Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 37281-37324 [2013-14310]
Download as PDF
Vol. 78
Thursday,
No. 119
June 20, 2013
Part II
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10 CFR Part 51, 54
Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses; Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear
Power Plant License Renewal Applications; License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plants; Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Standard
Review Plans for Environmental Reviews; Final Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:54 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37282
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
RIN 3150–AI42
[NRC–2008–0608]
Revisions to Environmental Review for
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is amending its
environmental protection regulations by
updating the Commission’s 1996
findings on the environmental effect of
renewing the operating license of a
nuclear power plant. The final rule
redefines the number and scope of the
environmental impact issues that must
be addressed by the NRC during license
renewal environmental reviews. This
final rule also incorporates lessons
learned and knowledge gained from
license renewal environmental reviews
conducted by the NRC since 1996.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 22,
2013. However, compliance is not
required until June 20, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2008–0608 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for this final rule. You may
access information and comment
submittals related to this final
rulemaking, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0608. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
final rule.
• 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/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)
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 XII,
‘‘Availability of Documents,’’ of this
document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
4123; email: Stewart.Schneider@nrc.gov;
or Mr. Jeffrey Rikhoff, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
1090; email: Jeffrey.Rikhoff@nrc.gov.
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954
authorizes the NRC to issue commercial
nuclear power plant operating licenses
for up to 40 years. The NRC’s
regulations allow for the renewal of
these operating licenses for up to an
additional 20 years. The license renewal
process includes reviewing a license
renewal application, conducting the
assessment, and then, if all applicable
safety standards are met, renewing the
license. The NRC’s review of a license
renewal application proceeds along two
independent regulatory tracks: one for
safety issues and another for
environmental issues. The license
renewal process is defined by a clear set
of regulations that are designed to
ensure safe operation and protection of
the environment during the license
renewal term. The NRC’s regulations for
the license renewal safety review are set
forth in Part 54 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The
NRC’s environmental protection
regulations are set forth in 10 CFR part
51.
The renewal application is the
principal document that an applicant
provides to both request and support
renewal for a nuclear power reactor’s
operating license. The license renewal
application includes both general and
technical information that demonstrates
that an applicant is in compliance with
the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR part 54.
During the renewal process, the license
renewal applicant must confirm
whether the design assumptions used
for the original licensing basis will
continue to be valid throughout the
period of extended operation and that
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the aging effects will be adequately
managed. The applicant must
demonstrate that the effects of aging will
be managed in such a way that the
intended functions of ‘‘passive’’ or
‘‘long-lived’’ structures and components
(such as the reactor vessel, reactor
coolant system, piping, steam
generators, pressurizer, pump casings,
and valves) will be maintained during
the license renewal term (also known as
the period of extended operation). For
active components, such as motors,
diesel generators, cooling fans, batteries,
relays, and switches, the Commission’s
ongoing regulatory oversight programs
already ensure that the components
continue to perform their intended
function during the period of license
renewal. This information must be
sufficiently detailed in the application
to permit the NRC staff to determine if
the applicant’s management of these
issues is adequate to allow operation
during the extended period of operation
without undue risk to the public and
workers’ health and safety.
In addition to the safety assessment,
the applicant must also prepare an
evaluation of the potential impacts to
the environment of facility operation for
an additional 20 years. Under the NRC’s
environmental protection regulations in
10 CFR part 51, which implement the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power
plant operating license requires the
preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS). To support the
preparation of these EISs, the NRC
issued a rule in 1996 to define which
impacts would essentially be the same
at all nuclear power plants (Category 1
issues) and which ones could be
different at different plants and would
require a plant-specific analysis to
determine the impacts (Category 2
issues). For each license renewal
application, those impacts that require a
plant-specific analysis must be analyzed
by the applicant in its environmental
report and by the NRC in its associated
EIS. The final rule amends those
regulations by updating the
Commission’s 1996 rule. The final rule
redefines the number and scope of the
environmental impact issues that must
be addressed by the NRC and applicants
during license renewal environmental
reviews. These changes are based
primarily on lessons learned and
knowledge gained from license renewal
environmental reviews conducted by
the NRC since 1996.
The NRC prepared a regulatory
analysis to determine the expected
quantitative and qualitative costs and
benefits of the final rule. The analysis
concluded that the final rule will result
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
in net savings to the industry and the
NRC. For more information, please see
the regulatory analysis (ADAMS
Accession No. ML110760321).
Summary of the Major Rule Changes
In the 1996 rule, there were 92
environmental impact issues, 23 of
which required a plant-specific analysis
(Category 2 issues) during license
renewal environmental reviews. In the
final rule, there are 78 environmental
impact issues, 17 of which require a
plant-specific analysis. The following
bullets summarize the major changes to
the rule:
• Based on the related nature of the
issues, several Category 1 issues were
consolidated with other Category 1
issues. This includes some issues that
were changed from Category 2 to
Category 1 and subsequently combined
with other, related Category 1 issues.
Similarly, several Category 2 issues
were combined with related Category 2
issues.
• New Category 1 issues were added:
geology and soils; effects of dredging on
surface water quality; groundwater use
and quality; exposure of terrestrial
organisms to radionuclides; exposure of
aquatic organisms to radionuclides;
effects of dredging on aquatic
organisms; impacts of transmission line
right-of-way management on aquatic
resources; employment and income; tax
revenues; human health impacts from
chemicals; and physical occupational
hazards.
• Several issues were changed from
Category 2 to Category 1: Offsite land
use, air quality, public services (several
issues), and population and housing.
• New Category 2 issues were added:
Radionuclides released to groundwater,
water use conflicts with terrestrial
resources, water use conflicts with
aquatic resources, and cumulative
impacts.
• One uncharacterized issue was
reclassified as Category 2:
Environmental justice/minority and
low-income populations.
• One Category 1 issue was revised to
narrow the scope of its finding due to
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) decision in New York v. NRC,
681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which
vacated the NRC’s 2010 Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule (75 FR
81032 and 81037; December 23, 2010):
Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel.
• One Category 1 issue was
reclassified as uncategorized due to the
New York v. NRC decision: Offsite
radiological impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste disposal.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
I. Background
II. Public Meetings
III. Discussion
IV. Response to Public Comments
A. Overview
B. Summary of Comments Resulting in
Substantive Changes to the Rule
C. Summary of Other Comments
V. Related Issues of Importance
A. Fukushima Events
B. Removal of References to the Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule
C. Effective and Compliance Dates for Final
Rule
D. Best Management Practices
E. Definition of ‘‘Historic Properties’’
VI. Revisions to 10 CFR 51.53
A. Reclassifying Category 2 Issues as
Category 1 Issues
B. Adding New Category 2 Issues
VII. Response to Specific Request for
Voluntary Information
VIII. Final Actions and Basis for Changes to
Table B–1
IX. Section-by-Section Analysis
X. Guidance Documents
XI. Agreement State Compatibility
XII. Availability of Documents
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XIV. Environmental Impact—Categorical
Exclusion
XV. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XVI. Plain Writing
XVII. Regulatory Analysis
XVIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XIX. Backfitting and Issue Finality
XX. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
Rulemaking History
In 1986, the NRC initiated a program
to develop license renewal regulations
and associated regulatory guidance in
anticipation of receiving applications
for the renewal of nuclear power plant
operating licenses. In 1996, the NRC
published a final rule that amended the
environmental protection regulations in
10 CFR part 51 for applicants seeking to
renew an operating license for up to an
additional 20 years.1 The 1996 final rule
was based upon the analyses and
findings of a May 1996 NRC
environmental impact statement,
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants,’’ NUREG–1437 (the
‘‘1996 GEIS’’) (Vol. 1, ‘‘Main Report,’’
ADAMS Accession No. ML040690705;
Vol. 2, ‘‘Appendices,’’ ADAMS
Accession No. ML040690738).
Based upon the findings of the 1996
GEIS, the 1996 final rule identified
those license renewal environmental
impact issues for which a generic
analysis had been determined to be
appropriate and therefore, did not have
to be addressed by a license renewal
applicant in its plant-specific
environmental report or by the NRC in
1 61
PO 00000
its plant-specific supplemental
environmental impact statements
(SEISs) to the 1996 GEIS. Similarly,
based upon the findings of the 1996
GEIS, the 1996 final rule identified
those environmental impacts for which
a site- or plant-specific analysis was
required, both by the applicant in its
environmental report and by the NRC in
its SEIS. The 1996 final rule, amongst
other amendments to 10 CFR part 51,
added Appendix B to Subpart A of 10
CFR part 51, ‘‘Environmental Effect of
Renewing the Operating License of a
Nuclear Power Plant.’’ Appendix B
included Table B–1, ‘‘Summary of
Findings on NEPA Issues for License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,’’
which summarized the findings of the
1996 GEIS.
In preparing the 1996 GEIS, the
Commission determined that certain
environmental impacts associated with
the renewal of a nuclear power plant
operating license were the same or
similar for all plants and, as such, could
be treated on a generic basis. In this
way, repetitive reviews of these
environmental impacts could be
avoided. The Commission based its
generic assessment of certain
environmental impacts on the following
factors:
(1) License renewal will involve
nuclear power plants for which the
environmental impacts of operation are
well understood as a result of lessons
learned and knowledge gained from
operating experience and completed
license renewals.
(2) Activities associated with license
renewal are expected to be within this
range of operating experience; thus,
environmental impacts can be
reasonably predicted.
(3) Changes in the environment
around nuclear power plants are gradual
and predictable.
The 1996 GEIS improved the
efficiency of the license renewal process
by: (1) Providing an evaluation of the
types of environmental impacts that
may occur from renewing commercial
nuclear power plant operating licenses;
(2) identifying and assessing impacts
that are expected to be generic (i.e., the
same or similar) at all nuclear power
plants or plants with specified plant or
site characteristics; and (3) defining the
number and scope of environmental
impacts that need to be addressed in
plant-specific SEISs to the 1996 GEIS.
In short, the 1996 final rule identified
environmental impact issues (i.e.,
Category 1 issues) 2 that do not have to
2 A Category 1 issue is one that meets the
following criteria: (1) The environmental impacts
FR 28467 (June 5, 1996).
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37283
Continued
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37284
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
be addressed by licensees in
environmental reports for nuclear power
plant license renewal applications or by
the NRC in plant-specific SEISs because
these issues have been addressed
generically for all nuclear power plants
in the 1996 GEIS. Similarly, the 1996
final rule also identified environmental
impact issues (i.e., Category 2 issues) 3
that must be addressed in plant-specific
reviews by licensees in their
environmental reports and by the NRC
in the SEISs.
On December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537),
the NRC amended the final rule
published in 1996 to incorporate minor
clarifying and conforming changes and
to add language omitted from Table B–
1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR
part 51 (hereafter ‘‘Table B–1 in
Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part
51’’ is referred to as ‘‘Table B–1’’).
1999 Final Rule
The NRC amended 10 CFR part 51,
including Table B–1, on September 3,
1999 (64 FR 48496). This amendment
expanded the generic findings
pertaining to the environmental impacts
resulting from transportation of fuel and
waste to and from a single nuclear
power plant. This amendment also
incorporated rule language consistent
with the 1996 GEIS, which addressed
local traffic impacts attributable to the
continued operations of a nuclear power
plant during the license renewal term.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Current Rulemaking
As stated in the 1996 final rule that
incorporated the findings of the GEIS in
10 CFR part 51, the NRC recognized that
environmental impact issues might
change over time and that additional
issues may need to be considered. As
further stated in the preamble to Table
B–1, the NRC indicated that it intended
to review the material in Table B–1 on
a 10-year basis.
The NRC began this review on June 3,
2003, by publishing a notice of intent to
revise the 1996 GEIS (68 FR 33209). As
part of this process and pursuant to 10
CFR 51.29, the NRC conducted scoping
associated with the issue have been determined to
apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to
plants having a specific type of cooling system or
other specified plant or site characteristic; (2) a
single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or
large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for
collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel
cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel
disposal); and (3) mitigation of adverse impacts
associated with the issue has been considered in the
analysis, and it has been determined that additional
plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to
be sufficiently beneficial to warrant
implementation.
3 A Category 2 issue is one where one or more of
the Category 1 criteria cannot be met, and therefore
additional plant-specific review is required.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
and held a series of public meetings (see
74 FR 38119 for more details). The
original public comment period began
in June 2003 and closed in September
2003. The project was inactive for the
next 2 years due to limited NRC staff
resources and competing demands. On
October 3, 2005 (70 FR 57628), the NRC
reopened the public comment period
and extended it until December 30,
2005.
On July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38117), the
NRC published the proposed rule,
‘‘Revisions to Environmental Review for
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses,’’ for public
comment in the Federal Register. The
proposed rule would amend Table B–1
by updating the Commission’s 1996
findings on the environmental impacts
related to the renewal of nuclear power
plant operating licenses and other NRC
environmental protection regulations
(e.g., 10 CFR 51.53, which sets forth the
contents of the applicant’s
environmental report). Together with
the proposed rule, the NRC also
published a notice of availability of the
draft revised GEIS (ADAMS Accession
No. ML090220654); a proposed Revision
1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2,
Supplement 1, ‘‘Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear
Power Plant License Renewal
Applications’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML091620409); and a proposed
Revision 1 to NUREG–1555,
Supplement 1, ‘‘Standard Review Plans
for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear
Power Plants’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090230497), in the Federal Register
(74 FR 38238). All of the documents
requested public comments.
The proposed amendments were
based on consideration of (1) Comments
received from the public during the
public scoping period, (2) a review of
comments received on plant-specific
SEISs completed since the 1996 GEIS
was issued, and (3) lessons learned and
knowledge gained from previous and
ongoing license renewal environmental
reviews. The history of this rulemaking
is discussed in more detail in the July
31, 2009 (74 FR 38117), proposed rule.
The draft revised GEIS provided the
regulatory basis for the July 2009
proposed rule.
The proposed rule provided a 75-day
public comment period, which closed
on October 14, 2009. The NRC received
requests to extend the comment period
to provide the public more time to
analyze and review the legal, regulatory,
and policy issues covered by the
proposed rule and supporting
documents. On October 7, 2009 (74 FR
51522), the NRC granted the requests,
and the public comment period for the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed rule and the proposed
revisions to the GEIS, the regulatory
guide, and standard review plan was
extended to January 12, 2010.
II. Public Meetings
During the public comment period,
the NRC conducted six public meetings
to solicit comments on the proposed
rule, draft revised GEIS, and related
draft guidance documents. The official
transcripts, written comments, and
meeting summaries for the following
public meetings are available
electronically for public inspection at
the NRC’s PDR or online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html:
(1) September 15, 2009, Atlanta, GA
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092810007);
(2) September 17, 2009, Newton, MA
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092931681);
(3) September 24, 2009, Oak Brook, IL
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092931545);
(4) October 1, 2009, Rockville, MD
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092931678);
(5) October 20, 2009, Pismo Beach,
CA (ADAMS Accession No.
ML093070174); and
(6) October 22, 2009, Dana Point, CA
(ADAMS Accession No. ML093100505).
A summary of these meetings is
publicly available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML093070141.
On June 21, 2011, the NRC conducted
another public meeting to discuss final
rule implementation in Rockville, MD.
No public comments were solicited at
this meeting because the public
comment period for the proposed rule
had closed on January 12, 2010. A
summary of this meeting is publicly
available in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML11182B535.
III. Discussion
1996 GEIS
Under the NRC’s environmental
protection regulations in 10 CFR part
51, which implements Section 102(2) of
NEPA, renewal of a nuclear power plant
operating license requires the
preparation of an EIS (see 10 CFR
51.20(b)(2)). The 1996 GEIS summarized
the findings of a systematic inquiry into
the environmental impacts of continued
operations and refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal. Of the
92 environmental issues identified and
analyzed by the NRC, 69 issues were
determined to be generic (i.e., Category
1); 21 were determined to be plantspecific (i.e., Category 2); and two did
not fit into either category (i.e.,
uncategorized). Category 1 issues
concern those potential environmental
impacts resulting from license renewal
that are common or generic to all
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
nuclear power plants (or for some
issues, to plants having a specific type
of cooling system or other specified
plant or site characteristic). Category 2
issues concern those potential
environmental impacts resulting from
license renewal that are not common or
generic to all nuclear power plants and,
as such, require a plant-specific analysis
to determine the level of impact. The
two uncategorized issues would be
addressed by the NRC in each SEIS.
Table B–1 summarizes the findings of
the environmental impact analyses
conducted for the 1996 GEIS and lists
each issue and its category level.
Impact levels (small, moderate, or
large) were determined for most NEPA
issues (e.g., land use, air, water)
evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. A small
impact means that the environmental
effects are not detectable, or are so
minor that they would neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any
important attribute of the resource. A
moderate impact means that the
environmental effects are sufficient to
alter noticeably, but not destabilize,
important attributes of the resource. A
large impact means that the
environmental effects would be clearly
noticeable and would be sufficient to
destabilize important attributes of the
resource.
The 1996 GEIS has been effective in
focusing the NRC’s resources on
important license renewal
environmental impact issues and has
increased the efficiency of the
environmental review process.
Currently, 73 nuclear units at 43 plant
sites have received renewed operating
licenses.
Revised GEIS
The revised GEIS (Vol. 1, ‘‘Main
Report,’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A241; Vol. 2, ‘‘Public
Comments,’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A242; and Vol. 3,
‘‘Appendices,’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A244) is both an update and a
re-evaluation of the potential
environmental impacts arising from the
renewal of an operating license for a
nuclear power reactor for an additional
20 years. Lessons learned and
knowledge gained during previous
license renewal environmental reviews
provided a significant source of new
information for the revised GEIS. In
addition, public comments received
during previous license renewal
environmental reviews were reexamined to validate existing
environmental issues and identify new
ones. In preparing the revised GEIS, the
NRC considered the need to modify, add
to, consolidate, or delete any of the 92
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
environmental issues evaluated in the
1996 GEIS.
In the proposed rule and draft revised
GEIS, the NRC carried forward 78
environmental impact issues for
detailed consideration. Fifty-eight of
these issues were determined to be
Category 1. Of the remaining 20 issues,
19 were determined to be Category 2
and one issue, ‘‘Electromagnetic fields,
chronic effects,’’ remained
uncategorized.4 These issues were
summarized in the July 31, 2009 (74 FR
38117), proposed rule.
Based on public comments received
on the proposed rule and draft revised
GEIS, a number of the environmental
impact issues identified in the proposed
rule were re-evaluated for detailed
consideration in the final revised GEIS
and are reflected in the changes made
by the final rule. These changes are
discussed in detail in Section VIII,
‘‘Final Actions and Basis for Changes to
Table B–1,’’ of this document and are
briefly summarized as follows:
(1) ‘‘Air quality during refurbishment
(nonattainment and maintenance
areas)’’ issue was changed from a
Category 2 to a Category 1 issue and
renamed, ‘‘Air quality impacts (all
plants).’’
(2) ‘‘Groundwater and soil
contamination’’ issue was changed from
a Category 2 to a Category 1 issue and
consolidated with the ‘‘Groundwater
use and quality’’ issue into a single
renamed Category 1 issue,
‘‘Groundwater contamination and use
(non-cooling system impacts).’’
(3) ‘‘Thermal impacts on aquatic
organisms’’ issue was changed to
remove several Category 1 thermal
impacts issues (these Category 1 issues
were consolidated together with a
Category 2 thermal impact issue in the
proposed rule) to create a new separate
combined Category 1 issue,
‘‘Infrequently reported thermal impacts
(all plants),’’ which also includes the
previously separate ‘‘Stimulation of
aquatic nuisance species (e.g.,
shipworms),’’ Category 1 thermal impact
issue.
(4) ‘‘Impingement and entrainment of
aquatic organisms’’ issue was changed
to remove a single impingement and
entrainment Category 1 issue
(consolidated with other impingement
and entrainment issues in the proposed
rule) to create a new, separate Category
4 ‘‘Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects’’
remains an uncategorized issue. Due to the lack of
a scientific consensus on the impacts of chronic
exposure to electromagnetic fields, the NRC has not
categorized this issue and did not perform a plantspecific analysis. Once a scientific consensus is
reached, the NRC will categorize the issue for
license renewal.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37285
1 issue, ‘‘Entrainment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton (all plants).’’
In addition to the changes previously
discussed, the NRC has made changes to
the ‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear
fuel’’ issue and the ‘‘Offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal’’ issue as a result of
the United States Court of Appeals
decision in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d
471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated the
NRC’s 2010 Waste Confidence Decision
and Rule (75 FR 81032 and 81037;
December 23, 2010). The Category 1
‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’
issue was revised to limit the period of
time covered by the issue to the license
renewal term. Similarly, the NRC
revised the Category 1 issue, ‘‘Offsite
radiological impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste disposal’’ by
reclassifying the issue from a Category
1 issue with an impact level of small to
an uncategorized issue with an impact
level of uncertain. Section V of this
document, ‘‘Related Issues of
Importance,’’ provides further details on
the NRC’s revisions to these issues in
response to the New York v. NRC
decision.
Ultimately, 59 environmental impact
issues were determined to be Category
1 and would not require additional
plant-specific analysis unless new and
significant information is identified
during the license renewal
environmental review. Of the remaining
19 issues, 17 were determined to be
Category 2, one remained uncategorized
with respect to determining the impact
level (‘‘Chronic effects of
electromagnetic fields (EMFs)’’), and
one was reclassified from Category 1 to
uncategorized (‘‘Offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal’’). These 78 issues
were evaluated in the revised GEIS and
are summarized in the final rule. No
environmental issues identified in Table
B–1 and evaluated in the 1996 GEIS
were eliminated, but certain issues were
consolidated or grouped according to
similarities.
Environmental issues in the revised
GEIS are arranged by resource area. This
perspective is a change from the 1996
GEIS in which environmental issues are
arranged by power plant systems (e.g.,
cooling systems, transmission lines) and
activities (e.g., refurbishment). The
structure of the revised GEIS conforms
to the NRC’s standard format for EISs
found in Appendix A to Subpart A of
10 CFR part 51, ‘‘Format for
Presentation of Material in
Environmental Impact Statements.’’ The
environmental impacts of license
renewal activities, including plant
operations, maintenance, and
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
37286
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
refurbishment activities, along with
replacement power alternatives, are
addressed in each resource area. The
revised GEIS evaluated environmental
impact issues under the following
resource areas: (1) Land use and visual
resources, (2) air quality and noise, (3)
geologic environment, (4) water
resources (surface water resources and
groundwater resources), (5) ecological
resources (terrestrial resources, aquatic
resources, special status species and
habitats), (6) historic and cultural
resources, (7) socioeconomics, (8)
human health, (9) environmental
justice, and (10) waste management and
pollution prevention. The final rule
revises Table B–1 to follow the
organizational format of the revised
GEIS.
In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC assumed
that licensees would need to conduct
major refurbishment activities to ensure
the safe and economic operation of
nuclear power plants beyond the
current license term. Activities included
replacement and repair of major
components and systems, upgrades, and
equipment. Replacement of many
systems, structures, and components
included steam generators and
pressurizers for pressurized water
reactors (PWRs) and recirculation
piping systems for boiling water reactors
(BWRs). It was assumed that many
nuclear power plants would also
undertake construction projects to
replace or improve infrastructure. Such
projects could include construction of
new parking lots, roads, storage
buildings, structures, and other
facilities.
Licensee practice since publication of
the 1996 GEIS has shown that many
refurbishment activities have already
taken place (e.g., steam generator and
vessel head replacement). Most license
renewal applicants have not identified
any refurbishment activities associated
with license renewal. Therefore, the
revised GEIS assumes that impacts from
refurbishment activities outside of
license renewal have been accounted for
in annual site evaluation reports,
environmental operating reports, and
radiological environmental monitoring
program reports. Detailed analyses have
not been performed for refurbishment
actions in the revised GEIS. Instead, the
impacts of typical activities during the
license renewal term, including any
refurbishment activities, are addressed
for each resource area.
Environmental impacts of license
renewal and the resources that could be
affected are identified in the revised
GEIS. The general analytical approach
for identifying environmental impacts
was to: (1) Describe the nuclear power
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
plant activity that could result in an
environmental impact, (2) identify the
resource that may be affected, (3)
evaluate past license renewal reviews
and other available information, (4)
assess the nature and magnitude of the
environmental impact on the affected
resource, (5) characterize the
significance of the effects, and (6)
determine whether the results of the
analysis apply to all nuclear power
plants (i.e., whether the impact issue is
Category 1 or Category 2).
The revised GEIS, and therefore the
final rule, retains the 1996 GEIS
definitions of a Category 1 and Category
2 issue. While some Category 2 issues
have been changed to Category 1, no
Category 1 issue has been changed to
Category 2. The final rule makes four
major types of changes:
(1) New Category 1 Issues: New
Category 1 issues are either new
Category 1 issues (i.e., not previously
evaluated in the 1996 GEIS and listed in
Table B–1) or multiple Category 1 issues
from the 1996 GEIS (and listed as
multiple Category 1 issues in Table B–
1 of the current rule) that have been
consolidated into a single Category 1
issue in the revised GEIS and in Table
B–1. An applicant for license renewal
does not need to assess the potential
environmental impacts from these
issues in its environmental report.
