal application period provides a
greater ability for people to decide not
to relocate to the area near the plant.
A commenter provided the following
statements related to the hearings on
LRAs. Parties in NRC contested
licensing hearings have the opportunity
to raise issues after the LRA is
submitted and during the months
immediately following the NRC staff’s
completion of its licensing review and
the issuance of the safety and
environmental licensing documents.
Because the licensing hearing focuses
on the LRA itself, and not future
generations, hearing issues are most
effectively addressed while the LRA is
before the agency. Contrary to the
petitioners’ assertion, there is no
statutory, regulatory, or other rationale
for delaying the hearing until the
renewed license goes into effect. The
NRC will address any safety issues
relating to plant operation that arise
after license renewal using the array of
processes available from the
Commission’s regulations.
Two commenters noted that there is
no fundamental right to participate in
administrative adjudications. See
Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v.
NRC, 391 F.3d 338, 354 (1st. Cir. 2004).
One commenter also stated that the NRC
issues initial operating licenses for 40year periods. The combination of a 20year license renewal period with the 18
years (at most) that would remain on an
initial license following the NRC’s
review of an LRA is less than the 40year period for operating licenses that
the NRC grants under 10 CFR part 50 or
10 CFR part 52, ‘‘Licenses,
certifications, and approvals for nuclear
power plants.’’ The petitioners’
argument would mean that the NRC is
incapable of providing a meaningful
hearing opportunity on an initial
operating license and that the AEA’s
provisions requiring both an
opportunity for hearing and a 40-year
term are fundamentally incompatible.
NRC Response
The NRC agrees that a longer renewal
application period may increase the
ability of people to choose not to
relocate to the area near the plant but
recognizes that this may not be true for
some people. Regardless of the renewal
application time period, it is impossible
to identify all people who may relocate
to the area during the entire term of the
license renewal period. However, as
discussed in Section II of this document
in response to Issue 2 of the petition,
current residents would sufficiently
represent potential future area residents,
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
visitors, and commercial interests.
Further, potential future residents,
visitors, and commercial interests have
other regulatory mechanisms to protect
their interests, including a petition for
enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
Those future residents, visitors, and
commercial interests can also raise
generic issues by requesting
modification of the NRC’s regulations
under 10 CFR 2.802.
The comments related to hearings are
generally correct. The NRC’s regulations
in 10 CFR part 2, ‘‘Rules of practice for
domestic licensing proceedings and
issuance of orders,’’ and 10 CFR part 54
provide the opportunity for a hearing
and establish the requirements for
intervention in a license renewal
proceeding. Petitioners who meet the
requirements of 10 CFR part 2 may
intervene in a hearing, subject to the
NRC’s regulations.
The NRC agrees with the commenter
who stated that the opportunity for a
hearing focuses on the adequacy of the
LRA itself, and those issues would be
most effectively heard at the same time
as the licensing decision, as provided by
the NRC’s regulations. The topic of
hearing rights is discussed in response
to Issue 2. As the commenter stated, the
petitioners do not provide a rationale in
support of their petition for why a
hearing on the licensing issues would be
more effective after license issuance but
before the beginning of the extended
operating period.
The commenter provided an example
in which a plant may receive a 38-year
renewed license. The commenter
calculated 38 years by adding the 20year renewal application period to the
20-year extended operation period and
subtracting 2 years for NRC staff review
of the renewal application. The
commenter argued that the initial
licensing period of 40 years and the
approximately 38-year period for
renewal both represent an NRC
licensing decision for which the effects
of operation would be realized over
approximately a 40-year period. The
period of the renewed license may be up
to 40 years, as provided in 10 CFR
54.31, ‘‘Issuance of a renewed license.’’
The commenter is correct that the
petitioners do not recognize the
similarity of the licensing periods of the
two licensing actions and that the
petition for rulemaking does not explain
why the initial 40-year licensing period
is appropriate while the renewal
licensing period of up to 40 years would
be inappropriate. The NRC agrees with
the commenter’s point that, similar to
the AEA authorization to grant an initial
license for 40 years, a 40-year renewal
licensing period does not deprive future
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
residents of a fundamental hearing right.
Specifically, the petition does not
provide any support to show why the
AEA authorization for an initial 40-year
operating license does not deprive
potential future residents of a hearing
right, but a license renewal period of up
to 40 years does deprive potential future
residents of a hearing right.
The comments related to Comment
Category 2 do not provide a sufficient
justification for the Commission to grant
the petition for rulemaking.
Comment Category 3: The rule
currently enables applications to avoid
addressing changing environmental
considerations.
Comment 3.1
The petitioners stated that 10 CFR
54.17(c) promotes failure of the LRA to
encompass the potential effects of an
environment that is arguably changing
at an unprecedented rate. In addition,
the petition raised issues about acts of
terrorism, spent fuel storage, and the
potential for failures in complex
systems. A commenter questioned the
impact that a potential rise in ocean
temperatures could have on aquatic
species affected by a reactor’s thermal
discharge plume or the cooling intake
structure. Assuming such changes
occur, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or designated State
agency that permits operations under
Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean
Water Act could modify those permits
to account for the change in conditions.
Regardless of whether these permitting
authorities amend the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits, Section 511(c)(2) of
the Clean Water Act precludes the NRC
from either second-guessing the
conclusions in NPDES permits or
imposing its own effluent limitations.
The commenter further observed that
the Commission repeatedly stated that
security issues are not among the agingrelated questions that are relevant in a
license renewal review. Moreover, the
NRC’s environmental review need not
address acts of terrorism. The storage
and disposal of low-level waste and the
onsite storage of spent fuel generated
during the additional 20 years of
operation are Category 1 issues
previously considered in the GEIS for
which the NRC has already codified
environmental impact findings in 10
CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B,
‘‘Environmental effect of renewing the
operating license of a nuclear power
plant.’’ In 10 CFR 51.23, ‘‘Temporary
storage of spent fuel after cessation of
reactor operation—generic
determination of no significant
environmental impact,’’ the NRC
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28323
generically addresses the eventual
onsite or offsite storage of spent fuel
following the permanent cessation of
operations.
NRC Response
The commenter’s statements generally
align with the responses to Issues 3 and
7. As the commenter pointed out, a
nuclear power plant’s environment,
including applicable regulations, may
change over time for a variety of
reasons. Not all of those potential
changes are within the scope of a
license renewal application review.
The comments related to Comment
Category 3 do not provide a sufficient
justification for the NRC to revise the
rule.
Comment Category 4: The NRC and
the licensees are unable to accurately
predict aging-related failures.
Comment 4.1
The petition stated that 10 CFR
54.17(c) allows licensees and the NRC
staff to press to untenable lengths of
time the unproven ability to predict the
aging and deterioration of SSCs. A
commenter noted that the petitioners
would have one believe that the NRC is
powerless, once a renewal is docketed,
to address any of the potential safety or
aging-related issues enumerated in the
petition.
A commenter stated that, to the extent
these matters (the prediction of SSC
aging) were not properly within the
scope of license renewal, they were
addressed as part of the licensees’
ongoing operation (e.g., the corrective
action and operating experience
programs) and the NRC’s continuing
regulatory oversight process. The
commenter further noted that the
petitioners’ argument is also belied by
the stringency of the NRC’s license
renewal process.
A commenter noted that, in drafting
10 CFR part 54, the NRC did not expect
licensees to predict all possible agerelated failures before issuance of a
renewed license. Instead, it requires
licensees to have inspection and testing
programs that would detect aging effects
such that they could adequately manage
those effects. A licensee’s license
renewal programs are detection and not
prediction programs. The commenter
concludes that this argument does not
provide any grounds to reconsider the
Commission’s current regulations.
NRC Response
As part of the license renewal review,
the NRC evaluates a licensee’s aging
management programs to ensure that
each provides reasonable assurance that
the licensee will adequately manage the
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
28324
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
effects of aging. The petitioners
provided no support for the claim that
aging management technology is
inadequate. The NRC agrees that the
comments made by two commenters are
a correct description of the process of
aging management and continuing
regulatory oversight. Those SSCs within
the scope of license renewal and that
require aging management review have
specific aging management programs
designed to manage the effects of aging.
Any SSCs outside the scope of license
renewal but subject to 10 CFR part 50
are subject to regulatory oversight.
Licensees are required to maintain their
aging management programs until the
end of their license. As previously
stated, the NRC evaluates the aging
management programs to determine if
they provide reasonable assurance that
the licensee will manage the effects of
aging.
Comment 4.2
The petitioners stated that filing for
license renewal at midterm of the
current license finds the licensee at a
time in SSC service life when, in
industry experience, few failures are
observed and, generally, those that are
observed are episodic or anomalous in
nature and thus cannot be readily
plotted as a trend for prediction
purposes. The petition argued that the
time of an elevated rate of failures
caused by design, manufacturing, and
construction defects has passed and is
largely irrelevant to aging management
in the proposed extended period of
operation.
A commenter stated that the ‘‘bathtub
curve’’ for component reliability trends
does not apply to components that are
subject to aging management programs.
Rather, this curve applies when
components have little or no
maintenance or aging management
activities applied. The commenter
further stated that renewal applicants
should be encouraged to perform the
required aging management and
environmental reviews as early as
possible, since that would allow more
time to evaluate and implement aging
management programs for long-term
operation. Rather than discourage early
applications, it would make more sense
to encourage such proactive efforts.
Another commenter stated that license
renewal applicants benefit not only
from their own operating experience but
from that of the entire industry.
Another commenter stated that
petitioners argue that most aging effects
increase rapidly in the fourth quarter
and toward the end of the license and
that licensees should be required to wait
until these later-life structural failures
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
have presented themselves before filing
an LRA.
NRC Response
These comments relate to whether or
not aging management programs can
address the potential for failure rates at
a nuclear power plant to exhibit a
bathtub curve trend. The NRC agrees
with the comment that a licensee
benefits from industry-wide operating
experience with respect to aging-related
degradation. However, the NRC
disagrees with the comment that it is
appropriate to wait until the
presentation of rapidly increasing aging
effects at a plant before accepting an
LRA. In the 1991 final rule, the
Commission did ‘‘not agree that it is
adequate to wait to address aging
concerns when they become apparent in
plant operations.’’ The Commission
found that waiting to take corrective
action after a failure occurs does not
adequately control risk (56 FR 64974;
December 13, 1991). Furthermore, the
NRC stated that ‘‘the licensee must
continue to ensure that the plant is
being operated safely and in
conformance with its licensing basis.’’
As such, the NRC expects that the
licensees’ aging management programs
would continue to be informed over
time by ongoing operating experience to
address new issues. In its 1991
Statements of Consideration, the
Commission also noted that the NRC’s
‘‘regulatory oversight activities will also
assess any new information on agerelated degradation or plant operation
issues and take whatever regulatory
action is appropriate for ensuring the
protection of the public health and
safety’’ (56 FR 64963; December 13,
1991).
Comment 4.3
The petitioners stated that it is
appropriate, from a regulatory audit
standpoint, to wait until applicable
failure rate and observed aging
phenomena data are in hand before
attempting time-limited aging analysis
or aging management planning: Less
than 10, not less than 20, years in
advance of operating license expiration.
A commenter stated that, to the extent
the petition claimed that 20 years of
plant operating experience is
insufficient to provide a valid basis for
renewal applications, the Commission
has previously addressed and dismissed
that argument in its 1991 final rule.
NRC Response
The NRC addressed this argument in
the Statements of Consideration for the
1991 final rule. As the Commission
stated, a minimum of 20 years provides
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a licensee with substantial amounts of
information and would disclose any
plant-specific concerns with regard to
age-related degradation. A nuclear
power plant will undergo a significant
number of fuel cycles over 20 years, and
plant and utility personnel will have a
substantial number of hours of
operational experience with every SSC
(56 FR 64963; December 13, 1991). The
petitioners have not provided any new
insights or analyses that would cause
the Commission to change the rule.
The comments related to Comment
Category 4 do not provide a sufficient
justification for the NRC to revise the
rule.
Comment Category 5: The current rule
exacerbates the NRC staff’s and
licensee’s difficulty in following license
renewal commitments.
Comment 5.1
The petition stated that regulatory
experience shows that NRC staff
turnover, as well as changes in oversight
and licensee staff and ownership, will at
once complicate and place increased
emphasis on the proper handoff of
unfulfilled licensee commitments. A
commenter stated that the petition does
not account for the fact that 10 CFR part
54 requires license renewal
commitments to be reflected in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR). Also, the commitments are
publicly available on the facility’s NRC
docket. The commenter noted that the
petition failed to acknowledge that the
NRC’s established regulatory oversight
process for nuclear power plants (and
other NRC licensees) has been
functioning effectively for decades,
despite NRC staff turnover and changes
in oversight and licensee staff and
facility ownership. The commenter
continued that certain NRC regulations
and guidance provide various processes
for ensuring that the licensee satisfies
such commitments. Such processes
include, but are not limited to, program
development, testing, formalized
commitment processes, and NRC
inspections, all of which require
significant recordkeeping of
commitment status. The commenter also
stated that, during the term of the
renewed license, the licensee continues
to be subject to all NRC regulations in
10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40,
50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100,
and their appendices, as applicable to
holders of operating licenses under 10
CFR part 50 or combined license
holders under 10 CFR part 52.