However, under 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv),
the applicant is still responsible for
reporting in the environmental report
any ‘‘new and significant information’’
of which the applicant is aware. If the
applicant is not aware of any new and
significant information that changes the
conclusion in the revised GEIS, the
applicant must state this determination
in the environmental report. The NRC
has addressed the environmental
impacts of these Category 1 issues
generically for all plants in the revised
GEIS.
(2) New Category 2 Issues: New
Category 2 issues are either new
Category 2 issues (i.e., not previously
evaluated in the 1996 GEIS and listed in
Table B–1) or multiple Category 2 issues
from the 1996 GEIS (and listed as
multiple Category 2 issues in Table B–
1 of the current rule) that have been
consolidated into a single Category 2
issue in the revised GEIS and in Table
B–1. For each new Category 2 issue, an
applicant must conduct a plant-specific
assessment of the potential
environmental impacts related to that
issue and include it in its environmental
report. The NRC will then analyze the
potential environmental impacts related
to that issue in the SEIS.
(3) Existing Issue Category Changes
from Category 2 to Category 1: These are
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
issues that were determined to be
Category 2 in the 1996 GEIS and have
been re-evaluated and determined to be
Category 1 in the revised GEIS. Table B–
1 has been amended by the final rule.
An applicant is no longer required to
conduct a plant-specific assessment of
the environmental impacts associated
with these issues in its environmental
report. Similarly, the NRC is no longer
required to analyze the potential
environmental impacts related to that
issue in the SEIS. However, consistent
with the requirements of 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(iv), an applicant is still
required to describe in its
environmental report any ‘‘new and
significant information’’ of which it is
aware.
(4) Existing Issue Changes from
Category 1 to Uncategorized: The
‘‘Offsite radiological impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal’’ issue 5 was determined to be
a Category 1 issue in the 1996 GEIS, but
given the DC Circuit decision in New
York v. NRC, the NRC reclassified the
issue to uncategorized in the revised
GEIS. Table B–1 has been amended by
the final rule. Because the issue is
uncategorized in this final rule, pending
further action by the Commission, an
applicant is not required to conduct a
plant-specific assessment of the
environmental impacts associated with
this issue in its environmental report.
IV. Response to Public Comments
A. Overview
The public comment period for the
proposed rule, draft revised GEIS, and
draft guidance documents associated
with this rulemaking, ended on January
12, 2010. The NRC received 32
document submissions containing
comments from industry stakeholders,
representatives of Federal and State
agencies, and other interested parties.
The NRC also received verbal comments
at the six public meetings held during
the public comment period. A detailed
description of all public comments
submitted on the proposed rule, draft
revised GEIS, and draft guidance
documents, and the NRC’s responses to
those comments, are contained in
separate documents (see Section XII,
‘‘Availability of Documents,’’ of this
document). The following section
summarizes the major issues raised
during the public comment period
resulting in substantive changes to the
rule and other issues raised for which
no changes were made to the rule.
5 The issue was named ‘‘Offsite radiological
impacts (spent fuel and high waste disposal)’’ in the
1996 rule and GEIS.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
B. Summary of Comments Resulting in
Substantive Changes to the Rule
Several issues were raised during the
public comment period that resulted in
substantive changes to the proposed
rule, which are briefly discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Seismic issues. Many commenters
wanted seismic issues to be included in
the rule and pointed out the importance
of reassessing seismic conditions in
determining the safety of operating
nuclear power plants. Industry
commenters disagreed and argued that
seismology should not be considered as
part of the issue of ‘‘Impacts of nuclear
plants on geology and soils’’ in the
proposed rule because it is an ongoing
safety issue that is being addressed at all
plants.
NRC Response. The NRC agrees with
the industry commenters that
consideration of seismic conditions is
an ongoing safety issue. Although
seismic conditions at nuclear power
plants were generically discussed in the
revised GEIS as part of the geologic
environment, seismology was not
identified as a separate issue in the
revised GEIS because the NRC
considered historical earthquake data
for each nuclear power plant when that
plant was first licensed. The NRC
requires all licensees to take seismic
hazards into account in order to
maintain safe operating conditions at all
nuclear power plants. When new
seismic hazard information becomes
available, the NRC evaluates the new
data and models to determine if any
changes are needed at existing plants.
This continuous oversight process,
which includes seismic safety, remains
separate from license renewal and takes
place on an ongoing basis at all licensed
nuclear facilities.
Sections 3.4 and 4.4.1 of the revised
GEIS explain that geologic and seismic
conditions were considered in the
original design of nuclear power plants
and are part of the license bases for
operating plants. Seismic conditions are
attributes of the geologic environment
that are not affected by continued plant
operations and refurbishment and are
not expected to change appreciably
during the license renewal term for all
nuclear power plants. The findings
relative to geologic and soil conditions
were re-evaluated in the revised GEIS
and as such, the issue has been
renamed, ‘‘Geology and soils,’’ in Table
B–1, and the findings have been revised
for clarity.
Air quality impacts. Several
commenters objected to the issue, ‘‘Air
quality (nonattainment and
maintenance areas),’’ being listed as a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Category 2 issue in the proposed rule.
These commenters argued that air
quality impacts would be small even in
worst-case situations, because licensees
are required to operate within State air
permit requirements.
NRC Response. The NRC agrees with
the commenters. The final rule revises
Table B–1 by reclassifying the issue as
a Category 1 issue. Operating experience
has shown that the potential impact
from emergency generators and boilers
on air quality would be small for all
plants and, given the infrequency and
short duration of maintenance testing,
would not be an air quality concern
even at plants located in or adjacent to
nonattainment areas.
In addition, the analysis presented in
the revised GEIS has shown that the
worst-case emissions from cooling tower
drift and particulate emissions at
operating plants were also small. Air
quality impacts from vehicle,
equipment, and fugitive dust emissions
associated with refurbishment would
also be small for most plants but could
be a cause for concern for plants located
in or near air quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas. However, the
impacts are expected to be temporary
and would cease once projects were
completed. In addition, operating
experience has shown that
refurbishment activities have not
required the large numbers of workers
and extended durations conservatively
predicted and analyzed in the 1996
GEIS, nor have such activities resulted
in exceedances in the de minimis
thresholds for criteria pollutants in
nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Consequently, the NRC agrees with
these commenters’ arguments that air
quality impacts would be small for all
plants and, therefore, a Category 1 issue.
Groundwater and soil contamination.
Several commenters objected to the new
Category 2 issue, ‘‘Groundwater and soil
contamination,’’ in the proposed rule
and asserted that contamination from
industrial practices is addressed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and State regulations that monitor
and address these impacts. Specifically,
the use, storage, disposal, release, and/
or cleanup of spilled or leaked solvents,
hydrocarbons, and other potentially
hazardous materials are governed by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA); Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; Toxic
Substances Control Act; Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act; and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (also known as the Clean
Water Act (CWA)).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37287
NRC Response. While classified as a
Category 2 issue in the proposed rule,
further consideration of the
‘‘Groundwater and soil contamination’’
issue and public comments revealed
that the potential impacts on
groundwater and soil quality from
common industrial practices (e.g., the
use, handling, storage, and disposal of
chemicals, petroleum products, waste,
and hazardous material) can be
addressed generically because industrial
practices employed by nuclear power
plants are not unique, but common to
all industrial facilities. The NRC
concludes that the overall impact of
industrial practices on groundwater use
and quality from past and current
operations is small for all nuclear power
plants and not expected to change
appreciably during the license renewal
term. The NRC agrees with the
commenters to the extent that
clarification was needed and that
common industrial practices that can
cause groundwater or soil
contamination can be addressed
generically as a Category 1 issue.
Further, the final rule combines the
reclassified ‘‘Groundwater and soil
contamination’’ issue with the Category
1 proposed rule issue, ‘‘Groundwater
use and quality,’’ and renames the
consolidated Category 1 issue as
‘‘Groundwater contamination and use
(non-cooling system impacts).’’ These
issues were consolidated because they
both consider the impact of industrial
activities associated with the continued
operations of a nuclear power plant (not
directly related to cooling system
effects) on groundwater use and quality.
Consolidating these issues also
conforms to the resource-based
approach used in the revised GEIS and
serves to facilitate the license renewal
environmental review process.
The finding column of Table B–1 for
‘‘Impacts of refurbishment on
groundwater use and quality’’ prior to
the final rule, as analyzed in the 1996
GEIS, indicated that impacts of
continued operations and refurbishment
on groundwater use and quality would
be small, as extensive dewatering is not
anticipated, and the application of best
management practices for handling any
materials produced or used during
activities would reduce impacts. These
findings were re-evaluated in the
revised GEIS and are retained in the
finding column of Table B–1 for the
consolidated issue.
This new consolidated issue also
considers the impacts on groundwater,
soil, and subsoil from the industrial use
of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals,
or other chemicals at nuclear power
plant sites during the license renewal
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37288
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
term, including the impacts resulting
from the use of wastewater disposal
ponds or lagoons (both lined or
unlined). Industrial practices at all
nuclear power plants have the potential
to contaminate groundwater and soil,
especially on sites with unlined
wastewater and storm water lagoons.
Contaminants have been found in
groundwater and soil samples at some
nuclear power plants during previous
license renewal environmental reviews.
Any groundwater and soil
contamination at operating nuclear
power plants is subject to
characterization and clean-up under
EPA- and State-regulated remediation
and monitoring programs. In addition,
wastewater disposal ponds and lagoons
are subject to discharge authorizations
under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and
related State wastewater discharge
permit programs. Each operating
nuclear power plant must comply with
these EPA and State regulatory
requirements. As such, each site has an
established program for handling
chemicals, waste, and other hazardous
materials. Moreover, nuclear power
plant licensees are expected to employ
best management practices, both in
minimizing effluents and in
remediation. Thus, this new
consolidated issue, as set forth in the
final revised GEIS and the final rule, is
listed as a Category 1 issue.
C. Summary of Other Comments
Radionuclides in groundwater.
Several commenters expressed
opposition to the inclusion of a new
Category 2 issue, ‘‘Radionuclides
released to groundwater,’’ with an
impact estimate of small to moderate in
the proposed rule. Some commenters
indicated that the issue category should
be changed to Category 1; others
suggested that the levels of significance
should range to large. The argument for
changing the issue to Category 1 was
based on the voluntary industry-wide
initiative, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
07–07, ‘‘Industry Ground Water
Protection Initiative—Final Guidance
Document’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML072610036), designed to protect
groundwater.
NRC Response. This new, Category 2
issue evaluates the potential
contamination and degradation of
groundwater resources resulting from
inadvertent discharges of radionuclides
into groundwater from nuclear power
plants. Within the past several years,
there have been numerous events at
power reactor sites that involved
unknown, uncontrolled, and
unmonitored releases of radionuclides
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
into the groundwater. The number of
these events and the high level of public
controversy have made this an issue that
the NRC believes needs a ‘‘hard look,’’
as required by NEPA.
As a voluntary action, NEI 07–07
cannot be enforced by the NRC. As
such, no violations can be issued against
a licensee who fails to comply with the
guidance in NEI 07–07. Furthermore,
the NRC cannot rely on a voluntary
initiative as a basis to ensure that the
nuclear power industry will monitor
and have adequate information available
for the NRC to determine whether the
issue does or does not have an adverse
impact on groundwater resources.
Regarding the magnitude of impact,
the NRC bases its determination of small
to moderate impact on a review of
existing plants that have had
inadvertent releases of radioactive
liquids. Even though the NRC expects
impacts for all plants to be within this
range, a conclusion of large impact
would not be precluded for a future
license renewal review based on new
and significant information, if the data
supports such a conclusion. As reflected
in the revised final GEIS and the final
rule, ‘‘Radionuclides released to
groundwater,’’ remains a Category 2
issue.
Radiation exposures to the public.
Several commenters identified recent
studies that claim an association
between cancer risk and proximity to
nuclear power facilities.
NRC Response. The NRC’s regulatory
limits for radiological protection are set
to protect workers and the public from
the harmful health effects (i.e., cancer
and other biological impacts) of
radiation to humans. The limits are
based on the recommendations of
scientific standards-setting
organizations. These radiation standards
reflect extensive scientific study by
national and international
organizations. The NRC actively
participates in and monitors the work of
these organizations to remain current on
the latest trends in radiation protection.
If the NRC determines that there is a
need to revise its radiation protection
regulations, it will initiate a separate
rulemaking. The models recognized by
the NRC for use by licensees to calculate
dose incorporate conservative
assumptions to ensure that workers and
members of the public are adequately
protected from radiation.
On April 7, 2010, the NRC announced
that it asked the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to perform a state-ofthe-art study on cancer risk for
populations surrounding nuclear power
facilities (ADAMS Accession No.
ML100970142). The NAS has a broad
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
range of medical and scientific experts
who can provide the best available
analysis of the complex issues involved
in discussing cancer risk and
commercial nuclear power plants. The
NAS is a nongovernmental organization
chartered by the U.S. Congress to advise
the nation on issues of science,
technology, and medicine. Through the
National Research Council and Institute
of Medicine, it carries out studies
independently of the Government, using
processes designed to promote
transparency, objectivity, and technical
rigor. More information on its methods
for performing studies is available at
https://www.nationalacademies.org/
studycommitteprocess.pdf.
The NAS study will update the 1990
U.S. National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute (NCI) report,
‘‘Cancer in Populations Living Near
Nuclear Facilities’’ (NCI 1990), which
concluded there was no evidence that
nuclear facilities may be linked causally
with excess death from leukemia or
from other cancers in populations living
nearby.6 The study’s objectives are to:
(1) Evaluate whether cancer risk is
different for populations living near
nuclear power facilities, (2) include
cancer occurrence, (3) develop an
approach to assess cancer risk in
geographic areas that are smaller than
the county level, and (4) evaluate the
study results in the context of offsite
doses from normal reactor operations.
The study began in the summer of 2010
and is expected to be completed within
4 years. The final revised GEIS has
added a discussion on the NRC’s
sponsorship of this follow-up to the
1990 NCI study.
Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel,
waste disposal, and Yucca Mountain.
Several commenters expressed concern
about the increasing volume of spent
nuclear fuel at existing power plant sites
and the availability of a geological
repository at Yucca Mountain for future
waste disposal.
NRC Response. The Commission is
aware that geologic disposal, at Yucca
Mountain or elsewhere, may not be
available in the timeframe that was
originally envisioned. As an alternative,
the Commission has considered the
storage of spent nuclear fuel on reactor
sites where it is generated. The impacts
associated with onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel at nuclear power plant sites
during the license renewal term are
discussed in Section 4.11.1.2 of the
revised GEIS. The impacts associated
with offsite radiological impacts from
6 More information on this report is available at
https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/
nuclear-facilities.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal are discussed in Section
4.11.1.3 of the revised GEIS. In light of
the DC Circuit’s decision in New York
v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471, the NRC has
revised two Table B–1 issues, ‘‘Onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel’’ and
‘‘Offsite radiological impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal.’’ Section V of this document,
‘‘Related Issues of Importance,’’
provides a discussion of the NRC’s
revisions to these two issues, as well as
the actions the NRC has taken or will
take in response to the New York v. NRC
decision.
Postulated accidents. Numerous
comments were received on the NRC’s
evaluation and classification of
postulated accidents in the draft revised
GEIS. One commenter disagreed with
the GEIS’ conclusion that environmental
impact from design basis accidents
(DBAs) is small. Also, several
commenters disagreed with the GEIS
conclusion that the environmental
impact from severe accidents is small
and further, that the evaluation is not
adequate because of its use of
probability-weighted risk assessments.
Their position is that for severe
accidents, the revised GEIS should also
evaluate the consequences of reactor
accidents and expand the evaluation to
include spent fuel pool accidents and
accidents due to age-related plant
component degradation. In addition,
some of the commenters stated that the
NRC has gained enough information
from the many plant licenses it has
renewed to make a determination, on a
generic basis, that the ‘‘severe
accidents’’ issue should be reclassified
as Category 1.
NRC Response.
Design Basis Accidents. The NRC
does not agree that the GEIS’ evaluation
of DBAs is incorrect. The NRC evaluates
and presents the potential consequences
of DBAs in nuclear power plant
licensing documents and considers
them in the GEIS for license renewal.
In order to receive NRC approval for
an initial operating license, an applicant
must submit a final safety analysis
report (FSAR) as part of its application.
The FSAR presents the applicable
design criteria and design information
for the proposed reactor, as well as
comprehensive data on the proposed
site. The FSAR also discusses
hypothetical reactor accident situations
and addresses the safety features that
prevent and mitigate those accidents.
During the initial licensing process for
a power reactor, the NRC reviews the
FSAR to determine whether or not the
plant design meets the NRC’s
regulations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
At initial licensing, the NRC also
considered the environmental impact of
DBAs at each operating nuclear power
plant. The DBAs are those events that
both the applicant and the NRC evaluate
to ensure that the plant can withstand
normal and abnormal transients (e.g.,
rapid changes in reactor power) without
undue risk to the health and safety of
the public. Although the NRC does not
expect that all of these postulated events
will occur during the life of the plant,
the NRC evaluates them to establish the
basis for the preventive and mitigative
safety systems of the facility. The
acceptance criteria for DBAs are
described in 10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic
Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities,’’ and 10 CFR part 100,
‘‘Reactor Site Criteria.’’ Compliance
with these regulations provides
reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety.
During operations, the NRC requires
each power plant licensee to maintain
acceptable design and performance
criteria in accordance with the NRC’s
regulations, including during any
license renewal period. Therefore, the
calculated releases from DBAs will
remain within the NRC’s regulatory
limits.
The 1996 GEIS, in Section 5.2,
discusses the impacts of potential
accidents. It contains a discussion of
plant accidents and consequences. This
discussion addresses general
characteristics of design basis (and
severe) accidents, characteristics of
fission products, meteorological
considerations, possible exposure
pathways, potential adverse health
effects, avoiding adverse health effects,
accident experience and observed
impacts, and emergency preparedness.
The revised GEIS reexamined the
information from the 1996 GEIS and
concluded that it is still valid. Because
the information on DBAs is valid and
has not changed, the revised GEIS does
not repeat the information from the
1996 GEIS.
Severe Accidents. The NRC does not
agree with the comments that the
revised GEIS evaluation is inadequate
regarding the impacts from severe
accidents because it uses probabilityweighted risk assessments. Severe
accidents (i.e., beyond design basis
accidents) are those that could result in
substantial damage to the reactor core,
whether or not there are serious off-site
consequences. The 1996 GEIS estimated
and considered the potential impacts on
human health and economic factors
from full-power severe reactor accidents
initiated by internal events at different
types of nuclear facilities located in
different types of settings. That
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37289
evaluation included modeling the
release of radioactive materials into the
environment and modeling the
pathways (i.e., exposure to the
radioactive plume, inhalation of
radioactivity, consumption of
contaminated food) through which
members of the public could potentially
be exposed to doses of radiation. Based
on the calculated doses, the GEIS
reported the consequences (i.e.,
potential early and latent fatalities) from
such accidents. In developing a
potential impact level, however, the
NRC took into account the very low
probability of such events, as well as
their potential consequences, and
concluded that the likely impact from
individual nuclear power plants is
small.
In the revised GEIS, the NRC
expanded the scope of the severe
accident evaluations and used more
recent technical information that
included both internal and external
event core-damage frequency, as well as
improved severe accident source terms,
spent fuel pool accidents, low power
and reactor shutdown events, new
radiation risk-coefficients from the
National Academy of Sciences, ‘‘Health
Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII’’ report,7
and risk impacts of reactor power
uprates and higher fuel burn-up levels.
As a result, the revised GEIS considers
updated information in determining the
potential consequences of a reactor
accident. Considering this updated
information and that severe reactor
accidents remain unlikely, the revised
GEIS concludes that the environmental
impacts of a severe accident remain
small.
The NRC notes, however, that the
GEIS is not the primary vehicle the NRC
uses to address and regulate risks from
severe accidents. The NRC’s regulations
and regulatory practices employ safety
standards in the design, construction,
and operation of nuclear power plants
as well as risk models to ensure the
public is adequately protected on an ongoing basis. The NRC’s ongoing
oversight addresses the public’s risk
from nuclear power plant accidents,
accounts for the effects of proposed
changes that may be made as part of
power plant operations, and considers
new information about the facility or its
environment when necessary.
7 The BEIR VII report can be accessed at https://
search.nap.edu/napsearch.php?term=beir+vii. The
NRC staff reviewed this report in SECY–05–0202,
‘‘Staff Review of the National Academies Study of
the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII),’’ dated October 29,
2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052640532).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
37290
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Although the NRC has determined
that impacts from severe accidents are
small for all facilities, the NRC
continues to maintain that severe
accidents cannot be a Category 1 issue
because plant-specific mitigation
measures vary greatly based on plant
designs, safety systems, fuel type,
operating procedures, local
environment, population, and siting
characteristics. Thus, severe accidents
remain a Category 2 issue. Accordingly,
the NRC has not changed the
requirements in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L)
that an applicant’s environmental report
must contain a discussion that considers
alternatives to mitigate severe accidents
if the NRC has not previously
considered this issue in an
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment for the
facility.
Spent Fuel Pool Accidents. The 1996
GEIS included a quantitative analysis of
a severe accident involving a reactor
operating at full power. A qualitative
evaluation of SFP accidents is presented
in Appendix E of the revised GEIS.
Based on this evaluation, the revised
GEIS concludes that the environmental
impacts from accidents involving SFPs
are comparable to those from the reactor
accidents at full power that were
evaluated in the 1996 GEIS and as such,
SFP accidents do not warrant separate
evaluation. Based on the continued
validity of conclusions from the 1996
GEIS, as affirmed by the Commission
(see following paragraph), the revised
GEIS does not contain a quantitative
evaluation of SFP accidents.
The issue of an accident involving the
spent fuel pool was specifically
addressed by the NRC in its denial of
two petitions for rulemaking (PRM):
PRM–51–10 and PRM–51–12, submitted
by the Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in
2006 and the Attorney General of
California in 2007, respectively.8 The
petitioners requested that the NRC
initiate a rulemaking concerning the
environmental impacts of the high
density storage of spent nuclear fuel in
SFPs. The petitioners asserted that ‘‘new
and significant information’’ shows that
the NRC incorrectly characterized the
environmental impacts of high-density
spent fuel storage as ‘‘insignificant’’ in
the 1996 GEIS for the renewal of nuclear
power plant licenses. Specifically, the
petitioners asserted that spent fuel
stored in high-density SFPs is more
vulnerable to a zirconium fire than the
NRC concluded in its NEPA analysis.
The NRC denied the two petitions, and
8 These PRMs were denied in the same Federal
Register notice (73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
the NRC denial was upheld by the
United States Court of Appeals.
Aging-related Degradation. Issues
related to age-related plant component
degradation are addressed in the NRC’s
safety evaluation of the plant’s license
renewal application. The regulations
covering the safety review for license
renewal are in 10 CFR part 54,
‘‘Requirements for Renewal of Operating
Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.’’
The 1996 GEIS discusses the potential
effects of age on the physical plant and
notes that such deterioration could
result in an increased likelihood of
component or structure failure that
could increase the rate of plant
accidents. The GEIS notes that the NRC
requires an applicant for license
renewal to address the issue of agerelated degradation by identifying, in an
integrated plant assessment process,
those passive, long-lived structures and
components that are susceptible to agerelated degradation and whose
functions are necessary to ensure that
the facility’s current licensing basis is
maintained. The GEIS found that the
safety evaluation performed by the NRC
as part of the license renewal process
provides reasonable assurance that agerelated degradation is managed and
adequate protection of the health and
safety of the public is maintained during
the license renewal period. Therefore,
the 1996 GEIS concluded, ‘‘. . . the
probability of any radioactive releases
from accidents will not increase over
the license renewal period.’’ Based on
nuclear power plants’ continued
compliance with 10 CFR part 54 to
manage age-related degradation, the
revised GEIS did not alter or revise this
conclusion from the 1996 GEIS.
Greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change. Several commenters
discussed the need to include a
discussion of the effects of climate
change on plant operations and the
effect of continued operations during
the license renewal period on
environmental resources affected by
climate change.
NRC Response. The NRC
acknowledges these concerns. The NRC
has begun to evaluate the effects of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its
implications for global climate change
in its environmental reviews for both
new reactor and license renewal
applications. Changes in climate have
the potential to affect air and water
resources, ecological resources, and
human health, and should be taken into
account when evaluating cumulative
impacts over the license renewal term.
Subsequent to the publication of the
proposed rule and during the public
comment period, the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
issued a memorandum and order
concerning two combined operating
license applications for new reactor
units at the Tennessee Valley Authority
Bellefonte site in Alabama and the Duke
Energy Carolinas Lee site in South
Carolina (CLI–09–21). The
memorandum and order stated:
because the Staff is currently addressing the
emerging issues surrounding greenhouse gas
emissions in environmental reviews required
for the licensing of nuclear facilities, we
believe it is prudent to provide the following
guidance to the Staff. We expect the Staff to
include consideration of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gas emissions in its
environmental reviews for major licensing
actions under the National Environmental
Policy Act. The Staff’s analysis for reactor
applications should encompass emissions
from the uranium fuel cycle as well as from
construction and operation of the facility to
be licensed. The Staff should ensure that
these issues are addressed consistently in
agency NEPA evaluations and, as
appropriate, update Staff guidance
documents to address greenhouse gas
emissions.9
Presently, insufficient data exists to
support an impact level on a generic
basis. The NRC only has direct emission
data for a handful of facilities. Although
some states have varying reporting
requirements, GHG emissions reporting
nationwide is in its infancy. The EPA
promulgated its GHG emissions
reporting rule on October 30, 2009 (74
FR 56260). In accordance with this rule,
the first industry reporting date was
March 31, 2011.10 Moreover, the 25,000
annual metric ton reporting threshold
EPA established in the final rule of
October 30, 2009, is not an indication of
what EPA considers to be a significant
(or insignificant) level of GHG emissions
on a scientific basis, but a threshold
chosen by EPA for policy evaluation
purposes.11
In order to comply with the
Commission’s direction in CLI–09–21
and in response to the comments
received, a new section, ‘‘Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Climate Change’’
(Chapter 4, Section 4.12.3),
summarizing the potential cumulative
9 In the matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(Combined License Application for William States
Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2); In the matter
of Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear
Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI–09–21 (NRC
November 3, 2009).
10 74 FR at 56267: October 30, 2009, codified at
40 CFR 98.3(b) (‘‘The annual GHG report must be
submitted no later than March 31 of each calendar
year for GHG emissions in the previous calendar
year’’).
11 The EPA concluded for policy evaluation
purposes, that the 25,000 metric ton threshold more
effectively targets large industrial emitters and
suppliers, covers approximately 85 percent of the
U.S. emissions, and minimizes the burden on
smaller facilities (74 FR 56264; October 30, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
impacts of GHG emissions and global
climate change, has been added to the
final revised GEIS. The NRC will also
include within each SEIS a plantspecific analysis of any impacts caused
by GHG emissions over the course of the
license renewal term as well as any
impacts caused by potential climate
change upon the affected resources
during the license renewal term. The
final rule was not revised to include any
reference to GHG emissions or climate
change.
Recent advances in alternative energy
technologies. Several commenters
asserted that much of the information
describing alternative energy
technologies did not reflect the state-ofthe-science. In some cases, commenters
noted facts and events that occurred
after the publication date of the draft
revised GEIS.
NRC Response. The NRC has updated
the final revised GEIS to incorporate the
latest information on replacement
power alternatives, but it is inevitable
that rapidly evolving technologies will
outpace the information presented in
the final revised GEIS. Incorporation of
this information is more appropriately
made in the context of plant-specific
license renewal reviews, rather than in
the evaluations contained in the revised
GEIS. As with renewable energy
technologies, energy policies are
evolving rapidly. While the NRC
acknowledges that legislation,
technological advancements, and public
policy can underlie a fundamental
paradigm shift in energy portfolios, the
NRC cannot make decisions based on
anticipated or speculative changes.
Instead, the NRC considers the status of
replacement power alternatives and
energy policies when conducting plantspecific reviews. The final revised GEIS
has been updated to clarify the NRC’s
approach to conducting replacement
power alternative evaluations.
Emergency preparedness and
security. Several commenters expressed
concern with emergency preparedness,
evacuation, and safety and security at
nuclear power plants. Commenters
stated that these topics were not
addressed in the proposed rule and not
adequately covered in the revised GEIS
and should be included in the scope of
the plant-specific SEISs.
NRC Response. Emergency
preparedness and planning are part of
the current licensing basis for each
holder of a 10 CFR part 50 operating
license and are outside the regulatory
scope of license renewal. Before a plant
is licensed to operate, the NRC must
have ‘‘reasonable assurance that
adequate protective measures can and
will be taken in the event of a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
radiological emergency’’ (10 CFR 50.47).
The Commission’s regulatory scheme
provides continuing assurance that
emergency planning for every operating
nuclear power plant is adequate. The
Commission has determined that there
is no need for a special review of
emergency planning issues in the
context of an environmental review for
license renewal because the ongoing
decisions and findings concerning
emergency preparedness at nuclear
power plants address concerns as they
arise.
The Commission considered the need
for a review of emergency planning
issues in the context of license renewal
during its rulemaking proceedings on 10
CFR part 54, which included public
notice and comment. As discussed in
the Statement of Considerations for the
10 CFR part 54 rulemaking (56 FR
64966; December 13, 1991), the
programs for emergency preparedness at
nuclear power facilities apply to all
nuclear power facility licensees and
require the specified levels of protection
from each licensee regardless of plant
design, construction, or license date.
The NRC requirements related to
emergency planning are in the
regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and
Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50,
‘‘Emergency Planning and Preparedness
for Production and Utilization
Facilities.’’ These requirements apply to
all holders of operating licenses and
will continue to apply to facilities with
renewed licenses. Through its standards
and required exercises, the Commission
reviews existing emergency
preparedness plans throughout the life
of any facility, keeping up with
changing demographics and other siterelated factors.
Further, the NRC actively reviews its
regulatory framework to ensure that the
regulations are current and effective.
The agency began a major review of its
emergency preparedness framework in
2005, including a comprehensive review
of the emergency preparedness
regulations and guidance, the issuance
of generic communications regarding
the integration of emergency
preparedness and security, and outreach
efforts to interested persons to discuss
emergency preparedness issues. These
activities informed a rulemaking effort
to enhance the NRC’s emergency
preparedness regulations and guidance.
This effort culminated in a final rule,
which was published in the Federal
Register on November 23, 2011 (76 FR
72560).
Security issues are not tied to a
license renewal action but are treated on
an ongoing basis as a part of the current
(and renewed) operating license. If
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37291
issues related to security are discovered
at a nuclear power plant, they are
addressed immediately, and any
necessary changes are reviewed and
incorporated under the current
operating license. For example, after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
the NRC issued security-related orders
and guidance to nuclear power plant
licensees. These orders and guidance
included interim measures for
emergency planning. Nuclear industry
groups and Federal, State, and local
government agencies assisted in the
prompt implementation of these
measures and participated in drills and
exercises to test these new planning
elements. The NRC reviewed licensees’
commitments to address these
requirements and verified their
implementation through inspections to
ensure public health and safety.
In summary, the issue of security is
not unique to nuclear power plants
requesting license renewal. The NRC
routinely assesses threats and other
information provided by other Federal
agencies and sources. The NRC also
ensures that licensees meet their
security requirements through its
ongoing regulatory process (routine
inspections) as a current and generic
regulatory issue that affects all nuclear
power plants. Therefore, as discussed in
the Statement of Considerations for the
10 CFR part 54 rulemaking (56 FR
64966), the Commission determined
that there is no need for an evaluation
of security issues in the context of a
license renewal review.
V. Related Issues of Importance
This section addresses five issues of
related importance to the final rule: (1)
Consideration of the recent events at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Plant, (2) removal of those parts of the
final rule that refer to and rely upon the
NRC’s Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule, (3) a description of the final rule’s
effective and compliance dates, (4)
clarification of the term ‘‘best
management practices,’’ and (5) deletion
of the proposed definition of the term
‘‘historic properties.’’
A. Fukushima Events
On March 11, 2011, a massive
earthquake off the east coast of Honshu,
Japan produced a devastating tsunami
that struck the coastal town of
Fukushima. The six-unit Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant was
directly impacted by these events. The
resulting damage caused the failure of
several of the units’ safety systems
needed to maintain cooling water flow
to the reactors. As a result of the loss of
cooling, the fuel overheated, and there
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37292
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
was a partial meltdown of the fuel
contained in several of the reactors.
Damage to the systems and structures
containing reactor fuel resulted in the
release of radioactive material to the
surrounding environment.
In response to the earthquake,
tsunami, and resulting reactor accidents
at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear
Power Plant (hereafter referred to as the
‘‘Fukushima events’’), the Commission
directed the NRC staff to convene an
agency task force of senior leaders and
experts to conduct a methodical and
systematic review of the relevant NRC
regulatory requirements, programs, and
processes, including their
implementation, and to recommend
whether the agency should make nearterm improvements to its regulatory
system. As part of the short-term review,
the task force concluded that, while
improvements are expected to be made
as a result of the lessons learned from
the Fukushima events, the continued
operation of nuclear power plants and
licensing activities for new plants do
not pose an imminent risk to public
health and safety.12
During the time that the task force
was conducting its review, groups of
individuals and non-governmental
organizations petitioned the
Commission to suspend all licensing
decisions in order to conduct a separate,
generic NEPA analysis to determine
whether the Fukushima events
constituted ‘‘new and significant
information’’ under NEPA that must be
analyzed as part of environmental
reviews. The Commission found the
request premature and noted, ‘‘[i]n
short, we do not know today the full
implications of the [Fukushima] events
for U.S. facilities.’’ 13 However, the
Commission found that if ‘‘new and
significant information comes to light
that requires consideration as part of the
ongoing preparation of applicationspecific NEPA documents, the agency
will assess the significance of that
information, as appropriate.’’ 14 The
Federal courts of appeal and the
Commission have interpreted NEPA
such that an EIS must be updated to
include new information only when that
new information provides ‘‘a seriously
different picture of the environmental
12 Recommendations
for Enhancing Reactor
Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-Term Task
Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident’’ (July 12, 2011) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML111861807).
13 Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri
(Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI–11–05, _ NRC _, _
(slip op. at 30) (Sept. 9, 2011).
14 Id. at 30–31.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
impact of the proposed project from
what was previously envisioned.’’ 15
In the context of the revised GEIS and
this rulemaking, the Fukushima events
are considered a severe accident (i.e., a
type of accident that may challenge a
plant’s safety systems at a level much
higher than expected) and more
specifically, a severe accident initiated
by an event external to the plant. The
1996 GEIS concluded that risks from
severe accidents initiated by external
events (such as an earthquake) could
have potentially high consequences but
found that external events are
adequately addressed through a
consideration of a severe accident
initiated by an internal event (such as a
loss of cooling water). Therefore, an
applicant for license renewal need only
analyze the environmental impacts from
an internal event in order to adequately
characterize the environmental impacts
from either type of event. The revised
GEIS examined more recent and up-todate information regarding external
events and concluded that the analysis
in the 1996 GEIS remains valid. The
Fukushima events are not considered in
the revised GEIS because the analysis in
the revised GEIS was completed prior to
the Fukushima events.
The NRC’s evaluation of the
consequences of the Fukushima events
is ongoing. As such, the NRC will
continue to evaluate the need to make
improvements to existing regulatory
requirements based on the task force
report and additional studies and
analyses of the Fukushima events as
more information is learned. To the
extent that any revisions are made to the
NRC’s regulatory requirements, they
would be made applicable to nuclear
power reactors regardless of whether or
not they have a renewed license.
Therefore, no additional analyses have
been performed in the revised GEIS as
a result of the Fukushima events. In the
event that the NRC identifies
information from the Fukushima events
that constitutes new and significant
information with respect to the
environmental impacts of license
renewal, the NRC will discuss that
information in its site-specific SEISs to
the GEIS, as it does with all such new
and significant information.
15 Id. at 31 (quoting Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929
Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120),
CLI–99–22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (citing Marsh v.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360,
373 (1989))). The Commission also noted that it can
modify a facility’s operating license outside of a
renewal proceeding and made clear that ‘‘it will use
the information from these activities to impose any
requirement it deems necessary, irrespective of
whether a plant is applying for or has been granted
a renewed operating license.’’ Id. at 26–27.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B. Removal of References to the Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule
The Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule represented the Commission’s
generic determination that spent nuclear
fuel can continue to be stored safely and
without significant environmental
impacts for a period of time after the
end of the licensed life for operation of
a nuclear power plant.16 This generic
determination meant that the NRC did
not need to consider the storage of spent
nuclear fuel after the end of a reactor’s
licensed life for operation in the NEPA
documents that support its reactor and
spent-fuel storage license application
reviews.
On December 23, 2010, the
Commission published a revision of the
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to
reflect information gained from
experience in the storage of spent
nuclear fuel and the increased
uncertainty in the siting and
construction of a permanent geologic
repository for the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste.17 In
response to the 2010 Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule, the states of New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Vermont, along with several other
parties, challenged the Commission’s
NEPA analysis in the decision, which
provided the regulatory basis for the
rule. On June 8, 2012, the United States
Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit, in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d
471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacated the NRC’s
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule,
after finding that it did not comply with
NEPA.
The court concluded that the Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule is a major
federal action necessitating either an EIS
or an environmental assessment that
results in a ‘‘finding of no significant
impact.’’ In vacating the 2010 decision
and rule, the court identified three
specific deficiencies in the analysis:
1. As to the Commission’s conclusion
that permanent disposal will be
available ‘‘when necessary,’’ the court
held that the Commission did not
evaluate the environmental effects of
failing to secure permanent disposal;
2. As to the storage of spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants after the expiration
16 The NRC first adopted the Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule in 1984. The NRC amended the
decision and rule in 1990, reviewed them in 1999,
and amended them again in 2010. 49 FR 34694
(August 31, 1984); 55 FR 38474 (September 18,
1990); 64 FR 68005 (December 6, 1999); and 75 FR
81032 and 81037 (December 23, 2010). The NRC
made a minor amendment to the rule in 2007 to
clarify that it applies to combined licenses. 72 FR
49509 (August 28, 2007). The Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule are codified in the NRC
regulation 10 CFR 51.23.
17 75 FR 81032 and 81037.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
of a plant’s operating license, the court
concluded that the Commission failed to
properly examine the risk of spent fuel
pool leaks in a forward-looking fashion;
and
3. Also related to the post-license
storage of spent fuel, the court
concluded that the Commission failed to
properly examine the consequences of
spent fuel pool fires.
In response to the court’s ruling, the
Commission issued CLI–12–16 on
August 7, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12220A212), in which the
Commission determined that it would
not issue licenses that rely upon the
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule
until the issues identified in the court’s
decision are appropriately addressed by
the Commission. CLI–12–16 provided,
however, that the decision not to issue
licenses only applied to final license
issuance; all licensing reviews and
proceedings should continue to move
forward. In SRM–COMSECY–12–0016,
‘‘Approach for Addressing Policy Issues
Resulting from Court Decision to Vacate
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule,’’
dated September 6, 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. 12250A032), the
Commission directed the NRC staff to
proceed with a rulemaking that includes
the development of a generic EIS to
support a revised Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule and to publish both
the EIS and the revised decision and
rule in the Federal Register within 24
months. The Commission indicated that
both the EIS and the revised Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule should
build on the information already
documented in various NRC studies and
reports, including the existing
environmental assessment that the NRC
developed as part of the 2010 Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule. The
Commission directed that any
additional analyses should focus on the
three deficiencies identified in the
court’s decision. The Commission also
directed that the NRC staff provide
ample opportunity for public comment
on both the draft EIS and the proposed
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule.
In accordance with CLI–12–16, the
NRC will not approve any site-specific
license renewal applications until the
deficiencies identified in the court’s
decision have been resolved. Two Table
B–1 license renewal issues that rely,
wholly or in part, upon the Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule are the
‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’
and ‘‘Offsite radiological impacts of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal.’’ Both of these issues were
classified as Category 1 in the 10 CFR
part 51 rule that was promulgated in
1996; the 2009 proposed rule continued
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
the Category 1 classification for both of
these issues. As part of the NRC’s
response to the New York v. NRC
decision, this final rule revises these
two issues accordingly. Specifically,
this final rule revises the Category 1
‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’
issue to narrow the period of onsite
storage to the license renewal term. In
both the 1996 rule 18 and the 2009
proposed rule, the NRC relied upon the
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to
make a generic finding that spent
nuclear fuel could be stored safely
onsite with no more than a small
environmental impact for the term of
the extended license (from approval of
the license renewal application to the
expiration of the operating license) plus
a 30-year period following the
permanent shutdown of the power
reactor and expiration of the operating
license.19
The Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule provided the basis for the 30-year
period following the permanent
shutdown of the reactor and expiration
of the operating license. The 2010 Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule extended
this post-reactor shutdown onsite
storage period from 30 years to 60 years.
Given the New York v. NRC decision,
and pending the issuance of a generic
EIS and revised Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule (as directed by SRM–
COMSECY–12–0016), the final rule
excludes from this issue the period of
onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel
following the permanent shutdown of
the power reactor and expiration of the
operating license. As revised by this
final rule, this issue now covers the
onsite storage of spent fuel for the term
of the extended license only.
Similarly, this final rule revises the
Category 1 issue ‘‘Offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high
level waste disposal.’’ 20 In both the
1996 rule and the 2009 proposed rule,
this issue pertained to the long-term
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste, including possible disposal
in a deep geologic repository. Although
the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule
did not assess the impacts associated
18 The issue was named ‘‘On-site spent fuel’’ in
the 1996 rule.
19 Prior to the December 23, 2010, final rule, 10
CFR 51.23(a) read: ‘‘The Commission has made a
generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel
generated in any reactor can be stored safely and
without significant environmental impacts for at
least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation
(which may include the term of a revised or
renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel
storage basin or at either onsite or offsite
independent spent fuel storage installations.’’
20 The issue was named ‘‘Offsite radiological
impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal)’’
in the 1996 rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37293
with disposal of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste in a repository, it did
reflect the Commission’s confidence, at
the time, in the technical feasibility of
a repository and when that repository
could have been expected to become
available. Without the analysis in the
Waste Confidence Decision, the NRC
cannot assess how long the spent fuel
will need to be stored onsite. Therefore,
the final rule reclassifies this issue from
a Category 1 issue with no assigned
impact level to an uncategorized issue
with an impact level of uncertain.
Upon issuance of the generic EIS and
revised Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC
will make any necessary conforming
amendments to this rule. As referenced
previously, the Commission will not
approve any license renewal application
for an operating nuclear power plant
until the issues identified in the court’s
decision are appropriately addressed by
the Commission.
C. Effective and Compliance Dates for
Final Rule
The amendments made by the final
rule shall be effective 30 days after the
final rule’s publication in the Federal
Register. License renewal applicants are
not required to comply with the
amended rule until 1 year after the final
rule’s publication in the Federal
Register. The Commission has decided
on a 1-year compliance date given the
long lead time required for preparation
of license renewal applicant
environmental reports.
D. Best Management Practices
‘‘Best management practices’’ is a
term used to describe a type, method, or
treatment technique for preventing
pollution or reducing the quantities of
pollutants released to the environment.
The term, as used herein, includes the
physical components used to control or
minimize pollution (e.g., filters, barriers,
mechanical devices, and retention
ponds), as well as operational or
procedural practices (e.g., minimizing
use of a pollutant, spill control, and
operator training). Best management
practices are used in a variety of
industrial sectors. In the nuclear power
reactor sector, as in other industrial
sectors, best management practices offer
flexibility to achieve a balance between
protecting the environment and the
efficiency and economic limitations
associated with the operations of a given
plant. Both in the 1996 GEIS and in the
revised GEIS, several issues have been
determined to be a Category 1 issue with
an impact level of small based upon the
assumption that the license renewal
applicant employs and will continue to
employ best management practices
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37294
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
during the license renewal term. The
NRC’s regulatory experience has shown
that licensees employ such best
management practices.
The NRC’s jurisdiction is limited to
radiological health and safety and
common defense and security.
Therefore, the NRC does not generally
impose a requirement that its licensees
adopt those best management practices
that concern non-radiological
pollutants. The NRC nuclear power
plant licensees, however, are subject to
a host of regulatory requirements that
are monitored and enforced by other
Federal agencies (e.g., the EPA) or State
or local regulatory agencies. The NRClicensed nuclear power plants must
obtain a variety of permits from these
other agencies before they can operate
(e.g., under the CWA, a licensee must
obtain a NPDES permit from the EPA or,
if the EPA has delegated its CWA
authority to a particular State, from the
appropriate agency of that State). These
permits typically require that the
licensee adopt and adhere to best
management practices.
Therefore, an assumption underlying
the revised GEIS is that NRC licensees
will use best management practices to
comply with other Federal, State, and
local government requirements to
prevent or reduce the quantities of nonradiological pollutants released to the
environment. This description of best
management practices is not a
regulatory or policy change by the NRC
because the use of best management
practices by nuclear power plant
licensees was also an underlying
assumption of the 1996 GEIS. Rather,
the NRC seeks to make transparent its
basis for determining that certain issues
are Category 1 issues with a small level
of impact.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
E. Definition of ‘‘Historic Properties’’
The proposed rule would have
amended 10 CFR part 51 by adding a
definition of the term ‘‘historic
properties’’ to 10 CFR 51.14(a). Upon
further consideration, the NRC
determined that adding the definition
was unnecessary. The NRC’s license
renewal determination to renew or not
renew a nuclear power plant operating
license is considered an undertaking as
defined by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
its implementing regulations in 36 CFR
part 800. The regulations define the
term ‘‘historic property’’ in 36 CFR
800.16(l)(1). The NRC uses the term
‘‘historic property’’ or ‘‘historic
properties’’ in the same context as set
forth in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
VI. Revisions to 10 CFR 51.53
The final rule revises 10 CFR 51.53 to
conform to those changes made by the
final rule to Table B–1. Because some
Category 2 issues have been reclassified
as Category 1 issues, license renewal
applicants no longer need to assess
these issues and, therefore, the final rule
removes the requirements for applicants
to provide information on these issues
in their environmental reports. The final
rule also adds new requirements to 10
CFR 51.53 for the new Category 2 issues
for which applicants are now required
to provide information in their
environmental reports. The following
describes each revision.
A. Reclassifying Category 2 Issues as
Category 1 Issues
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F). The final
rule removes and reserves 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) because the final rule
reclassifies the Category 2 issue, ‘‘Air
quality during refurbishment
(nonattainment and maintenance
areas),’’ to Category 1 and renames the
issue, ‘‘Air quality impacts (all plants).’’
The removed regulatory language
required the applicant to assess
anticipated vehicle exhaust emissions at
the time of refurbishment for plants
located in or near a nonattainment or
maintenance area, as those terms are
defined under the Clean Air Act.
The final rule reclassifies this issue as
Category 1 based upon public comments
received on the proposed rule 21 and a
subsequent re-evaluation of the data in
the draft revised GEIS, which showed
that air quality impacts from
refurbishment have not resulted in
exceedances in the de minimis
thresholds for criteria pollutants in
nonattainment and maintenance areas
due to construction vehicle, equipment,
and fugitive dust emissions. Significant
air quality impacts are no longer
anticipated from future license
renewals. Therefore, applicants no
longer need to assess the impacts on air
quality of continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal in their environmental reports.
Section IV, ‘‘Response to Public
Comments,’’ of this document provides
a summary of the comments received on
this issue, and Section VIII, ‘‘Final
Actions and Basis for Changes to Table
B–1,’’ of this document discusses this
issue in more detail under Issue 5, ‘‘Air
quality impacts (all plants).’’
21 The proposed rule renamed the ‘‘Air quality
during refurbishment (nonattainment and
maintenance areas)’’ issue as ‘‘Air quality
(nonattainment and maintenance areas)’’ and
retained the Category 2 classification.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). The final
rule removes and reserves 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) because several
Category 2 socioeconomic issues are
reclassified as Category 1. The removed
regulatory language required the
applicant to assess the impacts of the
proposed license renewal on housing
availability, land use, and public
schools (impacts from refurbishment
activities only) within the vicinity of the
plant. Additionally, the removed
regulatory language required the
applicant to assess the impact of
population increases attributable to the
proposed project on the public water
supply. Specifically, the final rule
reclassifies the following 1996 GEIS
Category 2 socioeconomic issues:
Housing impacts; 22 Public services:
public utilities; 23 Public services,
education (refurbishment); 24 Offsite
land use (refurbishment); and Offsite
land use (license renewal term).25
The final rule reclassifies these issues
as Category 1 because significant
changes in housing availability, land
use, and increased population demand
attributable to the proposed
refurbishment project on the public
water supply have not occurred at
relicensed nuclear power plants.
Therefore, impacts to these resources
are no longer anticipated for future
license renewals. In addition,
refurbishment activities (such as steam
generator and vessel head replacement)
have not required the large numbers of
workers and the months of time that
were conservatively analyzed in the
1996 GEIS. As such, significant impacts
on housing availability, land use, public
schools, and the public water supply are
no longer anticipated from continued
operations during the license renewal
term and refurbishment associated with
license renewal.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J). The final
rule removes and reserves 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) because the Category 2
issue, ‘‘Public services, transportation,’’
is reclassified as Category 1 (the final
rule also renames the issue,
‘‘Transportation’’). The removed
22 The final rule renames this issue as
‘‘Population and housing’’ (see Issue (55) under
Section VIII, ‘‘Final Actions and Basis for Changes
to Table B–1,’’ of this document).