Another commenter cited the
petitioners’ question about the NRC’s
ability to keep track of license renewal
commitments that are more than 10
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
years old, blaming NRC staff turnover,
changes in oversight, and potential new
facility ownership. The commenter
observed that the license renewal
commitments are in the docketed and
searchable UFSAR. The commenter
continued that the petitioners do not
explain why the NRC staff would
encounter any difficulty keeping track
of documented commitments in a
licensee’s UFSAR.
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
NRC Response
The topic of license renewal
commitments is discussed in the
response to Issue 5. The NRC
acknowledges that it is important for
licensees to fulfill commitments and
obligations made in LRAs. The NRC also
agrees that existing regulatory processes
are in place to verify license renewal
commitments, and that the petition does
not explain why the NRC staff would
encounter complications in doing so.
The comments related to Comment
Category 5 do not provide a sufficient
justification for the NRC to revise the
rule.
Comment Category 6: A 20-year
timeframe will result in grandfathered
non-compliance issues.
Comment 6.1
The petition stated that the 20 years
that pass from application to onset of
the extended period of operation will,
based on regulatory history, certainly
see an inordinate amount of applicable
regulatory change, resulting in
grandfathered non-compliance issues. A
commenter stated that the Commission
considered and dismissed this very
concern (regarding non-compliance
with future changes in regulations) in
promulgating the original license
renewal rules. The commenter further
stated that, from the outset, the license
renewal process has emphasized that,
for renewal licensees (as well for reactor
licensees that do not seek a renewed
license), the NRC will consider new
information and impose new
requirements as appropriate, and more
recent Commission pronouncements
confirm that this position has not
changed.
The commenter concluded that, as a
matter of policy, the Commission was
clearly correct in determining that
licensees must address existing issues at
an operating nuclear facility under the
current license instead of postponing
the matter until the license renewal
period. Obviously, the resolution of any
current safety concerns should not be
deferred. By the same token, the
resolution of current issues may have
little or no relevance to safety during the
period of extended operation, because
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
those issues may be obviated by future
changes in circumstances or regulatory
requirements. As the Commission has
held, it is not appropriate for the NRC
or parties to spend valuable resources
litigating allegations of current
deficiencies in a proceeding that is
directed to future-oriented issues.
Additionally, the NRC’s license renewal
process includes a ‘‘safety valve’’
allowing consideration of additional
issues if appropriate (see 10 CFR 2.335,
‘‘Consideration of Commission rules
and regulations in adjudicatory
proceedings’’).
Finally, the commenter argued that
the NRC’s license renewal rules
represent an informed, reasoned, and
permissible exercise of the statutory
authority under the AEA. The
Commission established its renewal
regulations after extensive deliberations,
based on its determination that existing
regulatory processes are adequate to
ensure that the licensing bases of
currently operating nuclear power
plants provide and maintain an
adequate level of safety. The license
renewal rules further reflect the NRC’s
considered policy judgments that (1)
issues relevant to both current operation
and extended operation during the
license renewal period should be
addressed when they arise, not
postponed until a license renewal
decision (56 FR 64946; December 13,
1991); and (2) duplicating the
Commission’s ongoing regulatory
reviews in a license renewal proceeding
would waste NRC resources, which are
better focused on aging management
concerns.
Another commenter stated that the
Commission has explained that it
expects licensees and license renewal
applicants to adjust their aging
management programs to reflect lessons
learned in the future through individual
and industry-wide experiences. The
Commission has described the license
renewal program as a living program
that continues to evolve. If new insights
or changes emerge over time, the NRC
staff will require, as appropriate, any
modifications to SSCs that are necessary
to ensure adequate protection of public
health and safety or to bring the facility
into compliance with a license or the
rules and orders of the Commission. The
commenter further stated that the NRC
will act to ensure adequate protection,
regardless of when an LRA is submitted.
The Commission also considered this
same argument nearly 20 years ago in its
1991 final rule.
NRC Response
The prior comments largely
summarize the Commission’s position
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28325
previously stated in relation to the
promulgation of the initial rule. The
NRC generally agrees with the comment
that it considered the issue in the prior
rulemaking for this regulation. The NRC
also agrees with the comment regarding
expectations that licensee’s aging
management programs should be
informed, and enhanced when
necessary, based on the ongoing review
of both plant-specific and industry
operating experience.
The comments related to Comment
Category 6 do not provide a justification
for the NRC to revise the rule.
Comment Category 7: The 20-year
timeframe allowed by 10 CFR 54.17(c)
conflicts with NEPA.
Comment 7.1
The petitioners argued that an LRA
for a nuclear power plant submitted 20
years in advance of the expiration of its
current operating license cannot, to the
fullest extent possible, accurately and
reliably evaluate nor reasonably foresee
the alternatives to the proposed action,
as required by the CEQ regulations.
They contended that the premature
information constitutes nothing more
than amassing needless detail that, in
the case of a nuclear power plant
relicensing action, establishes a bias
towards a premature relicensing
decision.
A commenter stated that, by allowing
applications 20 years in advance of the
licensing action, the NRC is rigging the
purpose and need in violation of NEPA,
citing circuit court comments. The
commenter asserted that NEPA is to be
interpreted to guard against and prevent
such misinformed and misleading
actions. The commenter also argued that
the existence of a viable but
unexamined alternative renders an EIS
inadequate, and therefore agencies must
study significant alternatives suggested
by other agencies or the public. The
commenter stated that there is simply
no showing of any attempt by the NRC
to avoid the consideration of the
environmental impacts associated with
license renewal projects or to deprive
the public of information related to
those impacts by dividing a larger
project into smaller units.
NRC Response
The NRC disagrees with one
commenter’s statement that the 20-year
timeframe constitutes a rigging of the
purpose or need with regard to NEPA.
Rather, the 20-year time frame, which is
part of the 40-year renewed license
term, is consistent with the AEA.
Section 103(c) of the AEA states that
‘‘each [operating] license shall be issued
for a specified period, as determined by
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
28326
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
the Commission, depending on the type
of activity to be licensed, but not
exceeding forty years, and may be
renewed upon the expiration of such
period.’’ Since the license renewal
period consists of the period of
extended operation (20 years) and any
time remaining on the original license
(up to 20 years per 10 CFR 54.17(c)), the
license renewal period is consistent
with the 40-year license period allowed
under the AEA. Furthermore, the
Commission considered the timing of an
LRA in the promulgation of the license
renewal rule. As is discussed in more
detail in response to Issue 1, the
Commission found that a 20-year
application timeframe provided a
reasonable and flexible period for
licensees to perform informed business
planning. The commenter provided no
information demonstrating that the NRC
established the 20-year application
timeframe to rig the purpose or need of
NEPA.
As discussed in Issue 7, the
commenter argued that the timing of
LRAs affects the implementation of
NEPA with regard to the consideration
of alternatives. The extent of the
environmental review is not directly
limited by the timing of the application
submittal, nor does the NRC staff limit
its analysis to the information provided
in the environmental report. The NRC
applies the rule of reason in conducting
its environmental review under NEPA,
which may limit the extent of an
environmental review to only those
environmental impacts that are
reasonably foreseeable. This means that,
while the environmental review
considers various impacts and
alternatives, the NRC is not required to
analyze every possible future
speculative development. The NRC
must complete its NEPA review before
the issuance of a renewed license to
inform the agency’s decision on license
renewal. The commenter did not
provide information showing that the
rule precludes the NRC from
considering reasonable alternatives
within the licensing action timeframe.
Comment 7.2
A commenter stated that setting the
maximum advance date for the
submission of a relicensing application
at 20 years in effect needlessly restricts
the substance of the environmental
review by fixing its analysis
unreasonably and prematurely from an
application’s expiration date and the
beginning of impact from the proposed
Federal action. By setting the
application’s environmental review at a
maximum of 20 years in advance of the
impacts from the Federal action, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
regulation, as currently written,
effectively limits the scope and content
of an environmental review, rendering it
a speculative venture and a snapshot on
the recent past rather than a rigorous
and objective assessment of what is
reasonably foreseeable.
A commenter stated that it is well
established that the scope of the
environmental review required in
connection with license renewal is
appropriately limited and that the
limited scope of review has been
consistently upheld. The NRC’s
regulations do require a discussion of
alternatives by both the applicant (in the
environmental report) and the NRC staff
(in the SEIS) in connection with
renewal applications. The commenter
argued that issuance of a renewed
license and initiation of the period of
extended operation under the renewed
license are part of the same Federal
action; there is no additional connected
action. Therefore, the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed
license renewal are considered together,
not piecemeal. Another commenter
stated that, with regard to Vermont
Yankee, the Supreme Court made clear
that the concept of alternatives under
NEPA must be bounded by some notion
of feasibility. As a result, agencies are
not required to consider alternatives
that are remote and speculative. Instead,
agencies may deal with circumstances
as they exist and are likely to exist.
While there will always be more data
that could be gathered, agencies must
have some discretion to draw the line
and move forward with decisionmaking. The Commission’s decision to
allow licensees to file LRAs in
accordance with 10 CFR 54.17(c) and
perform its environmental review
within that timeframe is a valid exercise
of this discretion.
NRC Response
As discussed in response to Issue 7,
the extent of the environmental review
is not directly limited by the timing of
the application submittal, nor does the
NRC staff limit its analysis to the
information provided in the
environmental report. However, the
NRC does apply the rule of reason in
conducting its environmental review
under NEPA, which may limit the
extent of an environmental review to
only those environmental impacts that
are reasonably foreseeable. This means
that, while the environmental review
considers various impacts and
alternatives, the NRC is not required to
analyze every possible future or
speculative development, particularly
those that cannot be reasonably assessed
to inform its decision-making process.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The NRC must complete the NEPA
review before it issues a renewed
license to inform the agency’s decision
on license renewal. The commenter did
not provide information showing that
the rule precludes the NRC from
considering reasonable alternatives
within the licensing action timeframe.
Comment 7.3
The petition stated that an application
for relicensing submitted 20 years in
advance of the current license
expiration date cannot reasonably be
determined to be sufficiently complete
nor reasonably be represented to
rigorously explore and objectively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives.
A commenter argued that it is not
reasonable to consider that an
environmental report based on data that
is 20 years old or older can solely
constitute the foundation for an
adequately studied EIS prepared by the
NRC.
This in fact constitutes a violation of
NEPA principles, as the harm that
NEPA seeks to prevent is complete
when the agency makes a decision
without sufficiently considering
information that NEPA requires be
placed before the decision-maker and
the public. An application that is filed
20 years in advance of a 2030 expiration
date relies on conclusions made 34
years before the requested action and
stretches the veracity and validity of the
environmental report to an amassing of
outdated and meaningless details for the
agency’s preparation of an EIS. For
example, in the Seabrook Unit 1
relicense application, filed in 2010, the
preponderance of expert documentation
about renewable alternatives is gathered
from 2008, effectively freezing the
environmental evaluation for the region
of interest 22 years from the requested
Federal action. It is disingenuous to
characterize that data 22 to 34 years out
from the requested action as sufficiently
complete, as NEPA is established to
require. NextEra relies upon the 20-year
advance provision in 10 CFR 54.17(c) to
truncate its alternative evaluation and
justify the omission of more recent
documents from experts and expert
agencies from 2009 and 2010.
One commenter stated that, as a
matter of administrative law, agencies
have broad discretion to formulate their
own procedures, and the NRC’s
authority in this respect has been
termed particularly great. Similarly,
although an agency may alter its rules
in light of its accumulated experience in
administering them, an agency must
offer a reasoned explanation for the
change. The petitioners’ request for
relief provides no such reasonable basis
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
for overturning the NRC’s current
license renewal framework. Moreover,
in the context of environmental
regulations, the Supreme Court has
made clear that NEPA does not require
agencies to adopt any particular internal
decision-making structure and that the
only procedural requirements imposed
by NEPA are those stated in the plain
language of the Act. Therefore, the Court
found that NEPA cannot serve as the
basis for a substantial revision of the
carefully constructed procedural
specifications of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Another commenter stated that NEPA
does not require agencies to adopt any
particular internal decision-making
structure. In fact, the Commission has
broad discretion to structure its NEPA
inquiries. As the Supreme Court made
clear in Vermont Yankee over 30 years
ago, NEPA does not provide any basis
for adding procedural requirements
beyond the carefully constructed
procedural specifications imposed by
the Administrative Procedure Act. In
Vermont Yankee, the Court also
explained that the only procedural
requirements imposed by NEPA are
those stated in the plain language of the
Act. The Commission has decided that
its safety review of LRAs under the AEA
can be initiated with 20 years remaining
on the current license, and NEPA
cannot compel a different procedural
timetable. Accordingly, the petitioners’
claim that NEPA requires the NRC to
amend 10 CFR 54.17(c) to allow for a
later analysis of alternatives finds no
support in law.