23 The final rule merges this issue into the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Community services and
education’’ (see Issue (54) under Section VIII of this
document).
24 The final rule merges this issue into the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Community services and
education’’ (see Issue (54) under Section VIII of this
document).
25 The final rule merges ‘‘Offsite land use
(refurbishment)’’ and ‘‘Offsite land use (license
renewal term) into the consolidated issue, ‘‘Offsite
land use’’ (see Issue (2) under Section VIII of this
document).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory language required the
applicant to assess the impact of
highway traffic generated by the
proposed project on the level of service
of local highways during periods of
license renewal refurbishment activities
and during the term of the renewed
license. Therefore, applicants no longer
need to assess the impacts on local
traffic volumes of continued operations
and refurbishment associated with
license renewal in their environmental
reports.
The issue was reclassified to Category
1 because refurbishment activities (such
as steam generator and vessel head
replacement) have not required the large
numbers of workers and the months of
time that was conservatively analyzed
in the 1996 GEIS. As such, significant
transportation impacts are not
anticipated from future refurbishment
activities. Section VIII, ‘‘Final Actions
and Basis for Changes to Table B–1,’’ of
this document discusses this issue in
more detail under Issue 56,
‘‘Transportation.’’
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O). The
proposed rule added a new paragraph
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) to address
‘‘Groundwater and soil contamination’’
as a Category 2 issue. However, based
upon public comments received on the
proposed rule 26 and further evaluation
by the NRC, it was determined that this
issue is properly classified as Category
1. Therefore, the proposed paragraph
was not adopted by the final rule.27
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
B. Adding New Category 2 Issues
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N). The final
rule adds a new paragraph 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N) 28 to address ‘‘Minority
and low-income populations’’ as a
Category 2 issue. This new Category 2
issue is listed under the resource area
‘‘Environmental Justice’’ in the revised
Table B–1. It addresses the effects of
nuclear power plant operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal on minority populations and
low-income populations living in the
vicinity of the plant. This issue was
listed in the original Table B–1 but was
not evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. The
finding in the original Table B–1 stated
that ‘‘[t]he need for and the content of
an analysis of environmental justice will
be addressed in plant specific reviews.’’
This issue was not classified as either a
26 Section
IV, ‘‘Response to Public Comments,’’ of
this document provides a summary of the
comments received on this issue.
27 The final rule merges this issue into the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Groundwater contamination
and use (non-cooling system impacts)’’ (see Issue
(20) under Section VIII of this document).
28 The final rule adopts the proposed rule
language.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Category 1 or 2 issue in the 1996 GEIS
because guidance for implementing
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, dated
February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7629), which
initiated the Federal government’s
environmental justice program, was not
available before the completion of the
1996 GEIS.
In August 2004, the Commission
issued a policy statement on
implementation of E.O. 12898: ‘‘NRC’s
Policy Statement on the Treatment of
Environmental Justice Matters in NRC
Regulatory and Licensing Actions’’ (69
FR 52040). As stated therein, ‘‘the NRC
is committed to the general goals of E.O.
12898, [and] it will strive to meet those
goals through its normal and traditional
NEPA review process.’’ By making this
a Category 2 issue, the final rule
requires license renewal applicants to
identify, in their environmental reports,
minority and low-income populations
and communities residing in the
vicinity of the nuclear power plant. The
NRC will then assess the information
provided by the applicant in the NRC’s
plant-specific environmental review.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O). The final
rule adds a new paragraph 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) 29 to address
‘‘Cumulative impacts’’ as a Category 2
issue. This new Category 2 issue was
added to Table B–1 to evaluate the
potential cumulative impacts of
continued operations during the license
renewal term and refurbishment
associated with license renewal at
nuclear power plants. The NRC did not
address cumulative impacts in the 1996
GEIS but has been evaluating these
impacts in plant-specific supplements
to the GEIS. The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 40 CFR
1508.7 defines cumulative impacts as
‘‘the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions.’’ 30 The
NRC considers potential cumulative
impacts on the environment resulting
from the incremental impact of license
renewal when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions.
29 The proposed rule added this paragraph as 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). The final rule redesignates it
as 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) because paragraph 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) of the proposed rule, which
concerned ‘‘Groundwater and soil contamination’’
(see discussion in Section VI, ‘‘A. Reclassifying
Category 2 Issues as Category 1 Issues,’’ of this
document) was not adopted by the final rule.
30 The NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR part 51
incorporate the CEQ definition of cumulative
impacts (10 CFR 51.14(b)).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37295
The final rule change requires license
renewal applicants to provide
information about other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions occurring in the vicinity of the
nuclear power plant that may result in
a cumulative impact. An example of the
type of information to be provided
includes data on the construction and
operation of other power plants and
other industrial commercial facilities in
the vicinity of the nuclear power plant.
Section VIII, ‘‘Final Actions and Basis
for Changes to Table B–1,’’ of this
document discusses this issue in more
detail under Issue 73, ‘‘Cumulative
impacts.’’
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). The final
rule adds a new paragraph 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P) 31 to address
‘‘Radionuclides released to
groundwater’’ as a Category 2 issue.
This new Category 2 issue has been
added to Table B–1 to evaluate the
potential combined impact of
inadvertent discharges of radioactive
liquids from all plant systems into
groundwater. The issue is relevant to
license renewal because all commercial
nuclear power plants have spent fuel
pools, liquid storage tanks, and piping
that contain and transport radioactive
liquids. Over time, these systems and
piping have a potential to degrade and
release radioactive liquids that could
migrate into the groundwater. The NRC
has investigated several cases where
radioactive liquids have been
inadvertently released into the
groundwater in an uncontrolled
manner. In accordance with NRC
requirements, residual activity from
these inadvertent releases is subject to
characterization and evaluation of the
potential hazard. For this new Category
2 issue, the license renewal applicant is
required to provide information on
radioactive liquids released to
groundwater.
In the final rule, the NRC modified
the language of the proposed rule to
specify that only ‘‘documented’’ releases
need to be included in the applicant’s
environmental report. The NRC
provides specific guidance on what
constitutes a documented release in
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1,
Revision 1, ‘‘Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear
31 The proposed rule added this paragraph as 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q). The final rule redesignates it
as paragraph 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P) because the
paragraph added as 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) by the
proposed rule, which concerned groundwater and
soil contamination caused by non-radionuclide,
industrial contaminants, was not adopted by the
final rule (see discussion in Section VI, ‘‘A.
Reclassifying Category 2 Issues as Category 1
Issues,’’ of this document).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37296
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Power Plant License Renewal
Applications.’’
Section IV, ‘‘Response to Public
Comments,’’ of this document provides
a summary of the comments received on
this issue, and Section VIII, ‘‘Final
Actions and Basis for Changes to Table
B–1,’’ of this document discusses this
issue in more detail under Issue 27,
‘‘Radionuclides released to
groundwater.’’
VII. Response to Specific Request for
Voluntary Information
In Section VII of the Statement of
Considerations for the July 31, 2009 (74
FR 38129–38130), proposed rule, the
NRC requested voluntary information
from industry about refurbishment
activities and employment trends at
nuclear power plants. Information on
refurbishment would have been used to
evaluate the significance of impacts
from this type of activity. Information
on employment trends would have been
used to assess the significance of
socioeconomic effects of ongoing plant
operations on local economies.
The NRC received no response to
these requests. The NRC interprets this
lack of response on these issues to mean
that information on major refurbishment
and replacement activities and
employment trends is either unavailable
or insufficient to assist the NRC in reevaluating the significance of
refurbishment-related environmental
impacts and socioeconomic effects of
ongoing plant operations on local
economies. Although no information
was received regarding refurbishment
activities and employment trends at
nuclear power plants, the NRC believes
that it has sufficient information based
on lessons learned and knowledge
gained from completed license renewal
environmental reviews to substantiate
the conclusions made in the final rule
and GEIS.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VIII. Final Actions and Basis for
Changes to Table B–1
The final rule revises Table B–1 to
reflect the changes made in the revised
GEIS. The revised GEIS is being made
available with the final rule and
provides a summary change table (in
Appendix B) comparing the 92
environmental issues in the 1996 GEIS
with the 78 environmental issues in the
revised GEIS.
Land Use
(1) Onsite Land Use: ‘‘Onsite land
use’’ remains a Category 1 issue. The
final rule amends Table B–1 by making
minor clarifying changes to the finding
column entry for this issue. Specifically,
the final rule replaces the sentence
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
‘‘Projected onsite land use changes
required during refurbishment and the
renewal period would be a small
fraction of any nuclear power plant site
and would involve land that is
controlled by the applicant,’’ with
‘‘Changes in onsite land use from
continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal would
be a small fraction of the nuclear power
plant site and would involve only land
that is controlled by the licensee.’’
(2) Offsite Land Use: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by consolidating two
Category 2 issues, ‘‘Offsite land use
(refurbishment),’’ with an impact level
range small to moderate, and ‘‘Offsite
land use (license renewal term),’’ with
an impact level range small to large, and
reclassifying the consolidated issue as a
Category 1 issue, with an impact level
of small, and naming the consolidated
issue, ‘‘Offsite land use.’’ The final rule
also creates a new Category 1 issue,
‘‘Tax revenues’’ (Issue 53), which
concerns the impact of license renewal
on state and local tax revenues, thereby
removing tax revenues from the 1996
GEIS ‘‘Offsite land use (license renewal
term)’’ issue. The final rule amends
Table B–1 by removing the entries for
‘‘Offsite land use (refurbishment)’’ and
‘‘Offsite land use (license renewal
term),’’ and by adding an entry for
‘‘Offsite land use.’’ The finding column
entry of ‘‘Offsite land use’’ states
‘‘[o]ffsite land use would not be affected
by continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal.’’
The Table B–1 finding column entry
for the ‘‘Offsite land use
(refurbishment)’’ issue indicated that
impacts may be of moderate significance
at plants in low population areas.
Similarly, the finding column entry for
the ‘‘Offsite land use (license renewal
term)’’ issue indicates that significant
changes (moderate to large) in land use
may be associated with population and
tax revenue changes resulting from
license renewal. As described in the
1996 GEIS, environmental impacts are
considered to be small if refurbishment
activities were to occur at plants located
in high population areas and if
population and tax revenues would not
change.
As reflected in the revised GEIS,
significant impacts on offsite land use
are not anticipated. Previous plantspecific license renewal reviews
conducted by the NRC have shown no
substantial increases in the number of
workers during the license renewal term
and that refurbishment activities (such
as steam generator and vessel head
replacement) have not required the large
numbers of workers and the months of
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
time that was conservatively estimated
in the 1996 GEIS. These reviews support
a finding that offsite land use impacts
during the license renewal term would
be small for all nuclear power plants.
(3) Offsite Land Use in Transmission
Line Right-of-Ways (ROWs): The final
rule amends Table B–1 by renaming the
‘‘Power line right of way’’ issue as
‘‘Offsite land use in transmission line
right-of-ways (ROWs).’’ It remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of
small. The final rule amends the Table
B–1 finding column entry for this issue
by replacing the statement,
Ongoing use of power line right of ways
would continue with no change in
restrictions. The effects of these restrictions
are of small significance.
with the following:
Use of transmission line ROWs from
continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal would
continue with no change in land use
restrictions.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by appending a footnote to the issue
column entry for ‘‘Offsite land use in
transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs),’’ concerning the extent to
which transmission lines and their
associated ROWs have been analyzed in
the revised GEIS. The footnote states,
This issue applies only to the in-scope
portion of electric power transmission lines
which are defined as transmission lines that
connect the nuclear power plant to the
substation where electricity is fed into the
regional power distribution system and
transmission lines that supply power to the
nuclear plant from the grid.
As stated in the revised GEIS, the
final environmental statements
(essentially, the equivalent of
environmental impact statements)
prepared for the original construction of
the various nuclear power plants (the
construction permits) and for the initial
operating licenses evaluated the impacts
of those transmission lines built to
connect the nuclear power plant to the
regional electrical grid. Since the
original construction of those lines,
regional expansion of the electrical
distribution grid has resulted in
incorporation of those lines originating
at the power plant substations. In most
cases, the transmission lines originating
at the power plant substations are no
longer owned or managed by the
nuclear power plant licensees. These
lines would remain in place and be
energized regardless of whether the
subject nuclear power plant license was
renewed or not. For this reason, those
transmission lines that would not be
impacted by a license renewal decision
(i.e., those lines that would not be
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
dismantled or otherwise
decommissioned as a result of a plant
terminating operations because its
operating license had not been renewed)
are considered beyond the scope of, and
as such are not analyzed in, the revised
GEIS.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Visual Resources
(4) Aesthetic Impacts: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by consolidating
three Category 1 issues, ‘‘Aesthetic
impacts (refurbishment),’’ ‘‘Aesthetic
impacts (license renewal term),’’ and
‘‘Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines
(license renewal term),’’ each with an
impact level of small, into one new
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Aesthetic impacts.’’
The new consolidated issue also has an
impact level of small. The 1996 GEIS
concluded that renewal of operating
licenses and the refurbishment activities
would have no significant aesthetic
impact during the license renewal term.
Impacts are considered to be small if the
visual appearance of plant and
transmission line structures would not
change. Previous license renewal
reviews conducted by the NRC show
that the appearance of nuclear power
plants and transmission line structures
do not change significantly over time or
because of refurbishment activities.
Therefore, because aesthetic impacts are
not anticipated and the three issues are
similar, they have been consolidated to
facilitate the environmental review
process. The final rule amends Table B–
1 by removing the entries for ‘‘Aesthetic
impacts (refurbishment),’’ ‘‘Aesthetic
impacts (license renewal term),’’ and
‘‘Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines
(license renewal term),’’ and adding an
entry for ‘‘Aesthetic impacts.’’ The
finding column entry for the new
combined entry states ‘‘[n]o important
changes to the visual appearance of
plant structures or transmission lines
are expected from continued operations
and refurbishment associated with
license renewal.’’
Air Quality
(5) Air Quality Impacts (All Plants):
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
renaming the ‘‘Air quality during
refurbishment (nonattainment and
maintenance areas)’’ issue as ‘‘Air
quality impacts (all plants).’’ The final
rule reflects the revised GEIS’s
expansion of the issue to include air
emission impacts from emergency diesel
generators, boilers, and particulate
emissions from cooling towers. Based
on public comments received on the
proposed rule and the re-evaluation of
information as described in the revised
GEIS, the final rule further amends
Table B–1 by revising this Category 2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
issue, with an impact level range small
to large, to a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small.32 The final rule
further amends Table B–1 by revising
the finding column entry for this issue
to state,
Air quality impacts from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal are expected to be small at
all plants. Emissions resulting from
refurbishment activities at locations in or
near air quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas would be short-lived and
would cease after these refurbishment
activities are completed. Operating
experience has shown that the scale of
refurbishment activities has not resulted in
exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for
criteria pollutants, and best management
practices including fugitive dust controls and
the imposition of permit conditions in State
and local air emissions permits would ensure
conformance with applicable State or Tribal
Implementation Plans.
Emissions from emergency diesel
generators and fire pumps and routine
operations of boilers used for space heating
would not be a concern, even for plants
located in or adjacent to nonattainment areas.
Impacts from cooling tower particulate
emissions even under the worst-case
situations have been small.
Operating experience has shown that
air quality impacts from these emission
sources (including particulate emissions
from cooling towers at operating plants)
have been small at all nuclear power
plants, including those plants located in
or adjacent to nonattainment areas.
In addition, air quality impacts during
refurbishment have also been small.
These types of emissions could be a
cause for concern if they occur at plants
located in or near air quality
nonattainment or maintenance areas.
However, these impacts have been
temporary and would cease once these
activities were completed. Operating
experience has also shown that
refurbishment activities have not
required the large numbers of workers
and the months of time that was
conservatively predicted and analyzed
in the 1996 GEIS, nor have such
activities resulted in exceedances in the
de minimis thresholds for criteria
pollutants in nonattainment and
maintenance areas.
Implementation of best management
practices, including fugitive dust
controls as required by the imposition of
conditions in State and local air
emissions permits, would ensure
conformance with applicable State or
Tribal Implementation Plans, in
32 Under the proposed rule, the issue had been
proposed to be renamed ‘‘Air quality
(nonattainment and maintenance areas);’’ it would
have remained a Category 2 issue with an impact
level range of small to large (74 FR 38121, 38134;
July 31, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37297
accordance with EPA’s revised General
Conformity Regulations (75 FR 17254;
April 5, 2010). On the basis of these
considerations, the NRC has concluded
that the air quality impact of continued
nuclear power plant operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal would be small for all plants.
(6) Air Quality Effects of Transmission
Lines: The final rule amends Table B–
1 by appending a footnote to the issue
column entry for ‘‘Air quality effects of
transmission lines,’’ concerning the
extent to which transmission lines and
their associated right of ways have been
analyzed under the revised GEIS. This
footnote is the same one that was added
to Issue 3, ‘‘Offsite land use in
transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs).’’ See the description of the
changes made by the final rule to Issue
3 for further explanation of this
amendment.
Noise
(7) Noise Impacts: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by renaming the
issue ‘‘Noise’’ as ‘‘Noise impacts.’’ The
issue remains a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. The final rule
further amends Table B–1 by making
minor clarifying changes to the finding
column entry for this issue. Specifically,
the final rule replaces the sentence
‘‘Noise has not been found to be a
problem at operating plants and is not
expected to be a problem at any plant
during the license renewal term,’’ with
‘‘Noise levels would remain below
regulatory guidelines for offsite
receptors during continued operations
and refurbishment associated with
license renewal.’’
Geologic Environment
(8) Geology and Soils: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by adding a new
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Geology and soils.’’
This issue has an impact level of small.
The finding column entry for this issue
states,
The effect of geologic and soil conditions
on plant operations and the impact of
continued operations and refurbishment
activities on geology and soils would be
small for all nuclear power plants and would
not change appreciably during the license
renewal term.
This issue was not evaluated in the
1996 GEIS, as described in the proposed
rule.33 This new Category 1 issue
considers geology and soils from the
perspective of those resource conditions
or attributes that can be affected by
33 The proposed rule named the issue ‘‘Impacts of
nuclear plants on geology and soils.’’ Under the
proposed rule, the issue was also a Category 1 issue,
with an impact level of small (74 FR 38121, 38134;
July 31, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37298
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
continued operations during the
renewal term. The final rule does not
require the license renewal applicant to
assess this issue in its environmental
report unless the applicant is aware of
new and significant information about
geologic and soil conditions and
associated impacts at or near the nuclear
power plant site that could change the
conclusion in the GEIS.
An understanding of geologic and soil
conditions has been well established at
all nuclear power plants and associated
transmission lines during the current
licensing term, and these conditions are
expected to remain unchanged during
the 20-year license renewal term for
each plant. The impact of these
conditions on plant operations and the
impact of continued power plant
operations and refurbishment activities
on geology and soils are small for all
nuclear power plants and not expected
to change appreciably during the license
renewal term. Operating experience
shows that any impacts to geologic and
soil strata would be limited to soil
disturbance from construction activities
associated with routine infrastructure
renovation and maintenance projects
during continued plant operations.
Implementing best management
practices would reduce soil erosion and
subsequent impacts on surface water
quality. Information in plant-specific
SEISs prepared to date and reference
documents have not identified these
impacts as being significant.
Surface Water Resources
(9) Surface Water Use and Quality
(Non-Cooling System Impacts): The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
consolidating two Category 1 issues,
‘‘Impacts of refurbishment on surface
water quality’’ and ‘‘Impacts of
refurbishment on surface water use,’’
both with an impact level of small, and
names the consolidated issue, ‘‘Surface
water use and quality (non-cooling
system impacts).’’ These two issues
were consolidated because the impacts
of refurbishment on both surface water
use and quality are negligible and the
effects are closely related. The
consolidated issue has also been
expanded to include the impacts of
continued operations. The consolidated
issue is a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small.
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
removing the entries for ‘‘Impacts of
refurbishment on surface water quality’’
and ‘‘Impacts of refurbishment on
surface water use’’ and adding an entry
for ‘‘Surface water use and quality (noncooling system impacts).’’ The finding
column entry for the new consolidated
issue states,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Impacts are expected to be small if best
management practices are employed to
control soil erosion and spills. Surface water
use associated with continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal would not increase significantly or
would be reduced if refurbishment occurs
during a plant outage.
The NRC expects licensees to use best
management practices during the
license renewal term for both
continuing operations and
refurbishment activities. Use of best
management practices will minimize
soil erosion. In addition,
implementation of spill prevention and
control plans will reduce the likelihood
of any liquid chemical spills. If
refurbishment activities take place
during a plant outage, with the reactor
shutdown, the overall water use by the
facility will be reduced. Based on this
conclusion, the impact on surface water
use and quality during the license
renewal term will continue to be small
for all plants.
(10) Altered Current Patterns at Intake
and Discharge Structures, (11) Altered
Salinity Gradients, (12) Altered Thermal
Stratification of Lakes, and (13)
Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling
Water: These four issues remain
Category 1 issues, each with an impact
level of small. The final rule amends
Table B–1 by making minor clarifying
changes to the finding column entries
for each of these issues.
The final rule amends the ‘‘Altered
current patterns at intake and discharge
structures’’ finding column entry by
replacing the statement,
Altered current patterns have not been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear
power plants and are not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Altered current patterns would be limited
to the area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have
been small at operating nuclear power plants.
The final rule amends the ‘‘Altered
salinity gradients’’ finding column entry
by replacing the statement,
Salinity gradients have not been found to
be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants and are not expected to be a problem
during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Effects on salinity gradients would be
limited to the area in the vicinity of the
intake and discharge structures. These
impacts have been small at operating nuclear
power plants.
The final rule amends the ‘‘Altered
thermal stratification of lakes’’ finding
column entry by replacing the
statement,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Generally, lake stratification has not been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear
power plants and is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Effects on thermal stratification would be
limited to the area in the vicinity of the
intake and discharge structures. These
impacts have been small at operating nuclear
power plants.
The final rule amends the ‘‘Scouring
caused by discharged cooling water’’
finding column entry by replacing the
statement,
Scouring has not been found to be a
problem at most operating nuclear power
plants and has caused only localized effects
at a few plants. It is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Scouring effects would be limited to the
area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have
been small at operating nuclear power plants.
These changes reflect the findings of
environmental reviews conducted since
the publication of the 1996 GEIS, which
show that the effects of these four issues
are localized in the vicinity of the
plant’s intake and discharge structures.
(14) Discharge of Metals in Cooling
System Effluent: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by renaming ‘‘Discharge of
other metals in waste water’’ as
‘‘Discharge of metals in cooling system
effluent.’’ It remains a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. The final
rule also makes minor clarifying
changes to the finding column entry for
this issue. Specifically, the final rule
amends the finding column entry by
replacing the statement,
These discharges have not been found to be
a problem at operating nuclear power plants
with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation
systems and have been satisfactorily
mitigated at other plants. They are not
expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
with the following:
Discharges of metals have not been found
to be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants with cooling-tower-based heat
dissipation systems and have been
satisfactorily mitigated at other plants.
Discharges are monitored and controlled as
part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit process.
(15) Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary
Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills: The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
consolidating two Category 1 issues,
‘‘Discharge of chlorine or other
biocides’’ and ‘‘Discharge of sanitary
wastes and minor chemical spills,’’ both
with an impact level of small, and
naming the consolidated issue
‘‘Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes,
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
and minor chemical spills.’’ The
consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small.
Specifically, the final rule amends Table
B–1 by removing the entries for
‘‘Discharge of chlorine or other
biocides’’ and ‘‘Discharge of sanitary
wastes and minor chemical spills’’ and
adding an entry for ‘‘Discharge of
biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor
chemical spills.’’ The finding column
entry for the new consolidated issue
states,
The effects of these discharges are
regulated by Federal and State environmental
agencies. Discharges are monitored and
controlled as part of the NPDES permit
process. These impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power plants.
(16) Surface Water Use Conflicts
(Plants with Once-Through Cooling
Systems): ‘‘Water use conflicts (plants
with once-through cooling systems)’’
remains a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. The final rule
amends Table B–1 by adding the word
‘‘Surface’’ to the title of this issue.
(17) Surface Water Use Conflicts
(Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling
Towers Using Makeup Water from a
River): The final rule amends Table B–
1 by adding the term ‘‘surface’’ and
removing the terms ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘low
flow’’ from the title and the associated
numerical definition contained in 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) for low flow rivers
from this and other related river flow
issues. This issue remains a Category 2
issue with an impact range of small to
moderate. The final rule also amends
the finding column entry by replacing
the statement,
The issue has been a concern at nuclear
power plants with cooling ponds and at
plants with cooling towers. Impacts on
instream and riparian communities near
these plants could be of moderate
significance in some situations. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
with the following:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Impacts could be of small or moderate
significance, depending on makeup water
requirements, water availability, and
competing water demands.
The 1996 GEIS distinguished between
surface water use impacts during low
flow conditions on ‘‘small’’ versus
‘‘large’’ rivers. Any river, regardless of
size, can experience low flow
conditions of varying severity during
periods of drought and changing
conditions in the affected watersheds
such as upstream diversions and use of
river water. Similarly, the NRC has
determined that the use of the term
‘‘low flow’’ in categorizing river flow is
of little value considering that plants
that withdraw makeup water from a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
river can experience low flow
conditions and would be required to
conduct a plant-specific assessment of
water use conflicts.
(18) Effects of Dredging on Surface
Water Quality: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by adding a new Category 1
issue, ‘‘Effects of dredging on surface
water quality,’’ which evaluates the
impacts of dredging to maintain intake
and discharge structures at nuclear
power plant facilities. This issue has an
impact level of small. The finding
column entry for this issue states,
Dredging to remove accumulated
sediments in the vicinity of intake and
discharge structures and to maintain barge
shipping has not been found to be a problem
for surface water quality. Dredging is
performed under permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other
State or local agencies.
The impact of dredging on surface
water quality was not considered in the
1996 GEIS and was not listed in Table
B–1 prior to this final rule. Most plants
have intake and discharge structures
that must be maintained by periodic
dredging of sediment accumulated in or
on the structures. The NRC has found
that dredging, while temporarily
increasing turbidity in the source water
body, generally has little long-term
effect on water quality. In addition to
maintaining intake and discharge
structures, dredging is often done to
keep barge slips and channels open to
service the plant. Dredged material is
most often disposed on property owned
by the applicant and usually contains
no hazardous materials. Dredging must
be performed under a permit issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps) and consequently, each dredging
action would be subject to a site-specific
environmental review conducted by the
Corps. Temporary impacts of dredging
are measurable in general water quality
terms, but the impacts have been shown
to be small.
(19) Temperature Effects on Sediment
Transport Capacity: There are no
changes to this issue, and it remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of
small.
Groundwater Resources
(20) Groundwater Contamination and
Use (Non-Cooling System Impacts): The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
expanding the scope of ‘‘Impacts of
refurbishment on groundwater use and
quality’’ issue to include the effects of
continued nuclear power plant
operations during the license renewal
term. This Category 1 issue, with an
impact level of small, was renamed
‘‘Groundwater use and quality’’ in the
proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37299
The final rule also amends Table B–
1 by changing the proposed rule’s new
Category 2 issue ‘‘Groundwater and soil
contamination,’’ with an impact range of
small to moderate (see 74 FR 38122,
38135), to Category 1, with an impact
level of small. This issue was then
consolidated with the ‘‘Groundwater
use and quality’’ issue and renamed
‘‘Groundwater contamination and use
(non-cooling system impacts).’’ These
issues were consolidated because they
consider the impact of industrial
activities associated with the continued
operations of a nuclear power plant (not
directly related to cooling system
effects) and refurbishment on
groundwater use and quality. The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
Extensive dewatering during the original
construction on some sites will not be
repeated during refurbishment on any sites.
Any plant wastes produced during
refurbishment will be handled in the same
manner as in current operating practices and
are not expected to be a problem during the
license renewal term.
with the following:
Extensive dewatering is not anticipated
from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal. Industrial
practices involving the use of solvents,
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other
chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater
ponds or lagoons have the potential to
contaminate site groundwater, soil, and
subsoil. Contamination is subject to State or
Environmental Protection Agency regulated
cleanup and monitoring programs. The
application of best management practices for
handling any materials produced or used
during these activities would reduce impacts.
The consolidated Category 1 issue
considers the impacts from groundwater
use and the impacts on groundwater,
soil, and subsoil from the industrial use
of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals,
or other chemicals at nuclear power
plant sites from continued operation
during the license renewal term and
refurbishment. The consolidated issue
also includes the use of wastewater
disposal ponds or lagoons and nonradionuclide, industrial contaminants
released inadvertently or as effluents
into the environment. Industrial
practices at all nuclear power plants
have the potential to contaminate
groundwater and soil, especially on
sites with unlined wastewater and storm
water ponds or lagoons. Any
contamination of this type is subject to
characterization and clean-up under
EPA or State regulated remediation and
monitoring programs.
Non-radionuclide contaminants have
been found in groundwater and soil
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
37300
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
samples at some nuclear power plants
during previous license renewal
environmental reviews. Release of these
contaminants into groundwater and soil
degrades the quality of these resources,
even if applicable groundwater quality
standards are not exceeded. However,
each site has its own program for
handling chemicals, waste, and other
hazardous materials in accordance with
Federal and State regulations and is
expected to employ best management
practices. The use of wastewater
disposal ponds or lagoons, whether
lined or unlined, may increase the
potential for groundwater and soil
contamination. However, they are
subject to discharge authorizations
under NPDES and related State
wastewater discharge permit programs.
The finding column of Table B–1 for
‘‘Groundwater use and quality’’ prior to
this final rule, as analyzed in the 1996
GEIS, indicated that impacts of
continued operations and refurbishment
on groundwater use and quality would
be small, as extensive dewatering is not
anticipated. This finding was reevaluated in the revised GEIS and is
retained in Table B–1.
While the proposed rule’s
‘‘Groundwater and soil contamination’’
issue was identified as a Category 2
issue, further consideration of the
‘‘Groundwater and soil contamination’’
issue and public comments revealed
that the potential impacts on
groundwater and soil quality from
common industrial practices can be
addressed generically, as these practices
are common to all industrial facilities
and are not unique to nuclear power
plants. Moreover, as supported by the
analysis in the revised GEIS, the NRC
concludes that the overall impact of
industrial practices on groundwater use
and quality from past and current
operations is small for all nuclear power
plants and not expected to change
appreciably during the license renewal
term.
(21) Groundwater Use Conflicts
(Plants that Withdraw Less Than 100
Gallons per Minute [gpm]): The final
rule amends Table B–1 by renaming the
‘‘Ground-water use conflicts (potable
and service water; plants that use <100
gpm)’’ issue as ‘‘Groundwater use
conflicts (plants that withdraw less than
100 gallons per minute [gpm]).’’ It
remains a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. The final rule
further amends Table B–1 by making
minor clarifying changes to the finding
column entry for this issue. Specifically,
the final rule replaces the entry
statement ‘‘Plants using less than 100
gpm are not expected to cause any
ground-water conflicts,’’ with ‘‘Plants
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not
expected to cause any groundwater use
conflicts.’’
(22) Groundwater Use Conflicts
(Plants that Withdraw More Than 100
Gallons per Minute [gpm]): The final
rule amends Table B–1 by consolidating
two Category 2 issues, ‘‘Groundwater
use conflicts (potable and service water,
and dewatering; plants that use >100
gpm)’’ and ‘‘Ground-water use conflicts
(Ranney wells),’’ each with an impact
level range of small to large, and names
the consolidated issue, ‘‘Groundwater
use conflicts (plants that withdraw more
than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]).’’
Because Ranney wells produce
significantly more than 100 gpm, the
Ranney wells issue was consolidated
with the general issue of groundwater
use conflicts for plants using more than
100 gpm of groundwater. The
consolidated issue is a Category 2 issue,
with an impact level range of small to
large. The final rule further amends
Table B–1 by removing the entries for
‘‘Groundwater use conflicts (potable and
service water, and dewatering; plants
that use >100 gpm)’’ and ‘‘Ground-water
use conflicts (Ranney wells)’’ and
adding an entry for ‘‘Groundwater use
conflicts (plants that withdraw more
than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]).’’
The finding column entry for the new
consolidated issue states ‘‘Plants that
withdraw more than 100 gpm could
cause groundwater use conflicts with
nearby groundwater users.’’
(23) Groundwater Use Conflicts
(Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling
Systems that Withdraw Makeup Water
from a River): The final rule amends
Table B–1 by renaming ‘‘Ground-water
use conflicts (plants using cooling
towers withdrawing makeup water from
a small river)’’ as ‘‘Groundwater use
conflicts (plants with closed-cycle
cooling systems that withdraw makeup
water from a river).’’ It remains a
Category 2 issue, with an impact level
range of small to large. The final rule
further amends Table B–1 by replacing
the finding column entry, which states,
Water use conflicts may result from surface
water withdrawals from small water bodies
during low flow conditions which may affect
aquifer recharge, especially if other groundwater or upstream surface water users come
on line before the time of license renewal.
See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
with the following:
Water use conflicts could result from water
withdrawals from rivers during low-flow
conditions, which may affect aquifer
recharge. The significance of impacts would
depend on makeup water requirements,
water availability, and competing water
demands.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The 1996 GEIS distinguished between
surface water use impacts during low
flow conditions on ‘‘small’’ versus
‘‘large’’ rivers. Any river, regardless of
size, can experience low flow
conditions of varying severity during
periods of drought and changing
conditions in the affected watersheds
such as upstream diversions and use of
river water. The NRC has thus
determined that the use of the term
‘‘small river’’ or ‘‘small water bodies’’ is
of little value considering that plants
that withdraw makeup water from a
river can experience low-flow
conditions and would be required to
conduct a plant-specific assessment of
water use conflicts.
(24) Groundwater Quality
Degradation Resulting from Water
Withdrawals: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by consolidating two
Category 1 issues, ‘‘Ground-water
quality degradation (Ranney wells)’’ and
‘‘Ground-water quality degradation
(saltwater intrusion),’’ each with an
impact level of small, and names the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Groundwater
quality degradation resulting from water
withdrawals.’’ The consolidated issue
remains a Category 1 issue, with an
impact level of small. The final rule
further amends Table B–1 by removing
the entries for ‘‘Ground-water quality
degradation (Ranney wells)’’ and
‘‘Ground-water quality degradation
(saltwater intrusion)’’ and, by adding an
entry for ‘‘Groundwater quality
degradation resulting from water
withdrawals.’’ The finding column entry
for the consolidated issue states
‘‘Groundwater withdrawals at operating
nuclear power plants would not
contribute significantly to groundwater
quality degradation.’’ The two issues
were consolidated as they both consider
the possibility of groundwater quality
becoming degraded as a result of plant
operations drawing water of potentially
lower quality into the aquifer.
(25) Groundwater Quality Degradation
(Plants with Cooling Ponds in Salt
Marshes): The final rule amends Table
B–1 by revising the title of the issue
‘‘Ground-water quality degradation
(cooling ponds in salt marshes)’’ to
‘‘Groundwater quality degradation
(plants with cooling ponds in salt
marshes).’’ The issue remains a Category
1 issue, with an impact level of small.
The final rule further amends Table B–
1 by replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
Sites with closed-cycle ponds may degrade
ground-water quality. Because water in salt
marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for
plants located in salt marshes.
with the following:
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds
could degrade groundwater quality.
However, groundwater in salt marshes is
naturally brackish and thus, not potable.
Consequently, the human use of such
groundwater is limited to industrial
purposes.
The final rule change to the finding
column entry reflects the NRC’s
response to a public comment on the
proposed rule by: (1) Deleting the term
‘‘plants’’ to eliminate any confusion that
the NRC might have meant marsh
‘‘plants’’ rather than ‘‘nuclear power
plants;’’ and (2) clarifying that the focus
of this issue is on the degradation of
groundwater quality for human use.
Brackish groundwater has limited
human use, thus, any impacts on
groundwater quality caused by
continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are not
significant.
(26) Groundwater Quality Degradation
(Plants with Cooling Ponds at Inland
Sites): The final rule amends Table
B–1 by revising the title of the issue
‘‘Ground-water quality degradation
(cooling ponds at inland sites)’’ to
‘‘Groundwater quality degradation
(plants with cooling ponds at inland
sites).’’ The issue remains a Category 2
issue, with an impact level range of
small to large. The final rule further
amends Table B–1 by replacing the
finding column entry, which states,
Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may
degrade ground-water quality. For plants
located inland, the quality of the ground
water in the vicinity of the ponds must be
shown to be adequate to allow continuation
of current uses. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D).
with the following:
Inland sites with closed-cycle cooling
ponds could degrade groundwater quality.
The significance of the impact would depend
on cooling pond water quality, site
hydrogeologic conditions (including the
interaction of surface water and
groundwater), and the location, depth, and
pump rate of water wells.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(27) Radionuclides Released to
Groundwater: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by adding a new Category 2
issue, ‘‘Radionuclides released to
groundwater,’’ with an impact level
range of small to moderate, to evaluate
the potential impact of discharges of
radionuclides from plant systems into
groundwater. The finding column entry
for this issue states,
Leaks of radioactive liquids from plant
components and pipes have occurred at
numerous plants. Groundwater protection
programs have been established at all
operating nuclear power plants to minimize
the potential impact from any inadvertent
releases. The magnitude of impacts would
depend on site-specific characteristics.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
This new Category 2 issue has been
added to evaluate the potential impact
to groundwater quality from the
discharge of radionuclides from plant
systems, piping, and tanks. This issue
was added because within the past
several years there have been events at
nuclear power reactor sites that
involved unknown, uncontrolled, and
unmonitored releases of radioactive
liquids into the groundwater. The issue
is relevant to license renewal because
this experience has shown that
components and piping at nuclear
power plants have the potential to leak
radioactive material into the
groundwater and degrade its quality.
While the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR
part 20 and in 10 CFR part 50 limit the
amount of radioactive material released
(i.e., from routine and inadvertent
sources) from a nuclear power plant into
the environment, the regulations are
focused on protecting the public, not the
quality of the groundwater. Therefore,
as required by NEPA, the NRC must
consider the potential impacts to the
groundwater from radioactive liquids
released into groundwater.
The majority of the inadvertent
radioactive liquid release events
involved tritium, which is a radioactive
isotope of hydrogen. However, in some
of the events, radioactive isotopes of
cesium and strontium have also been
released. Non-routine releases of
radioactive liquids into the groundwater
have occurred from plant systems and
buried piping.
In 2006, the NRC’s Executive Director
for Operations chartered a task force to
conduct a lessons-learned review of
these incidents. On September 1, 2006,
the Task Force issued its report: ‘‘Liquid
Radioactive Release Lessons Learned
Task Force Report’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. ML062650312). A significant
conclusion of the report dealt with the
potential health impacts to the public
from the inadvertent releases. Although
there were numerous events where
radioactive liquids were released to the
groundwater in an unplanned,
uncontrolled, and unmonitored fashion,
based on the data available, the task
force did not identify any instances
where public health and safety was
adversely impacted. However, the task
force did not evaluate the impact of the
releases to groundwater quality. The
task force also identified that under the
existing regulatory requirements, the
potential exists for radioactive liquid
releases from leaking systems to not be
detected for a period of time and,
therefore, the contaminants could
migrate into groundwater.
In response to these groundwater
events, NEI, which represents the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37301
nuclear industry, in 2007 committed to
the NRC to develop a voluntary
initiative for each nuclear power plant
to have a site-specific groundwater
protection program. NEI provided
guidance to the nuclear industry (NEI
07–07, ADAMS Accession No.
ML072610036) on the development and
implementation of a groundwater
protection program. The program covers
the assessment of plant systems and
components, site hydrogeology, and
methods to detect leaks to determine the
needs for each site-specific program. To
monitor the actions of the nuclear
industry, the NRC routinely inspects
nuclear power plant licensees to verify
continued implementation of the
Groundwater Protection Initiative
programs, to review records of
identified leakage and spill events, to
assess whether the source of the leak or
spill was identified and mitigated, and
to review any remediation actions taken
for effectiveness.
On the basis of the information and
experience with these groundwater
events and the evaluation in the revised
GEIS, the NRC concludes that the
impact to groundwater quality from the
release of radionuclides is dependent on
site-specific variables and could be
small or moderate, depending on the
magnitude of the leak, radionuclides
involved, and the response time of plant
personnel to identify and stop the leak
in a timely fashion. Therefore,
‘‘Radionuclides released to
groundwater’’ is a Category 2 issue and,
as such, a site-specific evaluation in the
environmental report is needed for each
application for license renewal.
Similarly, the NRC will analyze this
issue in the SEIS for each license
renewal action.
Terrestrial Resources
(28) Effects on Terrestrial Resources
(Non-Cooling System Impacts): The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
renaming the ‘‘Refurbishment impacts’’
issue as ‘‘Effects on terrestrial resources
(non-cooling system impacts).’’ It
remains a Category 2 issue, with an
impact level range of small to large.34
The issue, as set forth in the 1996 GEIS,
addressed only the impacts upon
terrestrial resources resulting from any
refurbishment activities during the
license renewal term. The analysis in
the revised GEIS builds on the analysis
in the 1996 GEIS to include the
environmental impacts resulting from
continued plant operations during the
license renewal term. The final rule
34 The proposed rule named the issue, ‘‘Impacts
of continued plant operations on terrestrial
ecosystems’’ (74 FR 38123, 38136; July 31, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37302
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
further amends Table B–1 by replacing
the finding column entry, which states,
Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if
no loss of important plant and animal habitat
occurs. However, it cannot be known
whether important plant and animal
communities may be affected until the
specific proposal is presented with the
license renewal application. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
with the following:
Impacts resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal may affect terrestrial
communities. Application of best
management practices would reduce the
potential for impacts. The magnitude of
impacts would depend on the nature of the
activity, the status of the resources that could
be affected, and the effectiveness of
mitigation.
(29) Exposure of Terrestrial
Organisms to Radionuclides: The final
rule amends Table B–1 by adding a new
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Exposure of
terrestrial organisms to radionuclides.’’
The new issue has been determined to
have an impact level of small. The
finding column entry for this issue
states,
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Doses to terrestrial organisms from
continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected
to be well below exposure guidelines
developed to protect these organisms.
This new issue evaluates the potential
impact of radionuclides on terrestrial
organisms resulting from continued
operations of a nuclear power plant
during the license renewal term and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal. This issue was not evaluated in
the 1996 GEIS. Subsequent to the
publication of the 1996 GEIS, however,
members of the public and various
Federal and State agencies commented
on the need to evaluate the potential
impact of radionuclides on terrestrial
organisms during plant-specific license
renewal reviews.
The revised GEIS evaluates the
potential impact of radionuclides on
terrestrial biota at nuclear power plants
from continued operations during the
license renewal term. For the
evaluation, site-specific radionuclide
concentrations in environmental media
(e.g., water, air, milk, crops, food
products, sediment, and fish and other
aquatic biota) were obtained from
publicly available Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Program
(REMP) annual reports from 15 nuclear
power plants. The REMP is conducted
at every NRC licensed nuclear power
plant to assess the environmental
impacts from plant operations. This is
done by collecting samples of
environmental media from areas
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
surrounding the plant for analysis to
measure the amount of radioactivity, if
any, in the samples. The media samples
reflect the radiation exposure pathways
to the public from radioactive effluents
released by the nuclear power plant and
from background radiation (i.e., cosmic
sources, naturally-occurring radioactive
material, including radon and global
fallout). These 15 plants were selected
to represent sites that reported a range
of radionuclide concentrations in the
sample media and included both boiling
water reactors and pressurized water
reactors. Site-specific radionuclide
concentrations in water and sediments,
as reported in the plant’s REMP reports,
were used in the calculations. The
calculated radiation dose rates to
terrestrial biota, based on exposure to
radioactivity in the environmental
media, were compared against
radiation-safety guidelines issued by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the National Council of
Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP), and the International
Commission on Radiological Protection
(ICRP). The NRC concluded that the
impacts of radionuclides on terrestrial
biota from past and current normal
operations are small for all nuclear
power plants and should not change
appreciably during the license renewal
term.
(30) Cooling System Impacts on
Terrestrial Resources (Plants with OnceThrough Cooling Systems or Cooling
Ponds): The final rule amends Table
B–1 by renaming the ‘‘Cooling pond
impacts on terrestrial resources’’ issue
as ‘‘Cooling system impacts on
terrestrial resources (plants with oncethrough cooling systems or cooling
ponds).’’ It remains a Category 1 issue,
with an impact level of small. The
analysis in the revised GEIS expands the
scope of this issue to include plants
with once-through cooling systems. This
analysis concludes that the impacts on
terrestrial resources from once-through
cooling systems, as well as from cooling
ponds, is of small significance at all
plants. The final rule further amends
Table B–1 by replacing the finding
column entry, which states,
Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial
ecological resources are considered to be of
small significance at all sites.
with the following:
No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or
animals have been reported as a result of
increased water temperatures, fogging,
humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to
the low concentrations of contaminants in
cooling system effluents, uptake and
accumulation of contaminants in the tissues
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of wildlife exposed to the contaminated
water or aquatic food sources are not
expected to be significant issues.
(31) Cooling Tower Impacts on
Vegetation (Plants with Cooling
Towers): The final rule amends Table
B–1 by consolidating two Category 1
issues, ‘‘Cooling tower impacts on crops
and ornamental vegetation’’ and
‘‘Cooling tower impacts on native
plants,’’ both issues having an impact
level of small, and names the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Cooling tower
impacts on vegetation (plants with
cooling towers).’’ The consolidated
issue is a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. The two issues
were consolidated to conform to the
resource-based approach used in the
revised GEIS. With the recent trend of
replacing lawns with native vegetation,
some ornamental plants and crops are
native plants, and the original
separation into two issues is
unnecessary and cumbersome. The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
removing the entries for ‘‘Cooling tower
impacts on crops and ornamental
vegetation’’ and ‘‘Cooling tower impacts
on native plants,’’ and by adding an
entry for ‘‘Cooling tower impacts on
vegetation (plants with cooling
towers).’’ The finding column entry for
the new consolidated issue states,
Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or
increased humidity associated with cooling
tower operation have the potential to affect
adjacent vegetation, but these impacts have
been small at operating nuclear power plants
and are not expected to change over the
license renewal term.
(32) Bird Collisions with Plant
Structures and Transmission Lines: The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
consolidating two Category 1 issues,
‘‘Bird collisions with cooling towers’’
and ‘‘Bird collision with power lines,’’
both issues having an impact level of
small. The final rule also expands the
scope of the consolidated issue to
address collisions with all plant
structures and names the issue, ‘‘Bird
collisions with plant structures and
transmission lines.’’ The consolidated
issue is a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. The two issues
were consolidated to conform to the
resource-based approach used in the
revised GEIS. The final rule further
amends Table B–1 by removing the
entries for ‘‘Bird collisions with cooling
towers’’ and ‘‘Bird collision with power
lines,’’ and by adding an entry for ‘‘Bird
collisions with plant structures and
transmission lines.’’ The finding column
entry for the new consolidated issue
states,
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Bird collisions with cooling towers and
other plant structures and transmission lines
occur at rates that are unlikely to affect local
or migratory populations and the rates are
not expected to change.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by appending a footnote to the issue
column entry for ‘‘Bird collisions with
plant structures and transmission
lines,’’ concerning the extent to which
transmission lines and their associated
right of ways have been analyzed under
the revised GEIS. This footnote is the
same one that was added to Issue 3,
‘‘Offsite land use in transmission line
right-of-ways (ROWs).’’ See the
description of the changes made by the
final rule to Issue 3 for further
explanation of this amendment.
(33) Water Use Conflicts with
Terrestrial Resources (Plants with
Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using
Makeup Water from a River): The final
rule amends Table B–1 by adding a new
Category 2 issue, ‘‘Water use conflicts
with terrestrial resources (plants with
cooling ponds or cooling towers using
makeup water from a river),’’ to evaluate
water use conflict impacts with
terrestrial resources in riparian
communities. The 1996 GEIS already
addresses the resource aspects of this
issue, and 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)
requires a plant-specific analysis of the
impacts of surface water withdrawals
from rivers for cooling pond or cooling
tower makeup on riparian ecological
communities. However, this stand-alone
issue was created to clearly separate out
the related aspects and potential
impacts on terrestrial, riparian
communities associated with surface
water withdrawals from a river for
consumptive cooling water uses. The
new issue has an impact level range of
small to moderate. The finding column
entry for this issue states,
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Impacts on terrestrial resources in riparian
communities affected by water use conflicts
could be of moderate significance.
As described in the revised GEIS,
such impacts could occur when water
that supports these resources is
diminished because of decreased
availability due to droughts; increased
water demand for agricultural,
municipal, or industrial usage; or a
combination of these factors. The
potential range of impact levels at
plants, subject to license renewal, with
cooling ponds or cooling towers using
makeup water from a river cannot be
generically determined. The NRC has
also removed the term ‘‘low flow’’ from
the title of this issue, as set forth in the
proposed rule, and other related river
flow issues in the final rule as
previously discussed in this section (see
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Issue 17, ‘‘Surface Water Use Conflicts
(Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling
Towers Using Makeup Water from a
River)’’).