NRC Response
The NRC disagrees that the
environmental reports submitted in
support of LRAs must rely on data that
are 20 years old or older, and the NRC
disagrees that environmental report data
forms the sole foundation for EISs. As
discussed in response to Issue 2, the
‘‘proposed action’’ before the NRC for
license renewal is the ‘‘issuance’’ of a
new and superseding license that allows
operations for up to 40 years (any
remaining time on the initial license
plus up to 20 years of extended
operation), which is also discussed in
response to Issue 2. Therefore, NEPA
requires the NRC to perform and
complete an environmental review to
support the agency’s decision-making
process with respect to issuance of the
renewed license. Furthermore, as
described in response to Issue 7, the
license renewal regulation is consistent
with the 40-year license term allowed
under the AEA. The environmental
report is submitted to support an LRA,
and the NRC reviews that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
environmental report along with the
application. The environmental report,
therefore, does not need to rely on data
that is 20 years old.
The comment that an environmental
report forms the sole basis for a license
renewal EIS, or that alternatives
proffered by the applicant in its
environmental report are the only
alternatives the NRC staff considers, is
also incorrect. The NRC staff undertakes
an independent consideration of
environmental impacts and documents
its consideration in the EIS.
These comments do not provide
sufficient justification for the NRC to
revise the rule.
Comment 7.4
A commenter provided, as an
example, that on June 1, 2010, NextEra
submitted its application for relicensing
the Seabrook nuclear power plants on
the New Hampshire seacoast 20 years in
advance of its current 40-year operating
license expiration date, identified as
March 15, 2030. Given that the
proposed relicensing period for which
the proposed Federal action is being
taken is for the period 2030–2050,
Chapter 7 of the Seabrook License
Renewal Environmental Report provides
a dated, incomplete, and meaningless
assessment of energy alternatives and is
biased towards the requested relicensing
action.
Another commenter stated that,
although the petitioners would have one
believe that a 20-year renewal window
somehow circumvents or frustrates
NEPA, it does no such thing. The
commenter stated that this assertion is
predicated on the misguided belief that
somehow there will be dramatic
changes in how solar, wind, or other
renewables penetrate the grid. The
commenter watched the California
Altamont wind farm in dismay every
day. Consumers and energy regulators
need certainty in the near-, mid-, and
long-term horizon. Early nuclear power
plant license renewal injects more
certainty, not less, in that process. The
commenter concluded that the
petitioners convey no demonstrable
safety, security, or environmental
concerns about Seabrook.
NRC Response
Section III.C of this document
contains the NRC’s responses to issues
related to the Seabrook LRA. One
commenter raised several concerns
about alternatives in the environmental
report or the NRC staff’s EIS. As stated
in response to Issue 7, the extent of the
environmental review is not directly
limited by the timing of the application
submittal, nor does the NRC staff limit
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28327
its analysis to the information provided
in the environmental report. The NRC
staff undertakes an independent
consideration of environmental impacts
and documents that consideration in its
EIS. Furthermore, there is no guarantee
that a shorter application timeframe
would increase the number of
alternatives analyzed in an
environmental report. Some alternatives
may need more than 10 years of lead
time for design and construction.
Therefore, allowing applicants to apply
for license renewal more than 10 years
in advance of a license’s expiration date
does not unreasonably foreclose
alternatives, as suggested by the
petitioners and one commenter.
The comments related to Comment
Category 7 do not provide a justification
for the NRC to revise the rule.
Comment Category 8: General
comments.
Comment 8.1
A commenter argued that, to amend
the regulations to a 10-year advance
time period would lead the way to a
safer means of producing energy. Two
commenters argued that the petitioners
have presented no new information that
contradicts the agency positions
reflected in the existing license renewal
rule or provides sufficient cause to
modify those positions.
One of the commenters further stated
that the petition fails to provide
adequate legal, factual, or policy-based
support for the assertions it makes or
the relief it seeks. By raising issues the
Commission has already considered in
promulgating its license renewal rules,
the petition ignores the carefully crafted
regulatory framework, including 10 CFR
54.17(c), that supports license renewal.
Other aspects of the petition address
topics that are managed by the
Commission’s ongoing regulatory
oversight processes and regulations,
which should not be addressed through
changes to the license renewal rules.
NRC Response
These particular comments express
general support or opposition to the
petition requests. The comments do not
provide additional analysis or data that
would justify revising the rule.
Comment 8.2
A commenter concluded that the NRC
and the industry would significantly
benefit by avoiding subsequent
adjudicatory challenges if licensees
were required to wait to apply for
license renewal no more than 10 years
in advance of the license expiration,
when trends, studies, agreements, and
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
28328
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
commercial ventures were more
distinctly and discretely developed.
NRC Response
The Commission established the 20year timeframe to balance the need to
collect sufficient operating history data
to support an LRA with the needs of a
utility to plan for the replacement of
retired nuclear plants in the case of an
unsuccessful LRA.
The rule, allowing a license period of
40 years, is in accordance with the AEA,
which provides for a license period of
up to 40 years (see Section 103(c) of the
AEA). The rule is not intended to limit
the number of adjudicatory challenges.
Rather, the NRC regulations are
designed to provide appropriate
opportunities for hearings to affected
parties. Reducing the number of
potential adjudicatory challenges is not
sufficient justification to revise the
regulation.
The comments related to Comment
Category 8 do not provide a sufficient
justification for the Commission to
revise the rule.
V. Determination of Petition
The NRC has reviewed the petition
and the public comments and
appreciates the concerns raised. For the
reasons described in Sections II and III
of this document, the NRC is denying
the petition under 10 CFR 2.803. The
petitioners did not present any new
information that would contradict
positions taken by the Commission
when it established the license renewal
rule, nor did the petitioners provide
new, significant information to
demonstrate that sufficient reason exists
to modify the current regulations.
The Commission previously
established the earliest date for
submission of LRAs after soliciting and
considering extensive comments during
the 1991 rulemaking for 10 CFR
54.17(c). In its 1991 Statements of
Consideration, the Commission
determined that a 20-year timeframe
was reasonable for licensees to collect
sufficient operating history and also
sufficient for a utility to plan for
replacement of retired nuclear plants in
the case of an unsuccessful LRA. The
petition did not provide new
information to challenge this basis.
Finally, the renewed license period of
40 years is consistent with the AEA, and
10 CFR 54.17(c) does not cause
environmental reviews submitted to
support LRAs to be in conflict with
NEPA. The license renewal
environmental review and SEIS
consider reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts and alternatives
in accordance with the provisions of 10
CFR part 51. The rule change requested
by the petitioners would not affect the
process the NRC uses to implement
NEPA. The petitioners do not provide
new information or analysis to
demonstrate that the regulations in 10
CFR part 51 are insufficient for the NRC
to comply with the requirements of
NEPA.
For these reasons, the NRC denies the
petitioners’ requests for the NRC to
modify its requirements related to the
LRA period, to suspend license renewal
reviews, and to apply a 10-year
application timeframe to ongoing and
future LRAs.
VI. Availability of Documents
The following table provides
information on how to access the
documents referenced in this document.
For more information on accessing
ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
ADAMS accession No./Federal
Register
Citation
Date
Document
December 13, 1991 ............
September 27, 2010 ...........
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ...........................................................................................
Earth Day Commitment/Friends of the Coast, Beyond Nuclear, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League,
C–10 Research and Education Foundation, Pilgrim Watch, and New England Coalition; Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking.
Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI–11–01), In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to
Amend 10 CFR § 54.17(c).
Public Comment Matrix for Petition for Rulemaking 54–6, License Renewal ................................
January 24, 2011 ................
January 31, 2012 ................
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day
of May 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–11418 Filed 5–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2012–0216; Directorate
Identifier 2010–SW–025–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation Helicopters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 May 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky)
Model S–92A helicopters, which
requires inspecting the tail rotor (T/R)
pylon for a loose or missing fastener, a
crack, damage, or corrosion and adding
an internal doubler to the aft shear deck
tunnel assembly. This proposed AD is
prompted by the discovery of cracks in
T/R pylons. The proposed actions are
intended to detect a loose or missing
fastener, a crack, damage, or corrosion
on the T/R pylon and, if present, to
repair the T/R Pylon and install a
doubler on the aft shear deck tunnel
assembly or to replace the T/R pylon
and install the doubler on the aft shear
deck tunnel assembly to prevent failure
of the T/R pylon or other T/R
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56 FR 64943
75 FR 59158
ML110250087
ML113540177
components, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by July 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Send comments to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the
‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket: You may
examine the AD docket on the Internet
E:\FR\FM\14MYP1.SGM
14MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28316-28328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11418]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 28316]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 54
[Docket No. PRM-54-6; NRC-2010-0291]
Filing a Renewed License Application
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by Raymond Shadis
and Mary Lampert on behalf of Earth Day Commitment/Friends of the
Coast, Beyond Nuclear, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, C-10 Research
and Education Foundation, Pilgrim Watch, New England Coalition, and
joined in by New Hampshire State Representative Robin Reed (the
petitioners). The petitioners requested that the NRC amend its
regulations to accept a license renewal application (LRA) no sooner
than 10 years before the expiration of the current license and to apply
the revised rule to all LRAs for which the NRC has not issued a final
safety evaluation report. The petitioners also requested a suspension
of all new license renewal activity until the rulemaking is decided.
After reviewing the petition, the NRC is denying the petition.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2010-0291 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You may
access information related to this petition, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search on Docket ID NRC-2010-0291. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
The NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in
the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin
the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin
Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession
number for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
accession numbers are provided in a table in Section VI of this
document, Availability of Documents.
The NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of
public documents at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Stambaugh, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-7069; email: Margaret.Stambaugh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Modifying the 20-Year Application Timeframe
III. Ongoing and Future License Renewal Actions
A. Suspending All Ongoing and Future License Renewal Application
Reviews
B. Applying a 10-Year Timeframe to All Ongoing and Future
License Renewal Application Reviews
C. Petition Statements and Comments Referencing the Seabrook
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook Unit 1), License
Renewal Application
IV. Public Comments on the Petition
V. Determination of Petition
VI. Availability of Documents
I. Background
The NRC received the petition on August 17, 2010, and assigned it
Docket No. PRM-54-6. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the
petition and request for public comment in the Federal Register (FR) on
September 27, 2010 (75 FR 59158).
The petitioners stated that the NRC's current regulation in Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 54.17(c) is unduly non-
conservative with respect to its effect on the accuracy and
completeness of LRAs, public participation, changing environmental
considerations, aging analysis and management, regulatory follow-
through, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and
changing regulations. The petitioners stated that they seek to restore
some margin of conservatism by halving the lead time on LRAs from 20 to
10 years.
The petitioners raised the following seven issues in support of
their request that the NRC revise 10 CFR 54.17(c):
1. The NRC conducted the rulemaking for 10 CFR 54.17, ``Filing of
Application,'' more than 15 years ago, and it could not have foreseen
changes with respect to economic and regulatory shifts that have led to
an industry-wide shift of focus from decommissioning to power uprates
and license renewals. Such changes have affected the dynamics of
license renewal aging analysis and management.
2. The rulemaking for 10 CFR 54.17(c) proceeded without sufficient
consideration of the hearing rights of affected persons.
3. Under 10 CFR 54.17(c), licensees and the NRC can press to
untenable lengths of time the ability to predict the following:
a. Aging deterioration of systems;
b. Alternative energy sources that may be more available in the
future; and
c. Various other factors related to plant security and the
environment.
4. Failure rates for systems, structures, and components (SSCs) are
nonlinear, so licensees are unable to accurately predict aging-related
failures.
5. A 20-year timeframe exacerbates the NRC staff's and licensees'
difficulty in tracking license renewal commitments.
6. Regulatory changes over a 20-year period, from application to
onset of the period of extended operation, will result in grandfathered
non-compliance issues.
7. The 20-year timeframe allowed by 10 CFR 54.17(c) conflicts with
NEPA. This conflict results in environmental reviews of unduly limited
scope and unreasonably limits potential alternatives.
Section II, ``Modifying the 20-Year Application Timeframe,'' of
this document describes in detail each of the seven issues. Section II
also documents the NRC's responses to these issues.