(34) Transmission Line Right-of-Way
(ROW) Management Impacts on
Terrestrial Resources: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by consolidating two
Category 1 issues, ‘‘Power line right-ofway management (cutting and herbicide
application)’’ and ‘‘Floodplains and
wetland on power line right-of-way,’’
each with an impact level of small, and
names the consolidated issue,
‘‘Transmission line right-of-way (ROW)
management impacts on terrestrial
resources.’’ The consolidated issue is a
Category 1 issue, with an impact level
of small. The two issues were
consolidated to conform to the resourcebased approach used in the revised
GEIS. The final rule further amends
Table B–1 by removing the entries for
‘‘Power line right-of-way management
(cutting and herbicide application)’’ and
‘‘Floodplains and wetland on power
line right-of-way,’’ and, by adding an
entry for ‘‘Transmission line right-ofway (ROW) management impacts on
terrestrial resources.’’ The finding
column entry for the consolidated issue
states,
Continued ROW management during the
license renewal term is expected to keep
terrestrial communities in their current
condition. Application of best management
practices would reduce the potential for
impacts.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by appending a footnote to the issue
column entry for ‘‘Transmission line
right-of-way (ROW) management
impacts on terrestrial resources,’’
concerning the extent to which
transmission lines and their associated
rights of way have been analyzed under
the revised GEIS. This footnote is the
same one that was added to Issue 3,
‘‘Offsite land use in transmission line
right-of-ways (ROWs).’’ See the
description of the changes made by the
final rule to Issue 3 for further
explanation of this amendment.
(35) Electromagnetic Fields on Flora
and Fauna (Plants, Agricultural Crops,
Honeybees, Wildlife, Livestock): There
are no changes to this issue, and it
remains a Category 1 issue with a small
level of impact. The final rule amends
Table B–1 by appending a footnote to
the issue column entry for
‘‘Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and
Fauna (Plants, Agricultural Crops,
Honeybees, Wildlife, Livestock),’’
concerning the extent to which
transmission lines and their associated
rights of way have been analyzed under
the revised GEIS. This footnote is the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37303
same one that was added to Issue 3,
‘‘Offsite land use in transmission line
right-of-ways (ROWs).’’ See the
description of the changes made by the
final rule to Issue 3 for further
explanation of this amendment.
Aquatic Resources
(36) Impingement and Entrainment of
Aquatic Organisms (Plants with OnceThrough Cooling Systems or Cooling
Ponds): The final rule amends Table
B–1 by consolidating two Category 2
issues, ‘‘Entrainment of fish and
shellfish in early life stages (for plants
with once-through cooling and cooling
pond heat dissipation systems)’’ and
‘‘Impingement of fish and shellfish (for
plants with once-through cooling and
cooling pond heat dissipation
systems),’’ both with impact level ranges
of small to large, and names the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms
(plants with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds).’’ The
consolidated issue is a Category 2 issue
with an impact level range of small to
large. The final rule further amends
Table B–1 by removing the entries for
‘‘Entrainment of fish and shellfish in
early life stages (for plants with oncethrough cooling and cooling pond heat
dissipation systems)’’ and
‘‘Impingement of fish and shellfish (for
plants with once-through cooling and
cooling pond heat dissipation
systems),’’ and, by adding an entry for
‘‘Impingement and entrainment of
aquatic organisms (plants with oncethrough cooling systems or cooling
ponds).’’ The finding column entry for
the consolidated issue states,
The impacts of impingement and
entrainment are small at many plants, but
may be moderate or even large at a few plants
with once-through and cooling-pond cooling
systems, depending on cooling system
withdrawal rates and volumes and the
aquatic resources at the site.
For the revised GEIS, these issues
were consolidated to facilitate the
review process in keeping with the
resource-based approach and to allow
for a more complete analysis of the
environmental impact. Nuclear power
plants typically conduct separate
sampling programs to estimate the
numbers of organisms entrained and
impinged, which explains the original
separation of these issues. However, it is
the consolidated effects of entrainment
and impingement that reflect the total
impact of the cooling system intake on
the resource. Environmental conditions
are different at each nuclear power plant
site, and impacts cannot be determined
generically.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37304
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(37) Impingement and Entrainment of
Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling
Towers): The final rule amends Table
B–1 by consolidating two Category 1
issues, ‘‘Entrainment of fish and
shellfish in early life stages (for plants
with cooling tower-based heat
dissipation systems)’’ and
‘‘Impingement of fish and shellfish (for
plants with cooling tower-based heat
dissipation systems),’’ both with impact
levels of small, and names the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms
(plants with cooling towers).’’ The
consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
removing the entries for ‘‘Entrainment
of fish and shellfish in early life stages
(for plants with cooling tower-based
heat dissipation systems)’’ and
‘‘Impingement of fish and shellfish (for
plants with cooling tower-based heat
dissipation systems),’’ and by adding an
entry for ‘‘Impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms
(plants with cooling towers).’’ The
finding column entry for the
consolidated issue states,
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Impingement and entrainment rates are
lower at plants that use closed-cycle cooling
with cooling towers because the rates and
volumes of water withdrawal needed for
makeup are minimized.
The two issues have been
consolidated given their similar nature
and to facilitate the environmental
review process consistent with the
resource-based approach in the revised
GEIS.
(38) Entrainment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton (all plants): There are
no changes to this issue, and it remains
a Category 1 issue with an impact level
of small. The proposed rule had
consolidated two Category 2 issues,
‘‘Entrainment of fish and shellfish in
early life stages (for plants with oncethrough cooling and cooling pond heat
dissipation systems)’’ and
‘‘Impingement of fish and shellfish (for
plants with once-through cooling and
cooling pond heat dissipation systems)’’
with the Category 1 issue, ‘‘Entrainment
of phytoplankton and zooplankton (for
all plants)’’ (74 FR 38124, 38136; July
31, 2009). Under the proposed rule, the
consolidated issue would have been a
Category 2 issue, with an impact range
of small to large. Subsequent to the
publication of the proposed rule, the
NRC determined that such
consolidation would have the effect of
making ‘‘Entrainment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton (all plants),’’ which is
an issue generic to all plants (Category
1), a site-specific issue (Category 2). As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
there is no basis to support making the
‘‘Entrainment of phytoplankton and
zooplankton (all plants)’’ a site-specific
issue, the NRC determined not to adopt
the proposed rule change. Instead, only
the two Category 2 issues were
consolidated (see Issue 36), and this
issue remains separate.
(39) Thermal Impacts on Aquatic
Organisms (Plants with Once-Through
Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds): The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
renaming the issue, ‘‘Heat shock (for
plants with once-through and cooling
pond heat dissipation systems)’’ as
‘‘Thermal Impacts on Aquatic
Organisms (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds).’’ It
remains a Category 2 issue with an
impact level range of small to large. The
final rule further amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry for
this issue, which states,
Because of continuing concerns about heat
shock and the possible need to modify
thermal discharges in response to changing
environmental conditions, the impacts may
be of moderate or large significance at some
plants. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
with the following:
Most of the effects associated with thermal
discharges are localized and are not expected
to affect overall stability of populations or
resources. The magnitude of impacts,
however, would depend on site-specific
thermal plume characteristics and the nature
of aquatic resources in the area.
Environmental conditions are
different at each nuclear power plant
site, and thermal impacts associated
with once-through and cooling pond
heat dissipation systems cannot be
determined generically. The proposed
rule had consolidated the Category 2
issue, ‘‘Heat shock (for plants with oncethrough and cooling pond heat
dissipation systems)’’ with four
Category 1 issues, ‘‘Cold shock (for all
plants),’’ ‘‘Thermal plume barrier to
migrating fish (for all plants),’’
‘‘Distribution of aquatic organisms (for
all plants),’’ and ‘‘Premature emergence
of aquatic insects (for all plants)’’ (74 FR
38124, 38136; July 31, 2009). These
issues were proposed for consolidation
to facilitate the environmental review
process because they are all caused by
thermal effects. The final rule
consolidates these four Category 1
issues with another Category 1 issue,
‘‘Stimulation of nuisance organisms
(e.g., shipworms),’’ as Issue 41,
‘‘Infrequently reported thermal impacts
(all plants),’’ as described later in this
section.
(40) Thermal Impacts on Aquatic
Organisms (Plants with Cooling
Towers): The final rule amends Table
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B–1 by renaming the issue ‘‘Heat shock
(for plants with cooling-tower-based
heat dissipation systems)’’ as ‘‘Thermal
Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants
with Cooling Towers).’’ It remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of
small. The final rule further amends
Table B–1 by replacing the finding
column entry for this issue, which
states, ‘‘Heat shock has not been found
to be a problem at operating nuclear
power plants with this type of cooling
system and is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal
term,’’ with the following, ‘‘Thermal
effects associated with plants that use
cooling towers are expected to be small
because of the reduced amount of
heated discharge.’’
The proposed rule had consolidated
the Category 1 issue, ‘‘Heat shock (for
plants with cooling-tower-based heat
dissipation systems)’’ with four other
Category 1 issues, ‘‘Cold shock (for all
plants),’’ ‘‘Thermal plume barrier to
migrating fish (for all plants),’’
‘‘Distribution of aquatic organisms (for
all plants),’’ and ‘‘Premature emergence
of aquatic insects (for all plants)’’ (74 FR
38124, 38136). These issues were
proposed for consolidation to facilitate
the environmental review process
because they are all caused by thermal
effects. The final rule consolidates these
four Category 1 issues with another
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Stimulation of
nuisance organisms (e.g., shipworms),’’
as Issue 41, ‘‘Infrequently reported
thermal impacts (all plants),’’ as
described in the following paragraphs.
(41) Infrequently Reported Thermal
Impacts (All Plants): The final rule
amends Table B–1 by consolidating five
Category 1 issues, ‘‘Cold shock (for all
plants),’’ ‘‘Thermal plume barrier to
migrating fish (for all plants),’’
‘‘Distribution of aquatic organisms (for
all plants),’’ ‘‘Premature emergence of
aquatic insects (for all plants),’’ and
‘‘Stimulation of Nuisance Organisms
(e.g., Shipworms),’’ each with an impact
level of small, and names the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Infrequently
reported thermal impacts (all plants).’’
The consolidated issue is a Category 1
issue, with an impact level of small. The
final rule further amends Table B–1 by
removing the entries for ‘‘Cold shock
(for all plants),’’ ‘‘Thermal plume barrier
to migrating fish (for all plants),’’
‘‘Distribution of aquatic organisms (for
all plants),’’ ‘‘Premature emergence of
aquatic insects (for all plants),’’ and
‘‘Stimulation of Nuisance Organisms
(e.g., Shipworms),’’ and, by adding an
entry for ‘‘Infrequently reported thermal
impacts (all plants).’’ The finding
column entry for the new consolidated
issue states,
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Gas supersaturation was a concern at a
small number of operating nuclear power
plants with once-through cooling systems but
has been mitigated. Low dissolved oxygen
was a concern at one nuclear power plant
with a once-through cooling system but has
been mitigated. Eutrophication (nutrient
loading) and resulting effects on chemical
and biological oxygen demands have not
been found to be a problem at operating
nuclear power plants.
Thermal plumes have not been found to be
a problem at operating nuclear power plants
and are not expected to be a problem.
Thermal discharge may have localized
effects but is not expected to affect the larger
geographical distribution of aquatic
organisms.
Premature emergence has been found to be
a localized effect at some operating nuclear
power plants but has not been a problem and
is not expected to be a problem.
Stimulation of nuisance organisms has
been satisfactorily mitigated at the single
nuclear power plant with a once-through
cooling system where previously it was a
problem. It has not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants
with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is
not expected to be a problem.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Continued operations during the license
renewal term are expected to have small
thermal impacts with respect to the
following:
Cold shock has been satisfactorily
mitigated at operating nuclear plants with
once-through cooling systems, has not
endangered fish populations or been found to
be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds,
and is not expected to be a problem.
(43) Effects of Non-Radiological
Contaminants on Aquatic Organisms:
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
renaming the issue ‘‘Accumulation of
contaminants in sediments or biota’’ as
‘‘Effects of non-radiological
contaminants on aquatic organisms.’’
The renamed issue remains a Category
1 issue with an impact level of small.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by replacing the finding column
entry, which states,
The five issues are consolidated to
facilitate the environmental review
process because they are all caused by
thermal effects resulting from operation
of a plant’s cooling system. Previous
license renewal reviews conducted by
the NRC have shown that the previously
described thermal issues have not been
a problem at operating nuclear power
plants and would not change during the
license renewal term, and so no future
impacts are anticipated.
(42) Effects of Cooling Water
Discharge on Dissolved Oxygen, Gas
Supersaturation, and Eutrophication:
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
consolidating three Category 1 issues,
‘‘Eutrophication,’’ ‘‘Gas supersaturation
(gas bubble disease),’’ and ‘‘Low
dissolved oxygen in the discharge,’’
each with an impact level of small, and
names the consolidated issue, ‘‘Effects
of cooling water discharge on dissolved
oxygen, gas supersaturation, and
eutrophication.’’ The consolidated issue
is a Category 1 issue, with an impact
level of small. The three issues are
consolidated given their similar nature
and to facilitate the environmental
review process. The final rule further
amends Table B–1 by removing the
entries for ‘‘Eutrophication,’’ ‘‘Gas
supersaturation (gas bubble disease),’’
and ‘‘Low dissolved oxygen in the
discharge,’’ and, by adding an entry for
‘‘Effects of cooling water discharge on
dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation,
and eutrophication.’’ The finding
column entry for the new consolidated
issue states,
with the following:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Accumulation of contaminants has been a
concern at a few nuclear power plants but
has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing
copper alloy condenser tubes with those of
another metal. It is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
Best management practices and discharge
limitations of NPDES permits are expected to
minimize the potential for impacts to aquatic
resources during continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal. Accumulation of metal
contaminants has been a concern at a few
nuclear power plants, but has been
satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper
alloy condenser tubes with those of another
metal.
(44) Exposure of Aquatic Organisms
to Radionuclides: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by adding a new Category 1
issue, ‘‘Exposure of Aquatic Organisms
to Radionuclides,’’ with an impact level
of small. The finding column entry for
this issue states,
Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to
be well below exposure guidelines developed
to protect these aquatic organisms.
The issue has been added to evaluate
the potential impact of radionuclide
discharges upon aquatic organisms,
based on comments from members of
the public and Federal and State
agencies raised during the license
renewal process for various plants.
The revised GEIS evaluates the
potential impact of radionuclides on
aquatic organisms at nuclear power
plants from continued operations during
the license renewal term. For the
evaluation, site-specific radionuclide
concentrations in environmental media
(e.g., water, air, milk, crops, food
products, sediment, and fish and other
aquatic biota) were obtained from
publicly available REMP annual reports
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37305
from 15 nuclear power plants. The
REMP is conducted at every NRC
licensed nuclear power plant to assess
the environmental impacts from plant
operations. This is done by collecting
samples of environmental media from
areas surrounding the plant for analysis
to measure the amount of radioactivity,
if any, in the samples. The media
samples reflect the radiation exposure
pathways to the public from radioactive
effluents released by the nuclear power
plant and from background radiation
(i.e., cosmic sources, naturally-occurring
radioactive material, including radon
and global fallout). These 15 plants were
selected to represent sites that reported
a range of radionuclide concentrations
in the sample media and included both
boiling water reactors and pressurized
water reactors. Site-specific
radionuclide concentrations in water
and sediments, as reported in the plant’s
REMP reports, were used in the
calculations. The calculated radiation
dose rates to aquatic organisms, based
on exposure to radioactivity in the
environmental media, were compared
against radiation-safety guidelines
issued by DOE, IAEA, NCRP, and ICRP.
The NRC concluded that the impacts of
radionuclides on aquatic organisms
from past and current normal operations
are small for all nuclear power plants
and should not change appreciably
during the license renewal term.
(45) Effects of Dredging on Aquatic
Organisms: The final rule amends Table
B–1 by adding a new Category 1 issue,
‘‘Effects of dredging on aquatic
organisms,’’ with an impact level of
small, to evaluate the impacts of
dredging on aquatic organisms. The
finding column entry for this issue
states,
Dredging at nuclear power plants is
expected to occur infrequently, would be of
relatively short duration, and would affect
relatively small areas. Dredging is performed
under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and possibly, from other State or
local agencies.
Licensees conduct dredging to
maintain intake and discharge
structures at nuclear power plant
facilities and in some cases, to maintain
barge slips. Dredging may disturb or
remove benthic communities. In
general, maintenance dredging for
nuclear power plant operations occur
infrequently, is of relatively short
duration, and affects relatively small
areas. Dredging is performed under a
permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and consequently, each
dredging action is subject to a sitespecific environmental review
conducted by the Corps. Dredging
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37306
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
activities may also require permits from
various State or local agencies.
(46) Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic
Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or
Cooling Towers using Makeup Water
from a River): The final rule amends
Table B–1 by adding a new Category 2
issue, ‘‘Water use conflicts with aquatic
resources (plants with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup water
from a river),’’ with an impact level
range of small to moderate, to evaluate
water use conflicts with aquatic
resources in stream communities. The
1996 GEIS already addresses the
resource aspects of this issue, and 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires a plantspecific analysis of the impacts of
surface water withdrawals from rivers
for cooling pond or cooling tower
makeup on stream (i.e., aquatic)
ecological communities. However, this
stand-alone issue was created to clearly
separate out the related aspects and
potential impacts on aquatic
communities associated with surface
water withdrawals from a river for
consumptive cooling water uses.
The finding column entry for this
issue states,
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Impacts on aquatic resources in stream
communities affected by water use conflicts
could be of moderate significance in some
situations.
Such impacts could occur when water
that supports these resources is
diminished because of decreased
availability due to droughts; increased
water demand for agricultural,
municipal, or industrial usage; or a
combination of these factors. The
potential range of impact levels at
plants, subject to license renewal, with
cooling ponds or cooling towers using
makeup water from a river cannot be
generically determined. The NRC has
also removed the term ‘‘low flow’’ from
the title of this issue, as set forth in the
proposed rule, and other related river
flow issues in the final rule as
previously discussed in this section (see
Issue 17, ‘‘Surface Water Use Conflicts
(Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling
Towers Using Makeup Water from a
River)’’).
(47) Effects on Aquatic Resources
(Non-Cooling System Impacts): The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
renaming the ‘‘Refurbishment’’ issue as
‘‘Effects on aquatic resources (noncooling system impacts).’’ 35 It remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of
small. The final rule further amends
35 The proposed rule had renamed this issue
‘‘Refurbishment impacts on aquatic resources.’’ (74
FR 38125, 38136; July 31, 2009).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
Table B–1 by replacing the finding
column entry, which states,
During plant shutdown and refurbishment
there will be negligible effects on aquatic
biota because of a reduction of entrainment
and impingement of organisms or a reduced
release of chemicals.
with the following:
Licensee application of appropriate
mitigation measures is expected to result in
no more than small changes to aquatic
communities from their current condition.
(48) Impacts of Transmission Line
Right-of-Way (ROW) Management on
Aquatic Resources: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by adding a new
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Impacts of
transmission line right-of-way (ROW)
management on aquatic resources,’’
with an impact level of small, to
evaluate the impact of transmission line
ROW management on aquatic resources
during the license renewal term. The
finding column entry for this issue
states,
Licensee application of best management
practices to ROW maintenance is expected to
result in no more than small impacts to
aquatic resources.
Impacts on aquatic resources from
transmission line ROW maintenance
could occur as a result of the direct
disturbance of aquatic habitats, soil
erosion, changes in water quality (from
sedimentation and thermal effects), or
inadvertent releases of chemical
contaminants from herbicide use. As
described in the revised GEIS, the NRC
expects any impact on aquatic resources
resulting from transmission line ROW
maintenance to be small, short term,
and localized for all plants because of
licensee application of best management
practices.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by appending a footnote to the issue
column entry for ‘‘Impacts of
Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW)
Management on Aquatic Resources,’’
concerning the extent to which
transmission lines and their associated
ROW have been analyzed under the
revised GEIS. This footnote is the same
one that was added to Issue 3, ‘‘Offsite
land use in transmission line right-ofways (ROWs).’’ See the description of
the changes made by the final rule to
Issue 3 for further explanation of this
amendment.
(49) Losses from Predation,
Parasitism, and Disease Among
Organisms Exposed to Sublethal
Stresses: There are no changes to this
issue, and it remains a Category 1 issue,
with an impact level of small.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Special Status Species and Habitats
(50) Threatened, Endangered, and
Protected Species and Essential Fish
Habitat: The final rule amends Table B–
1 by renaming the issue ‘‘Threatened or
endangered species’’ as ‘‘Threatened,
endangered, and protected species and
essential fish habitat.’’ The final rule
expands the scope of the issue to
include essential fish habitats protected
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA). The renamed and expanded
issue is a Category 2 issue. The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
Generally, plant refurbishment and
continued operations are not expected to
adversely affect threatened or endangered
species. However, consultation with
appropriate agencies would be needed at the
time of license renewal to determine whether
threatened or endangered species are present
and whether they would be adversely
affected. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
with the following:
The magnitude of impacts on threatened,
endangered, and protected species, critical
habitat, and essential fish habitat would
depend on the occurrence of listed species
and habitats and the effects of power plant
systems on them. Consultation with
appropriate agencies would be needed to
determine whether special status species or
habitats are present and whether they would
be adversely affected by continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal.
The final rule also amends Table B–
1 by removing the words ‘‘SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE’’ from the
finding column entry because the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires
other findings.36 In complying with the
ESA, the NRC determines whether the
effects of continued nuclear power plant
operations and refurbishment (1) would
have no effect, (2) are not likely to
adversely affect, (3) are likely to
adversely affect, or (4) are likely to
jeopardize the listed species or
adversely modify the designated critical
habitat of Federally listed species
populations or their critical habitat
during the license renewal term. For
listed species where the NRC has found
that its action is ‘‘likely to adversely
affect’’ the species or habitat, the NRC
may further characterize the effects as
‘‘is [or is not] likely to jeopardize listed
species or adversely modify designated
critical habitat.’’
Similarly, the MSA also requires other
findings. In complying with the MSA,
the NRC determines whether the effects
36 The proposed rule did not reflect this change
(74 FR 38125, 38137; July 31, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
of continued nuclear power plant
operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal would have: (1) No
adverse impact, (2) minimal adverse
impact, or (3) substantial adverse impact
to the essential habitat of federally
managed fish populations during the
license renewal term. Therefore, the
NRC believes that reporting its ESA and
MSA findings instead of the ‘‘SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE’’ significance
levels of impact will clarify the results.
Historic and Cultural Resources
(51) Historic and Cultural Resources:
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
renaming the issue ‘‘Historic and
archaeological resources’’ as ‘‘Historic
and cultural resources.’’ It remains a
Category 2 issue. The final rule further
amends Table B–1 by replacing the
finding column entry, which states,
Generally, plant refurbishment and
continued operations are expected to have no
more than small adverse impacts on historic
and archaeological resources. However, the
National Historic Preservation Act requires
the Federal agency to consult with the State
Historic Preservation Officer to determine
whether there are properties present that
require protection. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K).
with the following:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected
to have no more than small impacts on
historic and cultural resources located onsite
and in the transmission line ROW because
most impacts could be mitigated by avoiding
those resources. The National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) requires the Federal
agency to consult with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate
Native American Tribes to determine the
potential effects on historic properties and
mitigation, if necessary.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by removing the words ‘‘SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE’’ from the
finding column entry 37 because the
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) requires the NRC to determine
whether historic properties are present
on or near the project site, and if so,
whether the license renewal decision
would result in any adverse effect upon
such properties. Thus, the NRC in its
plant-specific environmental review
makes the following determinations: no
historic properties present; historic
properties are present, but not adversely
affected; or there is an adverse effect.
If continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal result in any adverse effects,
the NHPA Section 106 process requires
consultation with the requisite State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
37 The proposed rule did not reflect this change
(74 FR 38125, 38137; July 31, 2009).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
and if appropriate, the requisite Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer. The
license renewal applicant is typically an
active participant in such consultation,
and the applicant may agree to commit
to carrying out the appropriate
mitigation measures. If an agreement is
reached, the parties will execute a
Memorandum of Agreement. Therefore,
the NRC believes that reporting its
NHPA findings in the plant-specific
SEIS, instead of the ‘‘SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE’’ significance
levels of impact, will clarify the results.
Socioeconomics
(52) Employment and Income,
Recreation and Tourism: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by adding a new
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Employment and
income, recreation and tourism,’’ which
includes the ‘‘tourism and recreation’’
portion of a current Table B–1 Category
1 issue, ‘‘Public services: public safety,
social services, and tourism and
recreation.’’ The issue has an impact
level of small. The final rule
consolidates the tourism and recreation
portion with the new generic analysis to
cover employment and income given
the similar nature of these issues and to
facilitate the environmental review
process. The revised GEIS provides an
analysis of this consolidated issue and
concludes that the impacts are generic
to all plants undergoing license renewal.
The finding column entry for this issue
states,
Although most nuclear plants have large
numbers of employees with higher than
average wages and salaries, employment,
income, recreation, and tourism impacts from
continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected
to be small.
(53) Tax Revenues: The impact of
changes to tax revenues was discussed
in the 1996 GEIS, but was not listed in
Table B–1. The final rule amends Table
B–1 by adding a new Category 1 issue,
‘‘Tax revenues,’’ to evaluate the impacts
of license renewal on tax revenues. The
issue has an impact level of small. The
finding column entry for this issue
states,
Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of property tax
payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT),
or tax payments on energy production. The
amount of tax revenue paid during the
license renewal term as a result of continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal is not expected to change.
Refurbishment activities, such as
steam generator and vessel head
replacement, have not had a noticeable
effect on the value of nuclear power
plants, thus changes in tax revenues are
not anticipated from future
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37307
refurbishment activities. Refurbishment
activities involve the one-for-one
replacement of existing components and
are generally not considered a taxable
improvement. Also, new property tax
assessments; proprietary payments in
lieu of tax stipulations, settlements, and
agreements; and State tax laws are
continually changing the amounts paid
to taxing jurisdictions by nuclear power
plant owners, and these occur
independent of license renewal and
refurbishment activities.
(54) Community Services and
Education: The final rule amends Table
B–1 by reclassifying two Category 2
issues, ‘‘Public services: public
utilities,’’ with an impact level range of
small to moderate, and ‘‘Public services,
education (refurbishment),’’ with an
impact level range of small to large, as
Category 1 issues. The final rule
consolidates these two issues with the
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Public services,
education (license renewal term),’’
which has an impact level of small, and
the ‘‘Public safety and social service’’
portion of the Category 1 issue, ‘‘Public
services: public safety, social services,
and tourism and recreation,’’ which also
has an impact level of small.38 The final
rule names the consolidated issue,
‘‘Community services and education,’’
and classifies it as a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
removing the entries for ‘‘Public
services: public utilities,’’ ‘‘Public
services, education (refurbishment),’’
‘‘Public services, education (license
renewal term),’’ and ‘‘Public services:
public safety, social services, and
tourism and recreation,’’ and by adding
the entry for ‘‘Community services and
education.’’ The finding column entry
for the ‘‘Community services and
education’’ issue states,
Changes resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal to local community and
educational services would be small. With
little or no change in employment at the
licensee’s plant, value of the power plant,
payments on energy production, and PILOT
payments expected during the license
renewal term, community and educational
services would not be affected by continued
power plant operations.
The four issues are consolidated
because all public services are equally
affected by changes in plant operations
and refurbishment associated with
38 The ‘‘tourism and recreation’’ portion of the
‘‘Public services: public safety, social services, and
tourism and recreation’’ issue was consolidated
with the new generic analysis concerning
employment and income to form the consolidated
Category 1 issue, ‘‘Employment and income,
recreation and tourism’’ (see Issue 52).
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37308
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
license renewal. Any changes in the
number of workers at a nuclear power
plant will affect demand for public
services from local communities.
Nevertheless, past environmental
reviews conducted by the NRC since the
issuance of the 1996 GEIS have shown
that the number of workers at relicensed
nuclear power plants has not changed
significantly because of license renewal.
Thus, no significant impacts on
community services are anticipated
from future license renewals. In
addition, refurbishment activities, such
as steam generator and vessel head
replacement, have not required the large
numbers of workers and the months of
time that was conservatively analyzed
in the 1996 GEIS, and as such,
significant impacts on community
services are no longer anticipated.
Combining the four issues also
facilitates the environmental review
process.
(55) Population and Housing: The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
renaming the Category 2 issue,
‘‘Housing impacts,’’ with an impact
level range of small to large, to
‘‘Population and housing.’’ The final
rule reclassifies this issue as a Category
1 issue with an impact level of small. As
described in the revised GEIS, the
availability and value of housing are
directly affected by changes in
population. The final rule further
amends Table B–1 by removing the
entry for ‘‘Housing impacts,’’ and by
adding an entry for ‘‘Population and
housing.’’ The finding column entry for
this issue states,
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Changes resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal to regional population and
housing availability and value would be
small. With little or no change in
employment at the licensee’s plant expected
during the license renewal term, population
and housing availability and values would
not be affected by continued power plant
operations.
As described in the revised GEIS, the
NRC has determined that the impacts of
continued operations and refurbishment
activities on population and housing
during the license renewal term would
be small. Moreover, any impacts are not
dependent on the socioeconomic setting
of the nuclear power plant and are
generic to all plants.
(56) Transportation: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by reclassifying the
Category 2 issue, ‘‘Public services,
Transportation,’’ with an impact level
range of small to large, as a Category 1
issue with an impact level of small, and
renaming it ‘‘Transportation.’’ The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
Transportation impacts (level of service) of
highway traffic generated during plant
refurbishment and during the term of the
renewed license are generally expected to be
of small significance. However, the increase
in traffic associated with additional workers
and the local road and traffic control
conditions may lead to impacts of moderate
or large significance at some sites. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).
with the following:
Changes resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal to traffic volumes would be
small.
As described in the revised GEIS, the
NRC has determined that the numbers
of workers have not changed
significantly due to license renewal, so
transportation impacts from continued
operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal are no longer
expected to be significant.
Human Health
(57) Radiation Exposures to the
Public: The final rule amends Table B–
1 by consolidating two Category 1
issues, ‘‘Radiation exposures to the
public during refurbishment’’ and
‘‘Radiation exposure to public (license
renewal term)’’ and names the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Radiation
exposures to the public.’’ The
consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. These
issues are consolidated given their
similar nature and to facilitate the
environmental review process. The final
rule amends Table B–1 by removing the
entries for ‘‘Radiation exposures to the
public during refurbishment’’ and
‘‘Radiation exposure to public (license
renewal term)’’ and by adding an entry
for ‘‘Radiation exposures to the public.’’
The finding column entry for this
consolidated issue states,
Radiation doses to the public from
continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected
to continue at current levels, and would be
well below regulatory limits.
(58) Radiation Exposures to Plant
Workers: The final rule amends Table
B–1 by consolidating two Category 1
issues, ‘‘Occupational radiation
exposures during refurbishment’’ and
‘‘Occupational radiation exposures
(license renewal term)’’ and names the
consolidated issue, ‘‘Radiation
exposures to plant workers.’’ The
consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. These
issues are consolidated given their
similar nature and to facilitate the
environmental review process. The final
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rule amends Table B–1 by removing the
entries ‘‘Occupational radiation
exposures during refurbishment’’ and
‘‘Occupational radiation exposures
(license renewal term)’’ and by adding
an entry for ‘‘Radiation exposures to
plant workers.’’ The finding column
entry for the combined issue states,
Occupational doses from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal are expected to be within the
range of doses experienced during the
current license term and would continue to
be well below regulatory limits.
(59) Human Health Impact from
Chemicals: The final rule amends Table
B–1 by adding a new Category 1 issue,
‘‘Human health impact from
chemicals,’’ to evaluate the potential
impacts to plant workers and members
of the public from exposure to
chemicals. The new issue has an impact
level of small. The finding column entry
for this issue states,
Chemical hazards to plant workers
resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal are expected to be minimized by the
licensee implementing good industrial
hygiene practices as required by permits and
Federal and State regulations. Chemical
releases to the environment and the potential
for impacts to the public are expected to be
minimized by adherence to discharge
limitations of NPDES and other permits.
The evaluation addresses the
potential impact of chemicals on human
health resulting from normal operations
of a nuclear power plant during the
license renewal term. Impacts of
chemical exposure to human health are
considered to be small if the use of
chemicals within the plant is in
accordance with industrial safety guides
and discharges of chemicals to water
bodies are within effluent limitations
designed to ensure protection of water
quality and aquatic life.
The disposal of hazardous chemicals
used at nuclear power plants by
licensees is subject to the RCRA and the
CWA (which requires licensees to hold
an NPDES permit). Adherence by the
licensee to these statutory requirements
should minimize adverse impacts to the
environment, workers, and the public. It
is anticipated that all plants would
continue to operate in compliance with
all applicable permits and that no
mitigation measures beyond those
implemented during the current license
term would be warranted as a result of
license renewal.
A review of the documents, as
referenced in the revised GEIS,
operating monitoring reports, and
consultations with utilities and
regulatory agencies that were performed
for the 1996 GEIS, indicated that the
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
effects of the discharge of chlorine and
other biocides on water quality have
been of small significance for all power
plants. Small quantities of biocides are
readily dissipated and/or are chemically
altered in the body of water receiving
them, so significant cumulative impacts
to water quality would not be expected.
The NRC expects no major changes in
the operation of plant cooling systems
during the license renewal term, so no
changes are anticipated in the effects of
biocide discharges on the quality of the
receiving waters. The EPA and the
States regulate discharges of sanitary
wastes and heavy metals through
NPDES permits. The NRC considers
discharges that do not violate the permit
limits to be of small significance. The
effects of minor chemical discharges
and spills on water quality are also
expected to be of small significance
during the license renewal term, and the
appropriate regulating agencies would
require the licensee to mitigate these
discharges and spills as needed.
(60) Microbiological Hazards to the
Public (Plants with Cooling Ponds or
Canals or Cooling Towers that Discharge
to a River): The final rule amends Table
B–1 by renaming the ‘‘Microbiological
organisms (public health) (plants using
lakes or canals, or cooling towers or
cooling ponds that discharge to a small
river)’’ issue as ‘‘Microbiological
hazards to the public (plants with
cooling ponds or canals or cooling
towers that discharge to a river).’’ The
issue remains a Category 2 issue, with
an impact level range of small to large.
The final rule further amends Table B–
1 by replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
These organisms are not expected to be a
problem at most operating plants except
possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes,
or canals that discharge to small rivers.
Without site-specific data, it is not possible
to predict the effects generically. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).
with the following:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
These organisms are not expected to be a
problem at most operating plants except
possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes,
or canals, or that discharge into rivers.
Impacts would depend on site-specific
characteristics.
(61) Microbiological Hazards to Plant
Workers: The final rule amends Table
B–1 by renaming the ‘‘Microbiological
organisms (occupational health)’’ issue
as ‘‘Microbiological hazards to plant
workers.’’ It remains a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. The final
rule amends Table B–1 by adding the
phrase ‘‘as required by permits and
Federal and State regulations’’ to the
end of the finding column entry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
(62) Chronic Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs): The final
rule amends Table B–1 by renaming the
‘‘Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects’’
issue as ‘‘Chronic effects of
electromagnetic fields (EMFs).’’ It
remains an uncategorized issue with an
impact level of uncertain because there
is no national scientific consensus on
the potential impacts from chronic
exposure to EMFs. The final rule further
amends Table B–1 by replacing the
finding column entry, which states,
Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz
electromagnetic fields have not found
consistent evidence linking harmful effects
with field exposures. However, research is
continuing in this area and a consensus
scientific view has not been reached.
with the following:
Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered
consistent evidence linking harmful effects
with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other
agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic
chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that
dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and
longer-term effects, if real, are subtle.
Because the state of the science is currently
inadequate, no generic conclusion on human
health impacts is possible.
Although there is no conclusion as to
the impact level, and this issue is not
considered to be a Category 1 issue in
the sense that a generic conclusion on
the impact level has not been reached,
this issue will be treated uniformly in
plant-specific SEISs by essentially
providing the discussion appearing in
this issue’s finding column entry in
Table B–1 until a national scientific
consensus has been reached.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by appending a footnote to the issue
column entry for ‘‘Chronic Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs),’’
concerning the extent to which
transmission lines and their associated
right of ways have been analyzed under
the revised GEIS. This footnote is the
same one that was added to Issue 3,
‘‘Offsite land use in transmission line
right-of-ways (ROWs).’’ See the
description of the changes made by the
final rule to Issue 3 for further
explanation of this amendment. In
addition, the final rule retains the
footnote that was appended to issue
column entry but renumbers that
footnote from ‘‘5’’ to ‘‘6’’ and retains the
footnote that was appended to category
column entry but renumbers that
footnote from ‘‘4’’ to ‘‘5.’’
(63) Physical Occupational Hazards:
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
adding a new Category 1 issue,
‘‘Physical occupational hazards,’’ to
evaluate the potential impact of
physical occupational hazards on
human health resulting from normal
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37309
nuclear power plant operations during
the license renewal term. The issue has
an impact level of small. The finding
column entry for this issue states,
Occupational safety and health hazards are
generic to all types of electrical generating
stations, including nuclear power plants, and
are of small significance if the workers
adhere to safety standards and use protective
equipment as required by Federal and State
regulations.
Through a Memorandum of
Understanding (53 FR 43950; October
31, 1988) between the NRC and the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), plant
conditions that result in an occupational
risk, but do not affect the safety of
licensed radioactive materials, are under
the statutory authority of OSHA rather
than the NRC. Nevertheless, the impact
of physical occupational hazards on
human health has been raised by the
public, as well as Federal and State
agencies during the license renewal
process. As such, this issue has been
added to allow for a more complete
analysis of the human health impact of
continued power plant operation during
the license renewal term. Occupational
hazards can be minimized by licensees
when workers adhere to safety
standards and use appropriate
protective equipment, although fatalities
and injuries from accidents can still
occur. Data for occupational injuries in
2005 obtained from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics indicate that the rate of
fatal injuries in the utility sector is less
than the rate for many sectors (e.g.,
construction, transportation and
warehousing, agriculture, forestry,
fishing and hunting, wholesale trade,
and mining) and that the incidence rate
for nonfatal occupational injuries and
illnesses is the least for electric power
generation, followed by electric power
transmission control and distribution. It
is expected that over the license renewal
term, licensees would ensure that their
workers continue to adhere to safety
standards and use protective equipment,
so adverse occupational impacts would
be of small significance at all sites.
(64) Electric Shock Hazards: The final
rule amends Table B–1 by renaming the
‘‘Electromagnetic fields, acute effects
(electric shock)’’ issue as ‘‘Electric shock
hazards.’’ It remains a Category 2 issue
with an impact level range of small to
large. The final rule further amends
Table B–1 by replacing the finding
column entry, which states,
Electrical shock resulting from direct
access to energized conductors or from
induced charges in metallic structures have
not been found to be a problem at most
operating plants and generally are not
expected to be a problem during the license
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37310
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
renewal term. However, site-specific review
is required to determine the significance of
the electric shock potential at the site. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H).
with the following:
Electrical shock potential is of small
significance for transmission lines that are
operated in adherence with the National
Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a
review of conformance with NESC criteria of
each nuclear power plant’s in-scope
transmission lines, it is not possible to
generically determine the significance of the
electrical shock potential.
The final rule’s change to the finding
column entry reflects the analysis in the
revised GEIS concerning the potential of
electrical shock from transmission lines.
The final rule further amends Table B–
1 by appending a footnote to the issue
column entry for ‘‘Electric shock
hazards,’’ concerning the extent to
which transmission lines and their
associated right of ways have been
analyzed under the revised GEIS. This
footnote is the same one that was added
to Issue 3, ‘‘Offsite land use in
transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs).’’ See the description of the
changes made by the final rule to Issue
3 for further explanation of this
amendment.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Postulated Accidents
(65) Design-Basis Accidents and (66)
Severe Accidents: ‘‘Design-basis
accidents,’’ and ‘‘Severe accidents,’’
with impact levels of small, remain
Category 1 and 2 issues, respectively.
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
making minor clarifying changes to the
finding column entries for both of these
issues.
Environmental Justice
(67) Minority and Low-Income
Populations: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by adding a new Category 2
issue, ‘‘Minority and low-income
populations,’’ to evaluate the impacts of
continued operations and any
refurbishment activities during the
license renewal term on minority and
low-income populations living in the
vicinity of the plant. This issue was
listed in Table B–1, prior to this final
rule, but was not evaluated in the 1996
GEIS. In that table the finding column
entry for this issue states, ‘‘[t]he need for
and the content of an analysis of
environmental justice will be addressed
in plant-specific reviews.’’
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629;
February 16, 1994) initiated the Federal
government’s environmental justice
program. The NRC’s ‘‘Policy Statement
on the Treatment of Environmental
Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and
Licensing Actions’’ (69 FR 52040;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
August 24, 2004) states, ‘‘the NRC is
committed to the general goals of E.O.
12898, [and] it will strive to meet those
goals through its normal and traditional
NEPA review process.’’ Guidance for
implementing E.O. 12898 was not
available prior to the completion of the
1996 GEIS. By making this a Category 2
issue, the final rule requires license
renewal applicants to identify, in their
environmental reports, minority and
low-income populations and
communities residing in the vicinity of
the nuclear power plant.
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
The need for and the content of an analysis
of environmental justice will be addressed in
plant-specific reviews.
with the following:
Impacts to minority and low-income
populations and subsistence consumption
resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license
renewal will be addressed in plant-specific
reviews. See NRC Policy Statement on the
Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters
in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69
FR 52040; August 24, 2004).
The final rule does not adopt the
proposed rule’s impact range of small to
moderate for this issue as E.O. 12898
requires a determination of whether
human health and environmental effects
of continued operations during the
license renewal term and refurbishment
associated with license renewal on
minority and low-income populations
would be disproportionately high and
adverse. This determination will be
made by the NRC in each plant-specific
SEIS.
The final rule removes the footnote
from the category column entry for this
issue and removes footnote ‘‘6’’ from
Table B–1 as footnote ‘‘6’’ is no longer
necessary.
Waste Management
(68) Low-Level Waste Storage and
Disposal: This issue remains a Category
1 issue with an impact level of small.
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
The comprehensive regulatory controls
that are in place and the low public doses
being achieved at reactors ensure that the
radiological impacts to the environment will
remain small during the term of a renewed
license. The maximum additional on-site
land that may be required for low-level waste
storage during the term of a renewed license
and associated impacts will be small.
Nonradiological impacts on air and water
will be negligible. The radiological and
nonradiological environmental impacts of
long-term disposal of low-level waste from
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
any individual plant at licensed sites are
small. In addition, the Commission
concludes that there is reasonable assurance
that sufficient low-level waste disposal
capacity will be made available when needed
for facilities to be decommissioned consistent
with NRC decommissioning requirements.
with the following:
The comprehensive regulatory controls
that are in place and the low public doses
being achieved at reactors ensure that the
radiological impacts to the environment
would remain small during the license
renewal term.
(69) Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear
Fuel: The final rule amends Table B–1
by renaming the ‘‘Onsite spent fuel’’
issue as ‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear
fuel.’’ It remains a Category 1 issue with
an impact level of small. As described
in Section V, ‘‘Related Issues of
Importance,’’ of this document, the final
rule revises the finding column entry for
this issue to reflect the D.C. Circuit’s
decision in New York v. NRC and the
NRC’s planned response thereto.
Specifically, the final rule reduces the
period of time covered by this issue
from the period of extended license
(from approval of the license renewal
application to the expiration of the
operating license) plus 30 years after the
permanent shutdown of the reactor and
expiration of the operating license to the
period of extended license only. The
final rule amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
The expected increase in the volume of
spent fuel from an additional 20 years of
operation can be safely accommodated on
site with small environmental effects through
dry or pool storage at all plants if a
permanent repository or monitored
retrievable storage is not available.
with the following:
The expected increase in the volume of
spent fuel from an additional 20 years of
operation can be safely accommodated onsite
during the license renewal term with small
environmental effects through dry or pool
storage at all plants.
(70) Offsite Radiological Impacts of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Waste Disposal: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by renaming the ‘‘Offsite
radiological impacts (spent fuel and
high level waste disposal)’’ issue as
‘‘Offsite radiological impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal.’’ As described in Section V
‘‘Related Issues of Importance,’’ of this
document, the final rule revises the
finding column entry for this issue to
reflect the D.C. Circuit’s decision in New
York v. NRC and the NRC’s planned
response thereto. Specifically, the final
rule reclassifies this issue from Category
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
1, with no impact level assigned, to an
uncategorized issue with an impact
level of uncertain. The final rule
removes the description in the finding
column entry and replaces it with the
following: ‘‘Uncertain impact. The
generic conclusion on offsite
radiological impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste is not being
finalized pending the completion of a
generic environmental impact statement
on waste confidence.’’ Upon issuance of
the generic EIS and revised Waste
Confidence Rule, the NRC will make
any necessary confirming amendments
to this rule.
(71) Mixed-Waste Storage and
Disposal: This issue remains a Category
1 issue with an impact level of small.
The final rule amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry for
this issue, which states,
The comprehensive regulatory controls and
the facilities and procedures that are in place
ensure proper handling and storage, as well
as negligible doses and exposure to toxic
materials for the public and the environment
at all plants. License renewal will not
increase the small, continuing risk to human
health and the environment posed by mixed
waste at all plants. The radiological and
nonradiological environmental impacts of
long-term disposal of mixed waste from any
individual plant at licensed sites are small.
In addition, the Commission concludes that
there is reasonable assurance that sufficient
mixed waste disposal capacity will be made
available when needed for facilities to be
decommissioned consistent with NRC
decommissioning requirements.
with the following:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
The comprehensive regulatory controls and
the facilities and procedures that are in place
ensure proper handling and storage, as well
as negligible doses and exposure to toxic
materials for the public and the environment
at all plants. License renewal would not
increase the small, continuing risk to human
health and the environment posed by mixed
waste at all plants. The radiological and
nonradiological environmental impacts of
long-term disposal of mixed waste from any
individual plant at licensed sites are small.
(72) Nonradioactive Waste Storage
and Disposal: The final rule amends
Table B–1 by renaming the issue
‘‘Nonradiological waste’’ as
‘‘Nonradiological waste storage and
disposal.’’ It remains a Category 1 issue,
with an impact level of small. The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
No changes to generating systems are
anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and
procedures are in place to ensure continued
proper handling and disposal at all sites.
with the following:
No changes to systems that generate
nonradioactive waste are anticipated during
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
the license renewal term. Facilities and
procedures are in place to ensure continued
proper handling, storage, and disposal, as
well as negligible exposure to toxic materials
for the public and the environment at all
plants.
Cumulative Impacts
(73) Cumulative Impacts: The final
rule amends Table B–1 by adding a new
Category 2 issue, ‘‘Cumulative impacts,’’
to evaluate the potential cumulative
impacts of license renewal. The term
‘‘cumulative impacts’’ is defined in 10
CFR 51.14(b) by reference to the CEQ
regulations, 40 CFR 1508.7, as ‘‘the
impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions.’’
For the purposes of analysis, past
actions are considered to be when the
nuclear power plant was licensed and
constructed, present actions are related
to current plant operations, and future
actions are those that are reasonably
foreseeable through the end of plant
operations including the license
renewal term. The geographic area over
which past, present, and future actions
are assessed depends on the affected
resource.
The final rule requires license
renewal applicants to identify other
past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, such as the
construction and operation of other
power plants and other industrial and
commercial facilities in the vicinity of
the nuclear power plant. The finding
column entry for this issue states,
Cumulative impacts of continued
operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal must be considered on a
plant-specific basis. Impacts would depend
on regional resource characteristics, the
resource-specific impacts of license renewal,
and the cumulative significance of other
factors affecting the resource.
Uranium Fuel Cycle
(74) Offsite Radiological Impacts—
Individual Impacts from Other than the
Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level
Waste: The final rule amends Table
B–1 by renaming the ‘‘Offsite
radiological impacts (individual effects
from other than the disposal of spent
fuel and high level waste)’’ issue as
‘‘Offsite radiological impacts—
individual impacts from other than the
disposal of spent fuel and high-level
waste.’’ This issue remains a Category 1
issue with an impact level of small. The
final rule further amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37311
Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle
have been considered by the Commission in
Table S–3 of this part. Based on information
in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from
radioactive gaseous and liquid releases
including radon-222 and technetium-99 are
small.
with the following:
The impacts to the public from radiological
exposures have been considered by the
Commission in Table S–3 of this part. Based
on information in the GEIS, impacts to
individuals from radioactive gaseous and
liquid releases, including radon-222 and
technetium-99, would remain at or below the
NRC’s regulatory limits.
(75) Offsite Radiological Impacts—
Collective Impacts from Other than the
Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level
Waste: The final rule amends Table
B–1 by renaming the ‘‘Offsite
radiological impacts (collective effects)’’
issue as ‘‘Offsite radiological impacts—
collective impacts from other than the
disposal of spent fuel and high-level
waste.’’ It remains a Category 1 issue
with no impact level assigned. The final
rule further amends Table B–1 by
replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
The 100 year environmental dose
commitment to the U.S. population from the
fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel
disposal excepted, is calculated to be about
14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for
each additional 20-year power reactor
operating term. Much of this, especially the
contribution of radon releases from mines
and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses
summed over large populations. This same
dose calculation can theoretically be
extended to include many tiny doses over
additional thousands of years as well as
doses outside the U.S. The result of such a
calculation would be thousands of cancer
fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result
assumes that even tiny doses have some
statistical adverse health effect which will
not ever be mitigated (for example no cancer
cure in the next thousand years), and that
these doses projected over thousands of years
are meaningful. However, these assumptions
are questionable. In particular, science
cannot rule out the possibility that there will
be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses.
For perspective, the doses are very small
fractions of regulatory limits, and even
smaller fractions of natural background
exposure to the same populations.