The petitioners also requested that the NRC suspend all ongoing
reviews of
[[Page 28317]]
LRAs and that it apply the 10-year timeframe requirement to all ongoing
and future LRA reviews. In addition, the petitioners and some public
comment letters provide statements related to the license renewal
application for Seabrook, Unit 1. Section III, ``Ongoing and Future
License Renewal Actions,'' of this document contains the NRC's
responses to these requests and statements.
II. Modifying the 20-Year Application Timeframe
Issue 1
The petitioners stated that the NRC last updated 10 CFR 54.17 in
1995, before sweeping changes in NRC oversight and before economic and
regulatory shifts that enabled unprecedented changes in ownership and
an industry-wide shift of focus from anticipated plant decommissioning
to power uprates and license renewals. The petitioners stated that the
rulemaking cannot have contemplated how these changes have affected the
dynamics of license renewal aging analysis and aging management
planning over a period of 40 years (20 years of the current license,
plus 20 years of the extended period of operation). The petitioners
claimed that the rule is antiquated and obsolete and must be
reconsidered.
The petitioners stated that, of 32 license renewals granted, none
were filed 20 years in advance of license expiration and that there is
only one exception among the 14 LRAs under consideration and filed in
the last few years--Seabrook Unit 1. The petitioners stated that
NextEra Seabrook Nuclear LLC (NextEra) has provided no credible
justification for its very early filing of an LRA. The petitioners
stated that the great majority of licensees have filed applications for
license renewal within 10 years of the original license expiration
without any apparent negative consequences. The petitioners believe
that this experience is a clear demonstration that a lead time of more
than 10 years is unnecessary and of little benefit. The petitioners
argued that filing, reviewing, and granting LRAs more than 10 years in
advance of the original license expiration can have negative
consequences.
NRC Response to Issue 1
The NRC recognizes that it last revised 10 CFR part 54,
``Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power
plants,'' in 1995 but disagrees that the age of the rule negatively
affects regulatory effectiveness or plant safety. The petitioners
provided no evidence or analysis demonstrating that regulatory changes
or corporate restructuring have negatively affected the NRC staff's
ability to review LRAs or the industry's ability to manage aging-
related degradation at nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the
petitioners presented no evidence or analysis for the assertion that
LRAs submitted more than 10 years before expiration have resulted in
negative consequences.
In its 1991 Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR 54.17(c), the
Commission considered the appropriate period for applicants to submit
applications for license renewal (Power Plant License Renewal, Final
Rule, 56 FR 64963; December 13, 1991). The NRC established the 20-year
timeframe to balance the need to collect sufficient operating history
data to support an LRA with the needs of a utility to plan for the
replacement of retired nuclear power plants in the event of an
unsuccessful LRA. The Statements of Consideration also discussed the
NRC's finding that the lead time for building new electric generation
facilities (alternatives to the proposed action) is 10-14 years,
depending on the technology. In addition, the Commission considered
that the NRC staff review would add time to the process. Thus, the NRC
found that a 20-year application timeframe provided a reasonable and
flexible timeframe for licensees to perform informed business planning.
The petitioners did not provide any reasoning to dispute this previous
consideration by the Commission but instead introduced and relied on
the assumption that a rule must be reconsidered because it is over 15
years old.
The petitioners cited Seabrook Unit 1 as the only case out of 32
license renewals where an applicant filed 20 years in advance of its
license expiration. This statement is incorrect because, as of the date
of the petition, nine reactor units were granted exemptions from 10 CFR
54.17(c), enabling the licensees to submit applications more than 20
years in advance of their license expiration. Similarly, the NRC
disagrees with the petitioners' assertion that ``the great majority of
licensees have filed applications for license renewal within 10 years
of the original license expiration,'' as most (43 of the 61) units with
renewed licenses at the date of the petition, filed their applications
earlier than 10 years before the original license expiration.
Nevertheless, neither statement contradicted the NRC's original basis
for its consideration in the rule.
Therefore, the arguments provided by the petitioners for this issue
do not provide sufficient justification for the NRC to revise the rule.
In particular, the petitioners did not present any new information that
would contradict the Commission's previous considerations when it
established the license renewal rule or demonstrate that sufficient
reason exists to modify the current regulations.
Issue 2
The petitioners asserted that, by renewing the license of a nuclear
power station 20 years in advance of the licensed extended period of
operation, the NRC removes, to the distance of a full generation, the
opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing. They contend that a future
generation of affected residents, visitors, and commercial interests
would be unable or unprepared to speak for themselves. The petitioners
further stated that ``10 CFR 54.17(c) introduces the question of
whether the action proposed is obtaining the license or entering into
an extended period of operation 20 years hence.'' They argue that ``the
safety and environmental ramifications; the physical impact on affected
persons begins 20 years away.'' They contended that this renders the
permission so far removed in time from the implementation as to provide
an intellectual disconnect or, in effect, void legal notice.
NRC Response to Issue 2
The petitioners pointed out that renewing an application up to 20
years in advance means that some future residents, visitors, and
commercial interests that relocate near the plant during the period of
extended operation would not have had the opportunity to participate in
the hearing process associated with the LRA review. However, the
interests of those future affected persons would be sufficiently
represented by those currently located in the area. Any impacts from
plant operation on persons currently in the area of the plant are
expected to be the same or representative of those impacts on persons
who will be located near the plant in the future. It is also an
untenable legal standard to provide a hearing opportunity for unknown
future residents, visitors, and commercial interests, as it would delay
the hearing process or deprive persons currently affected of a timely
hearing opportunity. Further, the future residents, visitors, and
commercial interests located near the plant may avail themselves of the
petition process set forth in 10 CFR 2.206, ``Request for action under
this subpart,'' which allows for a request
[[Page 28318]]
that an existing license be modified, suspended, or revoked. Future
residents, visitors, and commercial interests can also raise generic
issues by requesting modification of the NRC's regulations under 10 CFR
2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking.''
The petition statements in Issue 2 do not provide sufficient
justification for the NRC to revise the rule.
Issue 3
The petitioners stated that 10 CFR 54.17(c) allows licensees and
the NRC staff to press to untenable lengths of time the unproven
ability to predict the aging and deterioration of SSCs. The petitioners
also claimed that 10 CFR 54.17(c) promotes failure of the LRA to
encompass the potential effects of an environment that is arguably
changing at an unprecedented and unpredictable rate. As a result, the
petitioners questioned whether a rise in ocean temperatures in the
future would eventually lead to additional impacts, such as an increase
in species affected by the thermal discharge plume or cooling intake.
The petitioners also pointed out that ``more environmentally benevolent
alternative energy sources'' may be more available in the future (e.g.,
photovoltaic solar and wind power) but cannot be credibly projected
over 20 years. In addition, the petitioners raised the future
uncertainty of the global threat of terrorism and its impact on
security and the availability of offsite storage for spent fuel and
low-level radioactive waste. The petitioners noted that the predicted
failure rates for complex systems tend to increase exponentially with
respect to the length of time until the prediction matures.
NRC Response to Issue 3
Under Issue 3, the petitioners argued that the LRA fails to
encompass the potential effects of a changing environment, and then
raised several issues of concern stemming from the length of time
allowed by 10 CFR 54.17(c). The examples range from aging degradation
to environmental concerns to terrorism and security. The petitioners'
issues related to aging management are similar to those raised under
Issue 4; therefore, the NRC will address this aspect of the
petitioners' concern in its response to that issue. Likewise, the
petitioners' environmental concerns as well as the broader concern of a
changing environment are similar to the NEPA issues raised under Issue
7; the NRC will address the environmental questions in its response to
that issue. This response to Issue 3 addresses the remaining questions
related to future uncertainty related to acts of terrorism.
While security of the nuclear facilities the NRC regulates has
always been a priority, the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001,
brought heightened scrutiny and spurred more stringent physical
security requirements. The NRC staff regularly inspects and enforces
against these security requirements as part of its oversight role,
regardless of a plant's status with respect to license renewal.
Moreover, acts of terrorism are not aging-related issues and are,
therefore, outside the scope of license renewal hearings. Dominion
Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and
3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 638-40 (2004). Therefore, where the
petitioners raised questions regarding the license renewal review's
ability to encompass uncertainties associated with future threats and
developments related to acts of terrorism, such concerns are addressed
by separate NRC requirements for physical security (10 CFR Part 73) and
are not related to the rules and regulations pertaining to license
renewal under 10 CFR part 54.
The petitioners did not present new information in Issue 3 that
would demonstrate that sufficient reason exists to modify the current
regulations.
Issue 4
The petitioners stated that submitting an application for license
renewal at midterm of the current license finds the licensee at a time
in SSC service life when, in industry experience, few failures are
observed and, generally, those that are observed are episodic or
anomalous and cannot be readily plotted as a trend for predictive
purposes. The period of increased failure rates due to design,
manufacturing, and construction defects has passed and is irrelevant to
aging management in the proposed extended period of operation. The
petitioners stated that the anticipated end-of-design life and aging
issues have barely begun to emerge. Therefore, little or no plant-
specific information on how a given plant will age is available to be
trended, provide lessons, or otherwise illuminate the path forward. The
petitioners continued that it is generally observed that for many SSCs
the information flow rates increase rapidly in the fourth quarter and
toward the end of a license. They argued that this SSC reliability
progression is well known and often illustrated in the so-called ``Bath
Tub Curve,'' and corrosion risk is a function of time. As an example,
the petitioners contended that the Beaver Valley Power Station
containment issue provides an example of operating experience emerging
at a late date in a way that affected license renewal.
Additionally, the petitioners included the example that Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station also provides a series of later-life
structural failures. The petitioners stated that it is appropriate,
from a regulatory audit standpoint, to wait until data on the
applicable failure rate and observed aging phenomena are in hand before
attempting time-limited aging analysis or aging management planning;
less than 10; not less than 20 years in advance of operating license
expiration.
NRC Response to Issue 4
The petitioners asserted that a plant with only 20 years of
operating history will not have gathered sufficient plant-specific
aging data to make an informed decision about license renewal. The
Commission considered this issue in the 1991 rulemaking promulgating
the license renewal rule. In the Statements of Consideration from 1991,
the Commission stated that a minimum of 20 years provides a licensee
with substantial amounts of information and would disclose any plant-
specific concerns with regard to age-related degradation (56 FR 64963;
December 13, 1991).
With respect to the petitioners' claim that the licensees and the
NRC cannot prove the ability to predict the aging and deterioration of
SSCs in the future, the Commission recognized this in its 1991
Statements of Consideration and acknowledged that the ongoing
regulatory processes at the time did not fully address the safety
issues of extended operation beyond the initial 40-year license term
(56 FR 64965; December 13, 1991). Therefore, the Commission concluded
that a formal review of the adverse effects of aging on a SSC's ability
to perform its intended function would be needed at license renewal to
ensure that operation during the period of the extended license would
not be inimical to public health and safety. As such, the resulting
licensing basis for a nuclear power plant during the renewal term
consists of the current licensing basis (CLB), as well as any
additional obligations to monitor, manage, and correct the adverse
effects of aging. In other words, the intent of license renewal is to
actively manage aging effects with aging management programs rather
than just predicting future deterioration.
The bathtub curve analogy made by the petitioners would only apply
to a scenario where component failures could occur if no aging
management programs were used. The petitioners do not provide
convincing evidence or
[[Page 28319]]
analysis to show that the bathtub curve phenomenon actually exists at
nuclear power plants. Where the petitioners cited Beaver Valley and
Vermont Yankee as two examples, neither example conclusively
demonstrated how component failures were linked to the presence of a
bath-tub trend, other than the fact that both plants happened to be in
the later segments of their respective licenses. Nuclear power plant
licensees are required to maintain aging management programs as part of
their CLB following the license renewal review, to ensure that the
effects of aging are adequately managed such that SSC's are able to
perform their intended functions over time. The aging management
programs, which are evaluated by the NRC, provide reasonable assurance
that the effects of aging will be managed under the renewed license.
The petition statements in Issue 4 do not provide new information
that would contradict positions taken by the Commission when it
established the license renewal rule, nor do they demonstrate that
sufficient reason exists to modify the current regulations.
Issue 5
The petitioners stated that the current rule exacerbates the
difficulty the NRC staff and licensees have in following license
renewal commitments. They argued that LRAs are often approved with the
proviso that certain commitments be made and fulfilled, generally
before the period of extended operation begins. These commitments often
include inspections, tests, and analyses, as well as the development of
programs vital to safety and environmental protection.
The petitioners stated that regulatory experience shows NRC staff
turnover, as well as changes in oversight and licensee staff and
ownership, will complicate and place increased emphasis on the proper
handoff of unfulfilled licensee commitments.
NRC Response to Issue 5
The NRC agrees that it is important for licensees to fulfill
commitments made in LRAs and for the NRC to verify that those
commitments are met. Commitments are one part of the LRA review and
approval process. A license renewal review can result in new license
conditions and updates to final safety analysis reports (FSARs), as
well as commitments. In those instances where the NRC staff makes a
finding of reasonable assurance based on a commitment proposed by a
licensee, the NRC staff elevates the commitment to a legal obligation,
which is enforced in a license condition. Following the issuance of a
renewed license, the NRC performs inspections, under License Renewal
Inspection Procedure (IP) 71003, ``Post-Approval Site Inspection for
License Renewal,'' as part of its oversight process. One objective of
the IP 71003 inspection is to review the licensee's implementation of
aging management programs, license conditions, and commitments
associated with the license renewal review under 10 CFR part 54.
Generally, these inspections are coordinated by the NRC regional staff
and take place just before plants enter the period of extended
operation. Findings are documented in Inspection Reports following each
inspection. In addition to IP 71003 inspections, regulatory commitments
that have not been made legal obligations are subject to triennial
audits by the NRC staff. Where the petitioners claimed that the current
rule for license renewal complicates the conduct of these inspections
or other processes to verify license renewal commitments, they do not
provide any evidence to demonstrate their claim.
Therefore, the petitioners' statements in Issue 5 do not provide a
sufficient justification for the Commission to grant the petition for
rulemaking.
Issue 6
The petitioners stated that the 20 years that pass from an
application to the onset of the extended operation will, based on
regulatory history, certainly see an inordinate amount of applicable
regulatory change, resulting in grandfathered non-compliance issues.
The petitioners stated that current issues under consideration for
treatment in the license renewal process include aging management for
underground, buried, or inaccessible pipes that carry radionuclides and
aging management for safety-related, low-voltage cables that are below-
grade and not qualified for a wet environment.
NRC Response to Issue 6
The Commission addressed compliance with future regulatory changes
during the period of license renewal in promulgating the initial rule
(56 FR 64963; December 13, 1991). The Commission previously responded
to a similar comment, stating that comments to the rule ``incorrectly
suggest that new information about plant systems and components as well
as age-related degradation concerns discovered after the renewed
license is issued would not be considered by the NRC or would not be
factored into a plant's programs. The CLB of a plant will continue to
evolve throughout the term of the renewed license to address the
effects of age-related degradation as well as any other operational
concern that arises. The licensee must continue to ensure that the
plant is being operated safely and in conformance with its licensing
basis. As regulations change over time, the current licensing basis is
updated to the extent that the regulation is applicable to the plant.
Thus, a regulatory change does not result in grandfathering non-
compliance with applicable regulations. The NRC's regulatory oversight
activities will also assess any new information on age-related
degradation or plant operation issues and take whatever regulatory
action is appropriate for ensuring the protection of the public health
and safety.'' In addition, the petitioners do not further develop their
case in explaining how the examples of underground, buried, or
inaccessible piping and cables demonstrate their claim of non-
compliance issues being grandfathered. In fact, the aging management
for these SSCs are some examples of how ongoing operating experience
informs the licensees' aging management programs over time in order to
ensure compliance with 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3). Such programs are expected
to evolve as necessary to address new operating experience. In
addition, regulatory oversight activities such as IP 71003 inspections
also provide the means for the NRC staff to verify and assess the
ongoing effectiveness of licensees' aging management efforts.
The petitioners did not present new information in Issue 6 that
would contradict positions taken by the Commission when it established
the license renewal rule or demonstrate that sufficient reason exists
to modify the current regulations.
Issue 7
The petitioners argued that the regulation conflicts with,
circumvents, and frustrates the letter, spirit, object, and goals of
NEPA. The petitioners stated that ``NEPA provides at Section 1500.2,
that the Federal agencies, `shall to the fullest extent possible: (e)
Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives
to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of
these actions upon the quality of the human environment.''' The
petitioners stated that the ``Act provides at Section 1501(b) that
`NEPA procedures must insure [sic] that environmental information is
available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made
and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality.
Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and
[[Page 28320]]
public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Most important,
NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly
significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless
detail.' ''
The petitioners also presented arguments under Issue 3 related to
environmental considerations that will be addressed here. These
arguments include the potential availability of energy sources that may
be more available in the future (e.g., photovoltaic solar and wind
power) but cannot be credibly projected over 20 years, the failure of
the LRA to encompass effects of a changing environment, the effect of a
rise in ocean temperatures on species affected by a thermal discharge
plume or cooling intake, the availability of offsite storage for spent
fuel and low-level radioactive waste, and the status of threatened or
endangered species.
NRC Response to Issue 7
The NRC disagrees that the regulation conflicts with, circumvents,
or frustrates the intent of NEPA. Rather, the twin aims of NEPA do not
conflict with the licensing authority granted under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Section 103(c) of the AEA states that
``each [operating] license shall be issued for a specified period, as
determined by the Commission, depending on the type of activity to be
licensed, but not exceeding forty years, and may be renewed upon the
expiration of such period.'' Consistent with the AEA, the NRC's license
renewal regulation allows for a renewed license providing up to 40
years of operation (up to 20 years of the existing license plus 20
years of extended operation). As previously discussed in response to
Issue 1, the Commission found that a 20-year application timeframe
provided a reasonable and flexible period for licensees to perform
informed business planning. The NRC fulfills its NEPA obligations and
meets NEPA's twin aims by examining the reasonably foreseeable impacts
and alternatives to issuing a renewed license for a period of up to 40
years. The petitioners did not provide any reasoning to dispute that
the renewed license period of up to 40 years was consistent with the
AEA, nor did the petition provide information to show that if the NRC,
consistent with the AEA, issues a renewed license for up to 40 years,
that the agency is, therefore, unable to meet NEPA's twin aims.
The petitioners also argued that the timing of LRAs affects the
implementation of NEPA with regard to the consideration of
alternatives. The NRC notes that the petitioners quoted the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in support of their arguments
rather than NEPA, but neither the statute nor the CEQ regulations
support their petition. The extent of the environmental review is not
directly limited by the timing of the application submittal, nor does
the NRC staff limit its analysis to the information provided in the
environmental report. However, the NRC does apply the rule of reason in
conducting its environmental analysis under NEPA, which may limit the
extent of the environmental analysis to only those environmental
impacts and alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable. This means
that, while the environmental review considers various impacts and
alternatives, the NRC is not required to analyze every possible future
or speculative development, particularly those that cannot be
reasonably assessed to inform its decision-making process. For example,
the NRC analyzes alternative energy sources, but is not required under
NEPA to consider speculative technological advances in alternative
energy sources, which may or may not be available at the time of
extended operation. The NRC must complete its NEPA review before it
issues a renewed license in order to inform the agency's decision on
license renewal, and the agency meets the twin aims of NEPA by
analyzing those alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable at the
time that the renewed license is issued. The petitioners did not
provide information showing that the rule precludes the NRC from
considering reasonable alternatives within the licensing action
timeframe.
With respect to assessing the potential future environmental
impacts associated with the issuance of a renewed license, the NRC
complies with the statutory requirements of NEPA through its
consideration of impacts in the generic and supplemental environmental
impact statements (SEISs) for license renewal prepared in accordance
with 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental protection regulations for
domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.'' As part of this
environmental review process, the NRC evaluates the environmental
impacts associated with operating a plant for an additional 20 years.
This evaluation includes generic determination in its Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS) of issues
such as the future storage of spent fuel for the period of extended
operation (see 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, Table B-1). The environmental
review also addresses concerns such as those cited by the petitioners
in Issue 3 related to the changing environment (e.g., rise in ocean
temperatures on species affected by a thermal discharge plume or
cooling intake), in addressing environmental impacts and alternatives
that are reasonably foreseeable for each site. Furthermore, the
petitioners did not provide new information to demonstrate that the
changing environment would have a significant impact to affect the
NRC's environmental analysis.
The petitioners also raised a concern in Issue 3 related to the
potential change in status of threatened or endangered species over the
renewed license period; such changes are accounted for in the NRC's
ongoing consultations with other Federal agencies under the Endangered
Species Act, which may result in imposing incidental take limits or
monitoring for certain species, depending on the facility and its
environment. To the extent that future developments or events may occur
that require reinitiation of consultations, the NRC staff must consult
with the relevant agency or agencies, regardless of whether the power
plant has a renewed license.
Therefore, the change to license renewal regulations proposed by
the petitioners would not affect the NRC's response to events related
to the Endangered Species Act.
In Issue 7, the petitioners stated that the rule ``sets the
[license renewal] application's environmental review at a maximum of 20
years in advance of the impacts from the Federal action.'' Other parts
of the petition made similar statements to imply that the actual
``action'' taken by the NRC is not going to occur until up to 20 years
into the future. For clarification, the ``proposed action'' before the
NRC for license renewal is the ``issuance'' of a new and superseding
license that allows operations for up to 40 years (any remaining time
on the initial license plus up to 20 years of extended operation),
which is discussed further in response to Issue 2. Therefore, NEPA
requires the NRC to perform and complete an environmental review to
support the agency's decision-making process with respect to issuance
of the renewed license. As previously stated, a 40-year license is
consistent with the AEA, and the NRC performs its NEPA analysis as part
of the LRA review process. The petitioners did not provide new
information that demonstrates that the NRC ought to perform its NEPA
analysis at some time other than before it issues a renewed license.
Finally, in their arguments supporting Issue 7, the petitioners
discussed the LRA submitted for Seabrook Unit 1. The
[[Page 28321]]
NRC considers these issues as intended by the petitioners and commenter
to be examples of a specific case for which the petitioners believe the
rule is deficient. Section III.C, ``Petition Statements and Comments
Referencing the Seabrook Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook
Unit 1), License Renewal Application,'' of this document contains a
detailed response to the Seabrook example.
Therefore, the petitioners' arguments in Issue 7 do not demonstrate
that sufficient reason exists to modify the current regulations.
III. Ongoing and Future License Renewal Actions
A. Suspending All Ongoing and Future License Renewal Application
Reviews
The petitioners requested that, pending promulgation of a rule to
revise 10 CFR 54.17(c), the NRC suspend all ongoing and future reviews
of LRAs. The review of LRAs is not a rulemaking issue and thus will not
be addressed in this response to a petition submitted under 10 CFR
2.802. The FR notice of receipt for the petition stated that the NRC
will address the request to suspend ongoing and future LRA reviews in a
separate action. Subsequently, the Commission denied the petitioners'
request to suspend licensing actions; the Commission's denial can be
found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML110250087.
B. Applying a 10-Year Timeframe to All Ongoing and Future License
Renewal Application Reviews
Under the presumption that the NRC would revise 10 CFR 54.17(c) to
10 years, the petitioners requested that the NRC apply the 10-year
requirement to the review of all ongoing and future LRAs. In this case,
since the NRC is denying the petition, a 10-year requirement will not
be applied to ongoing or future LRA reviews.
C. Petition Statements and Comments Referencing the Seabrook Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook Unit 1), License Renewal
Application
The petitioners made multiple claims about license renewal that
refer specifically to Seabrook Unit 1. One commenter raised similar
claims. The NRC considers these issues as intended by the petitioners
and commenter to be examples of a specific case for which the
petitioners or commenter believe the rule is deficient. The petition
and comment claims are similar to the claims the petitioners have
submitted in a Seabrook adjudicatory proceeding, some of which the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel admitted as contentions in that
proceeding (including contentions related to alternatives the applicant
considered in its environmental report).
To the extent that the petitioners' concerns relate specifically to
Seabrook and the ongoing license renewal proceeding for that facility,
the petitioners must pursue those issues through the adjudicatory
process. Furthermore, to the extent that the petitioners or commenter
raised issues about a specific licensing proceeding, the issues and
comments are considered only as examples of specific cases where the
petitioners believe the current rule is unduly burdensome, deficient,
or needs to be strengthened, in support of the petition to amend 10 CFR
54.17(c). Any other comments regarding a specific licensing proceeding
are beyond the scope of a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802
and are not considered further in the NRC's responses.
IV. Public Comments on the Petition
The NRC received six letters containing comments on the proposed
rulemaking from Mark Strauch, Marie Mackowoliez, NextEra Energy, the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Beyond Nuclear, and Strategic Teaming
and Resource Sharing. The comments are grouped into eight comment
categories. Individual comments and their grouping can be found in the
Public Comment Matrix in ADAMS under Accession Number ML113540177. The
NRC also received a letter from New Hampshire State Representative
Robin Reed asking to be added as a petitioner. The NRC accepted the
request from State Representative Reed and considers her to be a
petitioner for the purposes of this response.
Comment Category 1: The NRC wrote 10 CFR 54.17 before economic and
regulatory changes took place that would affect license renewal.
Comment 1.1
The petitioners stated that the NRC last updated the rulemaking for
10 CFR 54.17 in 1995, before changes in NRC oversight and economic and
regulatory shifts that enabled unprecedented changes in oversight and
an industry-wide shift of focus from anticipated decommissioning to
uprate and license renewal. The petitioners further stated that the
rulemaking did not consider how such changes would affect aging
analysis in LRA reviews or aging management planning. One commenter
stated that the petition does not demonstrate that the rule is out of
date and that the petitioners provided no supporting information for
the statement. Two commenters stated that all applicants for license
renewal must comply with 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 54, regardless
of their corporate structure, and both commented that the petition did
not include an analysis of how deregulation has affected aging
management. One commenter added that the petitioners' attempts to
provide new information that the NRC allegedly did not consider in its
rulemaking fails to explain what that new information is and thus fails
to demonstrate that sufficient reason exists to modify the current
regulations. The commenter also stated that the petition fails to
identify which changes in NRC oversight have affected aging management.
Lastly, a commenter noted that 10 CFR part 54 considers the present
context for a plant by requiring that each plant maintain its CLB.
NRC Response
The NRC recognizes that it last revised 10 CFR part 54 in 1995 but
disagrees that the age of the rule negatively affects regulatory
effectiveness or plant safety. The NRC agrees with the commenter that
the petitioners provided no evidence or analysis to demonstrate that
changes in regulatory structure or corporate structure of licensees
have negatively affected aging analysis practices, aging management
programs at plants, or the review of LRAs. This comment does not
provide new information that would justify revising the rule.
Comment 1.2
A commenter stated that Seabrook Unit 1 is the only plant to file
for license renewal 20 years in advance of the expiration of its
operating license. The commenter also stated that, given the
preponderance of license renewal review times for submittals and the
agency approvals to date, no more than 10 years in advance is warranted
for an application, which will significantly improve the quality and
reliability of the agency's environmental impact statements (EISs) and
the environmental reports upon which they rely, as required by NEPA.
Finally, the commenter stated that the preponderance of the license
renewal reviews and approvals conducted to date do not come close to
requiring 10 to 20 years to complete and, therefore, the basis of the
20-year advance application date is invalid.
Two other commenters stated that Seabrook Unit 1 is not the first
LRA filed 20 years in advance of the operating license expiration, and
the plant is not an outlier in that respect.
[[Page 28322]]
Both commenters also noted that the NRC has granted several LRAs at or
near the 20-year timeframe, and the NRC also has granted exemptions to
the 20-year requirement for special circumstances. One commenter
further stated that the need for sufficient lead time for corporate
decision-making, which underlies 10 CFR 54.17(c), applies whether
companies opt for license renewal of their nuclear facilities or
development of alternative sources of generating capacity. Completion
of the business planning process requires decisions about future
generating capacity to be made many years in advance.
NRC Response
The comment that Seabrook Unit 1 is the only plant to submit an
application 20 years before expiration of its license is incorrect. As
discussed in response to Issue 1, at the time of the petition, nine
reactor units were granted exemptions from 10 CFR 54.17(c), enabling
the licensees to submit applications more than 20 years in advance of
their license expiration.
The data does not support the commenter's corresponding conclusion
that no more than 10 years is warranted in which to submit an LRA.
Thus, the NRC agrees with the other comments that the Seabrook Unit 1
LRA is not an outlier with respect to the timeframe in which the
application was submitted.
A commenter also concluded that, since the NRC does not need 20
years to review an LRA, the basis for the 20-year application timeframe
is invalid. The NRC acknowledges that 20 years is not necessary to
perform its review of an LRA, as noted by a commenter. The NRC
typically reviews an application in about 2 years, when no hearings are
requested and when the review is appropriately supported by the
applicant. Applications for which hearings are requested would take
longer than 2 years. Rather, the NRC established the 20-year timeframe
to balance the need to collect sufficient operating history data to
support an LRA with a utility's need to plan for the replacement of
retired nuclear power plants in the case of an unsuccessful LRA. In
promulgating the 1991 license renewal rule, the Commission considered
the appropriate length of time for applicants to submit applications
for license renewal (56 FR 64963; December 13, 1991). The Statements of
Consideration discuss the NRC finding that the lead time for building
new electric generation facilities (alternatives to the proposed
action) is 10-14 years, depending on the technology. The NRC found that
a 20-year application timeframe provided a reasonable and flexible
period for licensees to perform informed business planning. Therefore,
the comment does not present new information that contradicts positions
taken by the Commission when it established the license renewal rule.
The NRC response to comments under Comment Category 7 discusses the
issues raised in the above comments related to environmental reviews
and EISs.
Comment 1.3
The petition noted that Seabrook Unit 1 provided no credible
justification for its very early filing of an LRA. A commenter stated
that, to the extent petitioners argued that the LRA is deficient, their
claims are inappropriate in a rulemaking petition and should be raised
in the ongoing adjudicatory proceeding, in which several of the
petitioners are currently participating and have already raised similar
claims.
NRC Response
As is discussed further in Section III.C of this document, the
petition and commenter statements that raised issues about a specific
licensing proceeding are beyond the scope of a petition for rulemaking
under 10 CFR 2.802 and are not considered in the NRC's responses in
this document. However, it should be noted that the rule language in 10
CFR part 54 contains no requirement for an applicant to justify the
year in which it applies to renew a license.
The comments related to Comment Category 1 do not present new
information that would contradict positions taken by the Commission
when it established the license renewal rule or demonstrate that
sufficient reason exists to modify the current regulations.
Comment Category 2: The rulemaking for 10 CFR 54.17 proceeded
without sufficient consideration of the hearing rights of affected
persons.
Comment 2.1
The petitioners stated that, by renewing the license of a nuclear
power station 20 years in advance of the licensed extended period of
operation, the NRC removes, to the distance of a full generation, the
opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing. They contended that a coming
generation of affected residents, visitors, and commercial interests
would be unable or unprepared to speak for themselves.
A commenter noted that, according to the petitioners' logic, with
even a 5-year renewal application period, some people might be unable
or unprepared to speak for themselves. The commenter also raised the
point that the 20-year renewal application period provides a greater
ability for people to decide not to relocate to the area near the
plant.
A commenter provided the following statements related to the
hearings on LRAs. Parties in NRC contested licensing hearings have the
opportunity to raise issues after the LRA is submitted and during the
months immediately following the NRC staff's completion of its
licensing review and the issuance of the safety and environmental
licensing documents. Because the licensing hearing focuses on the LRA
itself, and not future generations, hearing issues are most effectively
addressed while the LRA is before the agency. Contrary to the
petitioners' assertion, there is no statutory, regulatory, or other
rationale for delaying the hearing until the renewed license goes into
effect. The NRC will address any safety issues relating to plant
operation that arise after license renewal using the array of processes
available from the Commission's regulations.
Two commenters noted that there is no fundamental right to
participate in administrative adjudications. See Citizens Awareness
Network, Inc. v. NRC, 391 F.3d 338, 354 (1st. Cir. 2004). One commenter
also stated that the NRC issues initial operating licenses for 40-year
periods. The combination of a 20-year license renewal period with the
18 years (at most) that would remain on an initial license following
the NRC's review of an LRA is less than the 40-year period for
operating licenses that the NRC grants under 10 CFR part 50 or 10 CFR
part 52, ``Licenses, certifications, and approvals for nuclear power
plants.'' The petitioners' argument would mean that the NRC is
incapable of providing a meaningful hearing opportunity on an initial
operating license and that the AEA's provisions requiring both an
opportunity for hearing and a 40-year term are fundamentally
incompatible.
NRC Response
The NRC agrees that a longer renewal application period may
increase the ability of people to choose not to relocate to the area
near the plant but recognizes that this may not be true for some
people. Regardless of the renewal application time period, it is
impossible to identify all people who may relocate to the area during
the entire term of the license renewal period. However, as discussed in
Section II of this document in response to Issue 2 of the petition,
current residents would sufficiently represent potential future area
residents,
[[Page 28323]]
visitors, and commercial interests. Further, potential future
residents, visitors, and commercial interests have other regulatory
mechanisms to protect their interests, including a petition for
enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206. Those future residents,
visitors, and commercial interests can also raise generic issues by
requesting modification of the NRC's regulations under 10 CFR 2.802.
The comments related to hearings are generally correct. The NRC's
regulations in 10 CFR part 2, ``Rules of practice for domestic
licensing proceedings and issuance of orders,'' and 10 CFR part 54
provide the opportunity for a hearing and establish the requirements
for intervention in a license renewal proceeding. Petitioners who meet
the requirements of 10 CFR part 2 may intervene in a hearing, subject
to the NRC's regulations.
The NRC agrees with the commenter who stated that the opportunity
for a hearing focuses on the adequacy of the LRA itself, and those
issues would be most effectively heard at the same time as the
licensing decision, as provided by the NRC's regulations. The topic of
hearing rights is discussed in response to Issue 2. As the commenter
stated, the petitioners do not provide a rationale in support of their
petition for why a hearing on the licensing issues would be more
effective after license issuance but before the beginning of the
extended operating period.
The commenter provided an example in which a plant may receive a
38-year renewed license. The commenter calculated 38 years by adding
the 20-year renewal application period to the 20-year extended
operation period and subtracting 2 years for NRC staff review of the
renewal application. The commenter argued that the initial licensing
period of 40 years and the approximately 38-year period for renewal
both represent an NRC licensing decision for which the effects of
operation would be realized over approximately a 40-year period. The
period of the renewed license may be up to 40 years, as provided in 10
CFR 54.31, ``Issuance of a renewed license.'' The commenter is correct
that the petitioners do not recognize the similarity of the licensing
periods of the two licensing actions and that the petition for
rulemaking does not explain why the initial 40-year licensing period is
appropriate while the renewal licensing period of up to 40 years would
be inappropriate. The NRC agrees with the commenter's point that,
similar to the AEA authorization to grant an initial license for 40
years, a 40-year renewal licensing period does not deprive future
residents of a fundamental hearing right. Specifically, the petition
does not provide any support to show why the AEA authorization for an
initial 40-year operating license does not deprive potential future
residents of a hearing right, but a license renewal period of up to 40
years does deprive potential future residents of a hearing right.
The comments related to Comment Category 2 do not provide a
sufficient justification for the Commission to grant the petition for
rulemaking.
Comment Category 3: The rule currently enables applications to
avoid addressing changing environmental considerations.
Comment 3.1
The petitioners stated that 10 CFR 54.17(c) promotes failure of the
LRA to encompass the potential effects of an environment that is
arguably changing at an unprecedented rate. In addition, the petition
raised issues about acts of terrorism, spent fuel storage, and the
potential for failures in complex systems. A commenter questioned the
impact that a potential rise in ocean temperatures could have on
aquatic species affected by a reactor's thermal discharge plume or the
cooling intake structure. Assuming such changes occur, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or designated State agency that permits
operations under Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act could
modify those permits to account for the change in conditions.
Regardless of whether these permitting authorities amend the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Section
511(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act precludes the NRC from either second-
guessing the conclusions in NPDES permits or imposing its own effluent
limitations. The commenter further observed that the Commission
repeatedly stated that security issues are not among the aging-related
questions that are relevant in a license renewal review. Moreover, the
NRC's environmental review need not address acts of terrorism. The
storage and disposal of low-level waste and the onsite storage of spent
fuel generated during the additional 20 years of operation are Category
1 issues previously considered in the GEIS for which the NRC has
already codified environmental impact findings in 10 CFR part 51,
subpart A, appendix B, ``Environmental effect of renewing the operating
license of a nuclear power plant.'' In 10 CFR 51.23, ``Temporary
storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation--generic
determination of no significant environmental impact,'' the NRC
generically addresses the eventual onsite or offsite storage of spent
fuel following the permanent cessation of operations.
NRC Response
The commenter's statements generally align with the responses to
Issues 3 and 7. As the commenter pointed out, a nuclear power plant's
environment, including applicable regulations, may change over time for
a variety of reasons. Not all of those potential changes are within the
scope of a license renewal application review.
The comments related to Comment Category 3 do not provide a
sufficient justification for the NRC to revise the rule.
Comment Category 4: The NRC and the licensees are unable to
accurately predict aging-related failures.
Comment 4.1
The petition stated that 10 CFR 54.17(c) allows licensees and the
NRC staff to press to untenable lengths of time the unproven ability to
predict the aging and deterioration of SSCs. A commenter noted that the
petitioners would have one believe that the NRC is powerless, once a
renewal is docketed, to address any of the potential safety or aging-
related issues enumerated in the petition.
A commenter stated that, to the extent these matters (the
prediction of SSC aging) were not properly within the scope of license
renewal, they were addressed as part of the licensees' ongoing
operation (e.g., the corrective action and operating experience
programs) and the NRC's continuing regulatory oversight process. The
commenter further noted that the petitioners' argument is also belied
by the stringency of the NRC's license renewal process.
A commenter noted that, in drafting 10 CFR part 54, the NRC did not
expect licensees to predict all possible age-related failures before
issuance of a renewed license. Instead, it requires licensees to have
inspection and testing programs that would detect aging effects such
that they could adequately manage those effects. A licensee's license
renewal programs are detection and not prediction programs. The
commenter concludes that this argument does not provide any grounds to
reconsider the Commission's current regulations.
NRC Response
As part of the license renewal review, the NRC evaluates a
licensee's aging management programs to ensure that each provides
reasonable assurance that the licensee will adequately manage the
[[Page 28324]]
effects of aging. The petitioners provided no support for the claim
that aging management technology is inadequate. The NRC agrees that the
comments made by two commenters are a correct description of the
process of aging management and continuing regulatory oversight. Those
SSCs within the scope of license renewal and that require aging
management review have specific aging management programs designed to
manage the effects of aging. Any SSCs outside the scope of license
renewal but subject to 10 CFR part 50 are subject to regulatory
oversight. Licensees are required to maintain their aging management
programs until the end of their license. As previously stated, the NRC
evaluates the aging management programs to determine if they provide
reasonable assurance that the licensee will manage the effects of
aging.
Comment 4.2
The petitioners stated that filing for license renewal at midterm
of the current license finds the licensee at a time in SSC service life
when, in industry experience, few failures are observed and, generally,
those that are observed are episodic or anomalous in nature and thus
cannot be readily plotted as a trend for prediction purposes. The
petition argued that the time of an elevated rate of failures caused by
design, manufacturing, and construction defects has passed and is
largely irrelevant to aging management in the proposed extended period
of operation.
A commenter stated that the ``bathtub curve'' for component
reliability trends does not apply to components that are subject to
aging management programs. Rather, this curve applies when components
have little or no maintenance or aging management activities applied.
The commenter further stated that renewal applicants should be
encouraged to perform the required aging management and environmental
reviews as early as possible, since that would allow more time to
evaluate and implement aging management programs for long-term
operation. Rather than discourage early applications, it would make
more sense to encourage such proactive efforts. Another commenter
stated that license renewal applicants benefit not only from their own
operating experience but from that of the entire industry.
Another commenter stated that petitioners argue that most aging
effects increase rapidly in the fourth quarter and toward the end of
the license and that licensees should be required to wait until these
later-life structural failures have presented themselves before filing
an LRA.
NRC Response
These comments relate to whether or not aging management programs
can address the potential for failure rates at a nuclear power plant to
exhibit a bathtub curve trend. The NRC agrees with the comment that a
licensee benefits from industry-wide operating experience with respect
to aging-related degradation. However, the NRC disagrees with the
comment that it is appropriate to wait until the presentation of
rapidly increasing aging effects at a plant before accepting an LRA. In
the 1991 final rule, the Commission did ``not agree that it is adequate
to wait to address aging concerns when they become apparent in plant
operations.'' The Commission found that waiting to take corrective
action after a failure occurs does not adequately control risk (56 FR
64974; December 13, 1991). Furthermore, the NRC stated that ``the
licensee must continue to ensure that the plant is being operated
safely and in conformance with its licensing basis.'' As such, the NRC
expects that the licensees' aging management programs would continue to
be informed over time by ongoing operating experience to address new
issues. In its 1991 Statements of Consideration, the Commission also
noted that the NRC's ``regulatory oversight activities will also assess
any new information on age-related degradation or plant operation
issues and take whatever regulatory action is appropriate for ensuring
the protection of the public health and safety'' (56 FR 64963; December
13, 1991).
Comment 4.3
The petitioners stated that it is appropriate, from a regulatory
audit standpoint, to wait until applicable failure rate and observed
aging phenomena data are in hand before attempting time-limited aging
analysis or aging management planning: Less than 10, not less than 20,
years in advance of operating license expiration. A commenter stated
that, to the extent the petition claimed that 20 years of plant
operating experience is insufficient to provide a valid basis for
renewal applications, the Commission has previously addressed and
dismissed that argument in its 1991 final rule.
NRC Response
The NRC addressed this argument in the Statements of Consideration
for the 1991 final rule. As the Commission stated, a minimum of 20
years provides a licensee with substantial amounts of information and
would disclose any plant-specific concerns with regard to age-related
degradation. A nuclear power plant will undergo a significant number of
fuel cycles over 20 years, and plant and utility personnel will have a
substantial number of hours of operational experience with every SSC
(56 FR 64963; December 13, 1991). The petitioners have not provided any
new insights or analyses that would cause the Commission to change the
rule.
The comments related to Comment Category 4 do not provide a
sufficient justification for the NRC to revise the rule.
Comment Category 5: The current rule exacerbates the NRC staff's
and licensee's difficulty in following license renewal commitments.
Comment 5.1
The petition stated that regulatory experience shows that NRC staff
turnover, as well as changes in oversight and licensee staff and
ownership, will at once complicate and place increased emphasis on the
proper handoff of unfulfilled licensee commitments. A commenter stated
that the petition does not account for the fact that 10 CFR part 54
requires license renewal commitments to be reflected in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Also, the commitments are
publicly available on the facility's NRC docket. The commenter noted
that the petition failed to acknowledge that the NRC's established
regulatory oversight process for nuclear power plants (and other NRC
licensees) has been functioning effectively for decades, despite NRC
staff turnover and changes in oversight and licensee staff and facility
ownership. The commenter continued that certain NRC regulations and
guidance provide various processes for ensuring that the licensee
satisfies such commitments. Such processes include, but are not limited
to, program development, testing, formalized commitment processes, and
NRC inspections, all of which require significant recordkeeping of
commitment status. The commenter also stated that, during the term of
the renewed license, the licensee continues to be subject to all NRC
regulations in 10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 52, 54,
55, 70, 72, 73, and 100, and their appendices, as applicable to holders
of operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50 or combined license holders
under 10 CFR part 52.
Another commenter cited the petitioners' question about the NRC's
ability to keep track of license renewal commitments that are more than
10
[[Page 28325]]
years old, blaming NRC staff turnover, changes in oversight, and
potential new facility ownership. The commenter observed that the
license renewal commitments are in the docketed and searchable UFSAR.
The commenter continued that the petitioners do not explain why the NRC
staff would encounter any difficulty keeping track of documented
commitments in a licensee's UFSAR.
NRC Response
The topic of license renewal commitments is discussed in the
response to Issue 5. The NRC acknowledges that it is important for
licensees to fulfill commitments and obligations made in LRAs. The NRC
also agrees that existing regulatory processes are in place to verify
license renewal commitments, and that the petition does not explain why
the NRC staff would encounter complications in doing so.
The comments related to Comment Category 5 do not provide a
sufficient justification for the NRC to revise the rule.
Comment Category 6: A 20-year timeframe will result in
grandfathered non-compliance issues.
Comment 6.1
The petition stated that the 20 years that pass from application to
onset of the extended period of operation will, based on regulatory
history, certainly see an inordinate amount of applicable regulatory
change, resulting in grandfathered non-compliance issues. A commenter
stated that the Commission considered and dismissed this very concern
(regarding non-compliance with future changes in regulations) in
promulgating the original license renewal rules. The commenter further
stated that, from the outset, the license renewal process has
emphasized that, for renewal licensees (as well for reactor licensees
that do not seek a renewed license), the NRC will consider new
information and impose new requirements as appropriate, and more recent
Commission pronouncements confirm that this position has not changed.
The commenter concluded that, as a matter of policy, the Commission
was clearly correct in determining that licensees must address existing
issues at an operating nuclear facility under the current license
instead of postponing the matter until the license renewal period.
Obviously, the resolution of any current safety concerns should not be
deferred. By the same token, the resolution of current issues may have
little or no relevance to safety during the period of extended
operation, because those issues may be obviated by future changes in
circumstances or regulatory requirements. As the Commission has held,
it is not appropriate for the NRC or parties to spend valuable
resources litigating allegations of current deficiencies in a
proceeding that is directed to future-oriented issues. Additionally,
the NRC's license renewal process includes a ``safety valve'' allowing
consideration of additional issues if appropriate (see 10 CFR 2.335,
``Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in adjudicatory
proceedings'').
Finally, the commenter argued that the NRC's license renewal rules
represent an informed, reasoned, and permissible exercise of the
statutory authority under the AEA. The Commission established its
renewal regulations after extensive deliberations, based on its
determination that existing regulatory processes are adequate to ensure
that the licensing bases of currently operating nuclear power plants
provide and maintain an adequate level of safety. The license renewal
rules further reflect the NRC's considered policy judgments that (1)
issues relevant to both current operation and extended operation during
the license renewal period should be addressed when they arise, not
postponed until a license renewal decision (56 FR 64946; December 13,
1991); and (2) duplicating the Commission's ongoing regulatory reviews
in a license renewal proceeding would waste NRC resources, which are
better focused on aging management concerns.
Another commenter stated that the Commission has explained that it
expects licensees and license renewal applicants to adjust their aging
management programs to reflect lessons learned in the future through
individual and industry-wide experiences. The Commission has described
the license renewal program as a living program that continues to
evolve. If new insights or changes emerge over time, the NRC staff will
require, as appropriate, any modifications to SSCs that are necessary
to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety or to bring
the facility into compliance with a license or the rules and orders of
the Commission. The commenter further stated that the NRC will act to
ensure adequate protection, regardless of when an LRA is submitted. The
Commission also considered this same argument nearly 20 years ago in
its 1991 final rule.
NRC Response
The prior comments largely summarize the Commission's position
previously stated in relation to the promulgation of the initial rule.
The NRC generally agrees with the comment that it considered the issue
in the prior rulemaking for this regulation. The NRC also agrees with
the comment regarding expectations that licensee's aging management
programs should be informed, and enhanced when necessary, based on the
ongoing review of both plant-specific and industry operating
experience.
The comments related to Comment Category 6 do not provide a
justification for the NRC to revise the rule.
Comment Category 7: The 20-year timeframe allowed by 10 CFR
54.17(c) conflicts with NEPA.
Comment 7.1
The petitioners argued that an LRA for a nuclear power plant
submitted 20 years in advance of the expiration of its current
operating license cannot, to the fullest extent possible, accurately
and reliably evaluate nor reasonably foresee the alternatives to the
proposed action, as required by the CEQ regulations. They contended
that the premature information constitutes nothing more than amassing
needless detail that, in the case of a nuclear power plant relicensing
action, establishes a bias towards a premature relicensing decision.
A commenter stated that, by allowing applications 20 years in
advance of the licensing action, the NRC is rigging the purpose and
need in violation of NEPA, citing circuit court comments. The commenter
asserted that NEPA is to be interpreted to guard against and prevent
such misinformed and misleading actions. The commenter also argued that
the existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an EIS
inadequate, and therefore agencies must study significant alternatives
suggested by other agencies or the public. The commenter stated that
there is simply no showing of any attempt by the NRC to avoid the
consideration of the environmental impacts associated with license
renewal projects or to deprive the public of information related to
those impacts by dividing a larger project into smaller units.
NRC Response
The NRC disagrees with one commenter's statement that the 20-year
timeframe constitutes a rigging of the purpose or need with regard to
NEPA. Rather, the 20-year time frame, which is part of the 40-year
renewed license term, is consistent with the AEA. Section 103(c) of the
AEA states that ``each [operating] license shall be issued for a
specified period, as determined by
[[Page 28326]]
the Commission, depending on the type of activity to be licensed, but
not exceeding forty years, and may be renewed upon the expiration of
such period.'' Since the license renewal period consists of the period
of extended operation (20 years) and any time remaining on the original
license (up to 20 years per 10 CFR 54.17(c)), the license renewal
period is consistent with the 40-year license period allowed under the
AEA. Furthermore, the Commission considered the timing of an LRA in the
promulgation of the license renewal rule. As is discussed in more
detail in response to Issue 1, the Commission found that a 20-year
application timeframe provided a reasonable and flexible period for
licensees to perform informed business planning. The commenter provided
no information demonstrating that the NRC established the 20-year
application timeframe to rig the purpose or need of NEPA.
As discussed in Issue 7, the commenter argued that the timing of
LRAs affects the implementation of NEPA with regard to the
consideration of alternatives. The extent of the environmental review
is not directly limited by the timing of the application submittal, nor
does the NRC staff limit its analysis to the information provided in
the environmental report. The NRC applies the rule of reason in
conducting its environmental review under NEPA, which may limit the
extent of an environmental review to only those environmental impacts
that are reasonably foreseeable. This means that, while the
environmental review considers various impacts and alternatives, the
NRC is not required to analyze every possible future speculative
development. The NRC must complete its NEPA review before the issuance
of a renewed license to inform the agency's decision on license
renewal. The commenter did not provide information showing that the
rule precludes the NRC from considering reasonable alternatives within
the licensing action timeframe.
Comment 7.2
A commenter stated that setting the maximum advance date for the
submission of a relicensing application at 20 years in effect
needlessly restricts the substance of the environmental review by
fixing its analysis unreasonably and prematurely from an application's
expiration date and the beginning of impact from the proposed Federal
action. By setting the application's environmental review at a maximum
of 20 years in advance of the impacts from the Federal action, the
regulation, as currently written, effectively limits the scope and
content of an environmental review, rendering it a speculative venture
and a snapshot on the recent past rather than a rigorous and objective
assessment of what is reasonably foreseeable.
A commenter stated that it is well established that the scope of
the environmental review required in connection with license renewal is
appropriately limited and that the limited scope of review has been
consistently upheld. The NRC's regulations do require a discussion of
alternatives by both the applicant (in the environmental report) and
the NRC staff (in the SEIS) in connection with renewal applications.
The commenter argued that issuance of a renewed license and initiation
of the period of extended operation under the renewed license are part
of the same Federal action; there is no additional connected action.
Therefore, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed license
renewal are considered together, not piecemeal. Another commenter
stated that, with regard to Vermont Yankee, the Supreme Court made
clear that the concept of alternatives under NEPA must be bounded by
some notion of feasibility. As a result, agencies are not required to
consider alternatives that are remote and speculative. Instead,
agencies may deal with circumstances as they exist and are likely to
exist. While there will always be more data that could be gathered,
agencies must have some discretion to draw the line and move forward
with decision-making. The Commission's decision to allow licensees to
file LRAs in accordance with 10 CFR 54.17(c) and perform its
environmental review within that timeframe is a valid exercise of this
discretion.
NRC Response
As discussed in response to Issue 7, the extent of the
environmental review is not directly limited by the timing of the
application submittal, nor does the NRC staff limit its analysis to the
information provided in the environmental report. However, the NRC does
apply the rule of reason in conducting its environmental review under
NEPA, which may limit the extent of an environmental review to only
those environmental impacts that are reasonably foreseeable. This means
that, while the environmental review considers various impacts and
alternatives, the NRC is not required to analyze every possible future
or speculative development, particularly those that cannot be
reasonably assessed to inform its decision-making process. The NRC must
complete the NEPA review before it issues a renewed license to inform
the agency's decision on license renewal. The commenter did not provide
information showing that the rule precludes the NRC from considering
reasonable alternatives within the licensing action timeframe.
Comment 7.3
The petition stated that an application for relicensing submitted
20 years in advance of the current license expiration date cannot
reasonably be determined to be sufficiently complete nor reasonably be
represented to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives.
A commenter argued that it is not reasonable to consider that an
environmental report based on data that is 20 years old or older can
solely constitute the foundation for an adequately studied EIS prepared
by the NRC.
This in fact constitutes a violation of NEPA principles, as the
harm that NEPA seeks to prevent is complete when the agency makes a
decision without sufficiently considering information that NEPA
requires be placed before the decision-maker and the public. An
application that is filed 20 years in advance of a 2030 expiration date
relies on conclusions made 34 years before the requested action and
stretches the veracity and validity of the environmental report to an
amassing of outdated and meaningless details for the agency's
preparation of an EIS. For example, in the Seabrook Unit 1 relicense
application, filed in 2010, the preponderance of expert documentation
about renewable alternatives is gathered from 2008, effectively
freezing the environmental evaluation for the region of interest 22
years from the requested Federal action. It is disingenuous to
characterize that data 22 to 34 years out from the requested action as
sufficiently complete, as NEPA is established to require. NextEra
relies upon the 20-year advance provision in 10 CFR 54.17(c) to
truncate its alternative evaluation and justify the omission of more
recent documents from experts and expert agencies from 2009 and 2010.
One commenter stated that, as a matter of administrative law,
agencies have broad discretion to formulate their own procedures, and
the NRC's authority in this respect has been termed particularly great.
Similarly, although an agency may alter its rules in light of its
accumulated experience in administering them, an agency must offer a
reasoned explanation for the change. The petitioners' request for
relief provides no such reasonable basis
[[Page 28327]]
for overturning the NRC's current license renewal framework. Moreover,
in the context of environmental regulations, the Supreme Court has made
clear that NEPA does not require agencies to adopt any particular
internal decision-making structure and that the only procedural
requirements imposed by NEPA are those stated in the plain language of
the Act. Therefore, the Court found that NEPA cannot serve as the basis
for a substantial revision of the carefully constructed procedural
specifications of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Another commenter stated that NEPA does not require agencies to
adopt any particular internal decision-making structure. In fact, the
Commission has broad discretion to structure its NEPA inquiries. As the
Supreme Court made clear in Vermont Yankee over 30 years ago, NEPA does
not provide any basis for adding procedural requirements beyond the
carefully constructed procedural specifications imposed by the
Administrative Procedure Act. In Vermont Yankee, the Court also
explained that the only procedural requirements imposed by NEPA are
those stated in the plain language of the Act. The Commission has
decided that its safety review of LRAs under the AEA can be initiated
with 20 years remaining on the current license, and NEPA cannot compel
a different procedural timetable. Accordingly, the petitioners' claim
that NEPA requires the NRC to amend 10 CFR 54.17(c) to allow for a
later analysis of alternatives finds no support in law.
NRC Response
The NRC disagrees that the environmental reports submitted in
support of LRAs must rely on data that are 20 years old or older, and
the NRC disagrees that environmental report data forms the sole
foundation for EISs. As discussed in response to Issue 2, the
``proposed action'' before the NRC for license renewal is the
``issuance'' of a new and superseding license that allows operations
for up to 40 years (any remaining time on the initial license plus up
to 20 years of extended operation), which is also discussed in response
to Issue 2. Therefore, NEPA requires the NRC to perform and complete an
environmental review to support the agency's decision-making process
with respect to issuance of the renewed license. Furthermore, as
described in response to Issue 7, the license renewal regulation is
consistent with the 40-year license term allowed under the AEA. The
environmental report is submitted to support an LRA, and the NRC
reviews that environmental report along with the application. The
environmental report, therefore, does not need to rely on data that is
20 years old.
The comment that an environmental report forms the sole basis for a
license renewal EIS, or that alternatives proffered by the applicant in
its environmental report are the only alternatives the NRC staff
considers, is also incorrect. The NRC staff undertakes an independent
consideration of environmental impacts and documents its consideration
in the EIS.
These comments do not provide sufficient justification for the NRC
to revise the rule.
Comment 7.4
A commenter provided, as an example, that on June 1, 2010, NextEra
submitted its application for relicensing the Seabrook nuclear power
plants on the New Hampshire seacoast 20 years in advance of its current
40-year operating license expiration date, identified as March 15,
2030. Given that the proposed relicensing period for which the proposed
Federal action is being taken is for the period 2030-2050, Chapter 7 of
the Seabrook License Renewal Environmental Report provides a dated,
incomplete, and meaningless assessment of energy alternatives and is
biased towards the requested relicensing action.
Another commenter stated that, although the petitioners would have
one believe that a 20-year renewal window somehow circumvents or
frustrates NEPA, it does no such thing. The commenter stated that this
assertion is predicated on the misguided belief that somehow there will
be dramatic changes in how solar, wind, or other renewables penetrate
the grid. The commenter watched the California Altamont wind farm in
dismay every day. Consumers and energy regulators need certainty in the
near-, mid-, and long[hyphen]term horizon. Early nuclear power plant
license renewal injects more certainty, not less, in that process. The
commenter concluded that the petitioners convey no demonstrable safety,
security, or environmental concerns about Seabrook.
NRC Response
Section III.C of this document contains the NRC's responses to
issues related to the Seabrook LRA. One commenter raised several
concerns about alternatives in the environmental report or the NRC
staff's EIS. As stated in response to Issue 7, the extent of the
environmental review is not directly limited by the timing of the
application submittal, nor does the NRC staff limit its analysis to the
information provided in the environmental report. The NRC staff
undertakes an independent consideration of environmental impacts and
documents that consideration in its EIS. Furthermore, there is no
guarantee that a shorter application timeframe would increase the
number of alternatives analyzed in an environmental report. Some
alternatives may need more than 10 years of lead time for design and
construction. Therefore, allowing applicants to apply for license
renewal more than 10 years in advance of a license's expiration date
does not unreasonably foreclose alternatives, as suggested by the
petitioners and one commenter.
The comments related to Comment Category 7 do not provide a
justification for the NRC to revise the rule.
Comment Category 8: General comments.
Comment 8.1
A commenter argued that, to amend the regulations to a 10-year
advance time period would lead the way to a safer means of producing
energy. Two commenters argued that the petitioners have presented no
new information that contradicts the agency positions reflected in the
existing license renewal rule or provides sufficient cause to modify
those positions.
One of the commenters further stated that the petition fails to
provide adequate legal, factual, or policy-based support for the
assertions it makes or the relief it seeks. By raising issues the
Commission has already considered in promulgating its license renewal
rules, the petition ignores the carefully crafted regulatory framework,
including 10 CFR 54.17(c), that supports license renewal. Other aspects
of the petition address topics that are managed by the Commission's
ongoing regulatory oversight processes and regulations, which should
not be addressed through changes to the license renewal rules.
NRC Response
These particular comments express general support or opposition to
the petition requests. The comments do not provide additional analysis
or data that would justify revising the rule.
Comment 8.2
A commenter concluded that the NRC and the industry would
significantly benefit by avoiding subsequent adjudicatory challenges if
licensees were required to wait to apply for license renewal no more
than 10 years in advance of the license expiration, when trends,
studies, agreements, and
[[Page 28328]]
commercial ventures were more distinctly and discretely developed.
NRC Response
The Commission established the 20-year timeframe to balance the
need to collect sufficient operating history data to support an LRA
with the needs of a utility to plan for the replacement of retired
nuclear plants in the case of an unsuccessful LRA.
The rule, allowing a license period of 40 years, is in accordance
with the AEA, which provides for a license period of up to 40 years
(see Section 103(c) of the AEA). The rule is not intended to limit the
number of adjudicatory challenges. Rather, the NRC regulations are
designed to provide appropriate opportunities for hearings to affected
parties. Reducing the number of potential adjudicatory challenges is
not sufficient justification to revise the regulation.
The comments related to Comment Category 8 do not provide a
sufficient justification for the Commission to revise the rule.
V. Determination of Petition
The NRC has reviewed the petition and the public comments and
appreciates the concerns raised. For the reasons described in Sections
II and III of this document, the NRC is denying the petition under 10
CFR 2.803. The petitioners did not present any new information that
would contradict positions taken by the Commission when it established
the license renewal rule, nor did the petitioners provide new,
significant information to demonstrate that sufficient reason exists to
modify the current regulations.
The Commission previously established the earliest date for
submission of LRAs after soliciting and considering extensive comments
during the 1991 rulemaking for 10 CFR 54.17(c). In its 1991 Statements
of Consideration, the Commission determined that a 20-year timeframe
was reasonable for licensees to collect sufficient operating history
and also sufficient for a utility to plan for replacement of retired
nuclear plants in the case of an unsuccessful LRA. The petition did not
provide new information to challenge this basis.
Finally, the renewed license period of 40 years is consistent with
the AEA, and 10 CFR 54.17(c) does not cause environmental reviews
submitted to support LRAs to be in conflict with NEPA. The license
renewal environmental review and SEIS consider reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts and alternatives in accordance with the
provisions of 10 CFR part 51. The rule change requested by the
petitioners would not affect the process the NRC uses to implement
NEPA. The petitioners do not provide new information or analysis to
demonstrate that the regulations in 10 CFR part 51 are insufficient for
the NRC to comply with the requirements of NEPA.
For these reasons, the NRC denies the petitioners' requests for the
NRC to modify its requirements related to the LRA period, to suspend
license renewal reviews, and to apply a 10-year application timeframe
to ongoing and future LRAs.
VI. Availability of Documents
The following table provides information on how to access the
documents referenced in this document. For more information on
accessing ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No./
Date Document Federal Register
Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 1991................ Nuclear Power 56 FR 64943
Plant License
Renewal.
September 27, 2010............... Earth Day 75 FR 59158
Commitment/
Friends of the
Coast, Beyond
Nuclear,
Seacoast Anti-
Pollution
League, C-10
Research and
Education
Foundation,
Pilgrim Watch,
and New
England
Coalition;
Notice of
Receipt of
Petition for
Rulemaking.
January 24, 2011................. Commission ML110250087
Memorandum and
Order (CLI-11-
01), In the
Matter of
Petition for
Rulemaking to
Amend 10 CFR
Sec.
54.17(c).
January 31, 2012................. Public Comment ML113540177
Matrix for
Petition for
Rulemaking 54-
6, License
Renewal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of May 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-11418 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P