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty,
some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA
implications of these matters should be made
and it makes no sense to repeat the same
judgment in every case. Even taking the
uncertainties into account, the Commission
concludes that these impacts are acceptable
in that these impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA
conclusion, for any plant, that the option of
extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54
should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the
Commission has not assigned a single level
of significance for the collective effects of the
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37312
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category
1.
with the following:
There are no regulatory limits applicable to
collective doses to the general public from
fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of
estimating health effects on the basis of
collective doses may not be meaningful. All
fuel-cycle facilities are designed and
operated to meet the applicable regulatory
limits and standards. The Commission
concludes that the collective impacts are
acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the
impacts would not be sufficiently large to
require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant,
that the option of extended operation under
10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated.
Accordingly, while the Commission has not
assigned a single level of significance for the
collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle,
this issue is considered Category 1.
(76) Nonradiological Impacts of the
Uranium Fuel Cycle: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by making minor
clarifying changes to the finding column
entry for this issue. This issue remains
a Category 1 issue with an impact level
of small.
(77) Transportation: This issue
remains a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. The final rule
amends Table B–1 by replacing the
finding column entry for this issue,
which states,
The impacts of transporting spent fuel
enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with
average burnup for the peak rod to current
levels approved by NRC up to 62,000 MWd/
MTU and the cumulative impacts of
transporting high-level waste to a single
repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada
are found to be consistent with the impact
values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c),
Summary Table S–4—Environmental Impact
of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and
from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power
Reactor. If fuel enrichment or burnup
conditions are not met, the applicant must
submit an assessment of the implications for
the environmental impact values reported in
§ 51.52.
with the following:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
The impacts of transporting materials to
and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on
workers, the public, and the environment are
expected to be small.
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant
Operations and Decommissioning
(78) Termination of Plant Operations
and Decommissioning: The final rule
amends Table B–1 by consolidating a
new Category 1 issue, ‘‘Termination of
nuclear power plant operations’’ with
six other Category 1 issues related to the
decommissioning of a nuclear power
plant: ‘‘Radiation doses,’’ ‘‘Waste
management,’’ ‘‘Air quality,’’ ‘‘Water
quality,’’ ‘‘Ecological resources,’’ and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
‘‘Socioeconomic impacts,’’ each with an
impact level of small. The final rule
names the consolidated issue,
‘‘Termination of plant operations and
decommissioning.’’ The consolidated
issue is a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small.
The final rule further amends Table
B–1 by removing the entries for
‘‘Radiation doses,’’ ‘‘Waste
management,’’ ‘‘Air quality,’’ ‘‘Water
quality,’’ ‘‘Ecological resources,’’ and
‘‘Socioeconomic impacts,’’ and, by
adding an entry for ‘‘Termination of
plant operations and
decommissioning.’’ The finding column
entry for the consolidated issue states,
License renewal is expected to have a
negligible effect on the impacts of
terminating operations and decommissioning
on all resources.
The 1996 GEIS analysis indicates that
the six decommissioning issues are
expected to be small at all nuclear
power plant sites. The new issue
addresses the impacts from terminating
nuclear power plant operations and
plant decommissioning. Termination of
nuclear power plant operations results
in the cessation of many routine plant
operations as well as a significant
reduction in the plant’s workforce. It is
assumed that termination of plant
operations would not lead to the
immediate decommissioning and
dismantlement of the reactor or other
power plant infrastructure.
The final rule consolidates the six
decommissioning issues and the
termination of nuclear power plant
operations issue into one Category 1
issue to facilitate the environmental
review process. For further information
about the environmental effects of
decommissioning, see the ‘‘2002
Generic Environmental Impact
Statement on Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the
Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors,’’ NUREG–0586.
IX. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following section-by-section
analysis discusses the sections in 10
CFR part 51 that are being amended as
a result of the final rule.
Section 51.53(c)(2)
The NRC is clarifying the required
contents of the license renewal
environmental report, which applicants
must submit in accordance with 10 CFR
54.23, ‘‘Contents of application—
environmental information,’’ by revising
the second sentence in this
subparagraph to read, ‘‘This report must
describe in detail the affected
environment around the plant, the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
modifications directly affecting the
environment or any plant effluents, and
any planned refurbishment activities.’’
Sections 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A), (B), (C), and
(E)
For those applicants seeking an initial
license renewal and holding either an
operating license, construction permit,
or combined license as of June 30, 1995,
the environmental report shall include
the information required in 10 CFR
51.53(c)(2) but is not required to contain
assessments of the environmental
impacts of certain license renewal
issues identified as Category 1
(generically analyzed) issues in
Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR part
51. The environmental report must
contain analyses of the environmental
impacts of the proposed action,
including the impacts of refurbishment
activities, if any, associated with license
renewal and the impacts of operation
during the renewal term, for those
issues identified as Category 2 (plantspecific analysis required) issues in
Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR part
51 and must include consideration of
alternatives for reducing adverse
impacts of Category 2 issues. In
addition, the environmental report must
contain any new and significant
information regarding the
environmental impacts of license
renewal of which the applicant is aware.
The required analyses are listed in 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)–(P).
The final rule language for 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A), (B), (C), (E), (F), (G),
(I), (J), (K), and (N) consists of changes
to conform to the final changes in Table
B–1, which in turn, reflects the revised
GEIS. The modified paragraphs more
accurately reflect the specific
information needed in the
environmental report that will help the
NRC conduct the environmental review
of the proposed action.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) is revised to
incorporate the findings of the revised
GEIS and to require applicants to
provide information in their
environmental reports regarding water
use conflicts encompassing water
availability and competing water
demands, and related impacts on stream
(aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial)
communities. The numerical definition
for a low flow river has also been
deleted requiring that applicants
withdrawing makeup water for cooling
towers or cooling ponds from any river
provide a plant-specific assessment of
water use conflicts in their
environmental reports.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) is revised to
replace ‘‘heat shock’’ with ‘‘thermal
changes’’ to reflect the final changes in
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Table B–1 as described earlier in this
document under ‘‘Aquatic Resources’’
environmental impact Issue 39,
‘‘Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms
(plants with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds).’’
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) is revised to
delete the reference to ‘‘Ranney wells’’
to conform to the final changes made in
the revised Table B–1.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) is revised to
expressly include nuclear power plant
continued operations within the scope
of the impacts to be assessed by license
renewal applicants. The paragraph is
further revised to expand the scope of
the provision to include all Federal
wildlife protection laws and essential
fish habitat under the MSA.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F)
The final rule removes and reserves
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) because the
final rule changes the Category 2 issue,
‘‘Air quality during refurbishment
(nonattainment and maintenance
areas),’’ to Category 1, ‘‘Air quality
impacts (all plants).’’
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G)
The final rule language for 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) is revised to delete the
numerical definition for a low flow river
to conform to the final changes made in
the revised Table B–1.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
The final rule removes and reserves
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) because several
Category 2 socioeconomic issues are
reclassified as Category 1.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)
The final rule removes and reserves
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) because the
final rule changes the Category 2 issue,
‘‘Public services, Transportation,’’ to
Category 1, ‘‘Transportation.’’
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K)
The final rule language for 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) is revised to more
accurately reflect the specific
information needed in the
environmental report that will help the
NRC conduct the environmental review
of the proposed action.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N)
The final rule adds a new paragraph
10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(N) to require
license renewal applicants to provide
information on the general demographic
composition of minority and lowincome populations and communities
(by race and ethnicity) residing in the
immediate vicinity of the plant that
could be affected by the renewal of the
plant’s operating license, including any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
planned refurbishment activities, and
ongoing and future plant operations.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O)
The final rule adds a new paragraph
10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(O) to require
license renewal applicants to provide
information about other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions occurring in the vicinity of the
nuclear power plant that may result in
a cumulative effect.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P)
The final rule adds a new paragraph
10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(P) to require the
license renewal applicant to assess the
impact of any documented inadvertent
releases of radionuclides to
groundwater. The assessment must
include a description of any
groundwater protection program used
for the surveillance of piping and
components containing radioactive
liquids for which a pathway to
groundwater may exist. The assessment
must also include a description of any
past inadvertent releases, including the
projected impact to the environment
(e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds)
during the license renewal term.
Section 51.71(d)
The final rule language for 10 CFR
51.71(d) is revised to make minor
conforming changes to clarify the
readability and to include the analysis
of cumulative impacts. Cumulative
impacts were not addressed in the 1996
GEIS, but are currently being evaluated
by the NRC in plant-specific
supplements to the GEIS. The NRC is
modifying this paragraph to more
accurately reflect the cumulative
impacts analysis conducted for
environmental reviews of the proposed
action.
Section 51.95(c)
The final rule language revisions to
the introductory text of 10 CFR 51.95(c)
are administrative in nature and replace
the reference to the 1996 GEIS for
license renewal of nuclear power plants
with a reference to the revised GEIS.
Section 51.95(c)(4)
The final rule removes the terms
‘‘resolved Category 2 issues’’ and ‘‘open
Category 2 issues’’ from the second
sentence of 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4), makes
other clarifying changes to enhance the
readability of the sentence, corrects a
typographical error, and removes
otherwise ambiguous or unnecessary
language. The terms ‘‘resolved Category
2 issues’’ and ‘‘open Category 2 issues’’
are not defined nor used in 10 CFR part
51. In addition, the revised GEIS does
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37313
not contain these terms nor does the
NRC use these terms in SEISs. The only
instance in past NRC practice in which
an ‘‘open’’ or ‘‘resolved’’ Category 2
issue arises is for the Category 2 ‘‘Severe
accidents’’ issue. The ‘‘Severe
accidents’’ issue requires the
preparation of a severe accident
mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis
as a prerequisite to license renewal. If a
license renewal applicant had not yet
performed a SAMA analysis for a given
plant, then the issue would remain
‘‘open’’ pending the completion of a
SAMA analysis. Some licensees,
however, have already performed a
SAMA analysis at some point. Thus, if
a license renewal applicant had
performed a SAMA analysis for a
particular plant, then the issue would be
considered ‘‘resolved,’’ and there would
be no need to repeat a SAMA analysis
as part of a license renewal application.
As the finding column entry for ‘‘Severe
accidents’’ already provides for a
previously prepared SAMA analysis,
and the ‘‘open’’ or ‘‘resolved’’
terminology is not used in connection
with any other GEIS issue, there is no
need to retain this language in the
second sentence of 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4).
Table B–1
The final rule revises Table B–1 to
follow the organizational format of the
revised GEIS. Environmental issues in
Table B–1 are arranged by resource area.
The environmental impacts of license
renewal activities, including plant
operations and refurbishment along
with replacement power alternatives,
are addressed in each resource area.
Table B–1 organizes environmental
impact issues under the following
resource areas: (1) Land use; (2) visual
resources; (3) air quality; (4) noise; (5)
geologic environment; (6) surface water
resources; (7) groundwater resources; (8)
terrestrial resources; (9) aquatic
resources; (10) special status species
and habitats; (11) historic and cultural
resources; (12) socioeconomics; (13)
human health; (14) postulated
accidents; (15) environmental justice;
(16) waste management; (17) cumulative
impacts; (18) uranium fuel cycle; and
(19) termination of nuclear power plant
operations and decommissioning.
Discussions of the environmental
impact issues in each resource area and
classification of issues into Category 1
or Category 2 are provided in Section
VIII, ‘‘Final Actions and Basis for
Changes to Table B–1’’ of this
document. Additional changes to Table
B–1 in the final rule were discussed
previously in applicable resource areas
in Section VIII. Footnote 1 was updated
to reference the revised GEIS. A minor
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37314
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
edit was made to footnote 2, clause (3),
to improve clarity. Footnote 4 was
added to define the in-scope electric
transmission lines. Consequently, the
previous footnotes 4 and 5 were
renumbered as footnotes 5 and 6,
respectively. The previous footnote 6
was deleted, as it is no longer needed.
X. Guidance Documents
In the Rules and Regulations section
of this issue of the Federal Register, the
NRC is providing notice of the
availability of three additional
documents related to this final rule: (1)
A revised GEIS, NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’
Vol. 1, ‘‘Main Report’’ (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13106A241); Vol. 2,
‘‘Public Comments’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13106A242); and Vol. 3,
‘‘Appendices’’ (ADAMS Acession No.
ML13106A244); (2) Revision 1 of
Environmental Standard Review Plan
(ESRP), NUREG–1555, Supplement 1,
‘‘Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews for Nuclear
Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating
License Renewal’’ (ADAMS Acession
No. ML13106A246); and (3) Revision 1
of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1,
‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports
for Nuclear Power Plant License
Renewal Applications’’ (ADAMS
Acession No. ML13067A354).
The revised GEIS is intended to
improve the efficiency of the license
renewal process by (1) Providing an
evaluation of the types of environmental
impacts that may occur from renewing
commercial nuclear power plant
operating licenses, (2) identifying and
assessing impacts that are expected to
be generic (the same or similar) at all
nuclear power plants (or plants with
specific plant or site characteristics),
and (3) defining the number and scope
of environmental impact issues that
need to be addressed in plant-specific
supplemental EISs. The content of the
revised GEIS is discussed further in
Section III, ‘‘Discussion,’’ of this
document.
Revision 1 of RG 4.2, Supplement 1,
provides general procedures for the
preparation of environmental reports,
which are submitted as part of the
license renewal application for a
nuclear power plant in accordance with
10 CFR part 54. More specifically, this
revised RG explains the criteria for
addressing Category 2 issues in the
environmental report as required by the
revisions to 10 CFR part 51 under the
final rule.
The revised ESRP provides guidance
to the NRC staff on how to conduct a
license renewal environmental review.
The ESRP parallels the format in RG 4.2.
The primary purpose of the ESRP is to
ensure that these reviews focus on those
environmental concerns associated with
license renewal as described in 10 CFR
part 51.
XI. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on
Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,’’ approved
by the Commission on June 20, 1997,
and published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as
compatibility category ‘‘NRC.’’
Agreement State Compatibility is not
required for Category ‘‘NRC’’
regulations. The NRC program elements
in this category are those that relate
directly to areas of regulation reserved
to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, or the provisions of
Title 10 of the CFR. Although an
Agreement State may not adopt program
elements reserved to the NRC, it may
wish to inform its licensees of certain
requirements via a mechanism that is
consistent with the particular State’s
administrative procedure laws. Category
‘‘NRC’’ regulations do not confer
regulatory authority on the State.
XII. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents
identified in the following table
available to interested persons through
one or more of the methods provided in
the ADDRESSES section of this document.
ADAMS Accession
No.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Document
PDR
Web
NUREG–1437, Revision 1, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ Vol. 1, ‘‘Main Report’’.
NUREG–1437, Revision 1, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ Vol. 2, ‘‘Public Comments’’.
NUREG–1437, Revision 1, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ Vol. 3, ‘‘Appendices’’.
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, ‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports
for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications’’.
NUREG–1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, ‘‘Standard Review Plans for Environmental
Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal’’.
Regulatory Analysis for RIN 3150–AI42, Final Rulemaking Revisions to Environmental
Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.
OMB Supporting Statement for RIN 3150–AI42, Final Rulemaking Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.
SECY–12–0063, Final Rule: Revisions to Environmental Protection Regulations for the
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (10 CFR part 50; RIN 3150–
AI42) (April 20, 2012).
Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–12–0063 (December 6, 2012) .....................
Meeting Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Public Stakeholders
Concerning Implementation of Final Rule for Revisions to the Environmental Protection Regulations for the Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses and
Other License Renewal Environmental Review Issues (TAC No. ME2308) (July 21,
2011).
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-Term
Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident’’ (July 12, 2011).
NRC Press Release No. 10–060, ‘‘NRC Asks National Academy of Sciences to Study
Cancer Risk in Populations Living Near Nuclear Power Facilities’’ (April 7, 2010).
Summary of Public Meetings to Discuss Proposed Rule Regarding Title 10, part 51 of
the Code of Federal Regulations and the Draft Revision to the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG–1437, Revision 1
(November 3, 2009).
X
X
ML13106A241
X
X
ML13106A242
X
X
ML13106A244
X
X
ML13067A354
X
X
ML13106A246
X
X
ML13029A471
X
X
ML110760342
X
X
ML110760033
X
X
X
X
ML12341A134
ML11182B535
X
X
ML111861807
X
X
ML100970142
X
X
ML093070141
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
37315
ADAMS Accession
No.
Document
PDR
Web
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, Dana Point, CA (October 22, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, Pismo Beach, CA (October 20, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, Rockville, MD (October 1, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, Oak Brook, IL (September 24, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, Newton, MA (September 17, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement, Atlanta, GA (September 15, 2009).
NRC Response to Public Comments Received on Proposed 10 CFR part 51 Rule, ‘‘Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses’’ (RIN 3150–AI42).
NRC Response to Public Comments Related to Draft Regulatory Guide, DG–4015 (Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1)—‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications’’ (RIN 3150–
AI42).
Regulatory History for Proposed Rule, ‘‘Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal
of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses’’ (RIN 3150–AI42).
Draft NUREG–1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1—‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’.
Draft Regulatory Guide, DG–4015 (Proposed Revision 1 of RG 4.2, Supplement 1),
‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications’’.
Draft NUREG–1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1—‘‘Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal’’.
NEI 07–07, ‘‘Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative—Final Guidance Document’’ .....
Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report (September 1,
2006).
NUREG–1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ Main Report, Section 6.3—Transportation, Table
9.1, Summary of NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.
NUREG–1437, Vol. 1, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants,’’ Main Report.
NUREG–1437, Vol. 2, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants,’’ Appendices.
X
X
ML093100505
X
X
ML093070174
X
X
ML092931678
X
X
ML092931545
X
X
ML092931681
X
X
ML092810007
X
X
ML111450013
X
X
ML13067A355
X
X
ML093160539
X
X
ML090220654
X
X
ML091620409
X
X
ML090230497
X
X
X
X
ML072610036
ML062650312
X
X
ML040690720
X
X
ML040690705
X
X
ML040690738
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995, Public
Law 104–113, requires that Federal
agencies use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies unless
using such a standard is inconsistent
with applicable law or is otherwise
impractical. This final rulemaking,
which amends various provisions of 10
CFR part 51, does not constitute the
establishment of a standard that
contains generally applicable
requirements.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
XIV. Environmental Impact—
Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that the
promulgation of this final rule is a type
of procedural action that meets the
criteria of the categorical exclusion set
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(i) and (iii).
Therefore, neither an environmental
impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been prepared for this
final rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
XV. Paperwork Reduction Act
Statement
This final rule contains new or
amended information collection
requirements that are subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). These
requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), control number 3150–0021.
The burden to the public for these
information collections is estimated to
be reduced by an average of 311.15
hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the
information collection. Send comments
on any aspect of these information
collections, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to the Information
Services Branch (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, or by email to INFO
COLLECTS.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV; and
to the Desk Officer, Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
NEOB–10202, (3150–0021), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503, or by email to Chad_S._
Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a request for information or an
information collection requirement
unless the requesting document
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
XVI. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to
write documents in a clear, concise,
well-organized manner that also follows
other best practices appropriate to the
subject or field and the intended
audience. The NRC has attempted to use
plain language in promulgating this rule
consistent with the Federal Plain
Writing Act guidelines.
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37316
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
XVII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a regulatory
analysis of this regulation. The analysis
examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the NRC.
Availability of the regulatory analysis is
provided in Section XII, ‘‘Availability of
Documents,’’ of this document.
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,
as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553;
the NRC amends 10 CFR part 51 as
follows:
Part 51—Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing
and Related Regulatory Functions
1. The authority citation for part 51 is
revised to read as follows:
XVIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
■
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the
NRC certifies that this rule does not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The final rule affects only nuclear
power plant licensees filing license
renewal applications. The companies
that own these plants do not fall within
the scope of the definition of ‘‘small
entities’’ set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act or the size standards
established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
Authority: Atomic Energy Act sec. 161,
1701 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); Energy
Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 211 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5851); Government
Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44
U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A also issued
under National Environmental Policy Act
secs. 102, 104, 105 (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334,
4335); Pub. L. 95 604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033
3041; Atomic Energy Act sec. 193 (42 U.S.C.
2243). Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80.
and 51.97 also issued under Nuclear Waste
Policy Act secs. 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C.
10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also
issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 274 (42
U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy
Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections
51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under
Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) (42
U.S.C. 10134(f)).
XIX. Backfitting and Issue Finality
Issuance of this final rule does not
constitute ‘‘backfitting’’ as defined in 10
CFR 50.109(a)(1) of the Backfit Rule and
is not otherwise inconsistent with the
applicable issue finality provisions in
10 CFR part 52. The final rule does not
meet the definition of a backfit in 10
CFR 50.109(a)(1) because the document
is not a ‘‘modification of or addition to
systems, structures, components, or
design of a facility; or the design
approval or manufacturing license for a
facility; or the procedures or
organization required to design,
construct or operate a facility.’’ For
these reasons, issuance of this final rule
does not constitute ‘‘backfitting’’ within
the meaning of the definition of
‘‘backfitting’’ in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
Similarly, the issuance of the this final
rule does not constitute an action
inconsistent with any of the issue
finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
XX. Congressional Review Act
In accordance with the Congressional
Review Act of 1996, the NRC has
determined that this action is not a
major rule and has verified this
determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
the OMB.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and
procedure, Environmental impact
statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear
power plants and reactors, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble and under the authority of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
2. Amend § 51.53 by:
a. Revising the second sentence of
paragraph (c)(2);
■ b. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A);
■ c. Revising the second sentence of
paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B);
■ d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C);
■ e. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E);
■ f. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(3)(ii)(F);
■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(G);
■ h. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(c)(3)(ii)(I) and (J);
■ i. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(K); and
■ j. Adding paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(N), (O),
and (P).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 51.53 Postconstruction environmental
reports.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * * This report must describe in
detail the affected environment around
the plant, the modifications directly
affecting the environment or any plant
effluents, and any planned
refurbishment activities. * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) If the applicant’s plant utilizes
cooling towers or cooling ponds and
withdraws makeup water from a river,
an assessment of the impact of the
proposed action on water availability
and competing water demands, the flow
of the river, and related impacts on
stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial)
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ecological communities must be
provided. * * *
(B) * * * If the applicant cannot
provide these documents, it shall assess
the impact of the proposed action on
fish and shellfish resources resulting
from thermal changes and impingement
and entrainment.
(C) If the applicant’s plant pumps
more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of
groundwater per minute, an assessment
of the impact of the proposed action on
groundwater must be provided.
*
*
*
*
*
(E) All license renewal applicants
shall assess the impact of refurbishment,
continued operations, and other licenserenewal-related construction activities
on important plant and animal habitats.
Additionally, the applicant shall assess
the impact of the proposed action on
threatened or endangered species in
accordance with Federal laws protecting
wildlife, including but not limited to,
the Endangered Species Act, and
essential fish habitat in accordance with
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(G) If the applicant’s plant uses a
cooling pond, lake, or canal or
discharges into a river, an assessment of
the impact of the proposed action on
public health from thermophilic
organisms in the affected water must be
provided.
*
*
*
*
*
(K) All applicants shall identify any
potentially affected historic or
archaeological properties and assess
whether any of these properties will be
affected by future plant operations and
any planned refurbishment activities in
accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(N) Applicants shall provide
information on the general demographic
composition of minority and lowincome populations and communities
(by race and ethnicity) residing in the
immediate vicinity of the plant that
could be affected by the renewal of the
plant’s operating license, including any
planned refurbishment activities, and
ongoing and future plant operations.
(O) Applicants shall provide
information about other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions occurring in the vicinity of the
nuclear plant that may result in a
cumulative effect.
(P) An applicant shall assess the
impact of any documented inadvertent
releases of radionuclides into
groundwater. The applicant shall
include in its assessment a description
of any groundwater protection program
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
used for the surveillance of piping and
components containing radioactive
liquids for which a pathway to
groundwater may exist. The assessment
must also include a description of any
past inadvertent releases and the
projected impact to the environment
(e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds,
ocean) during the license renewal term.
■ 3. In § 51.71, revise paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
§ 51.71 Draft environmental impact
statement—contents.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Analysis. Unless excepted in this
paragraph or § 51.75, the draft
environmental impact statement will
include a preliminary analysis that
considers and weighs the environmental
effects, including any cumulative
effects, of the proposed action; the
environmental impacts of alternatives to
the proposed action; and alternatives
available for reducing or avoiding
adverse environmental effects.
Additionally, the draft environmental
impact statement will include a
consideration of the economic,
technical, and other benefits and costs
of the proposed action and alternatives.
The draft environmental impact
statement will indicate what other
interests and considerations of Federal
policy, including factors not related to
environmental quality, if applicable, are
relevant to the consideration of
environmental effects of the proposed
action identified under paragraph (a) of
this section. The draft supplemental
environmental impact statement
prepared at the license renewal stage
under § 51.95(c) need not discuss the
economic or technical benefits and costs
of either the proposed action or
alternatives except if benefits and costs
are either essential for a determination
regarding the inclusion of an alternative
in the range of alternatives considered
or relevant to mitigation. In addition,
the supplemental environmental impact
statement prepared at the license
renewal stage need not discuss other
issues not related to the environmental
effects of the proposed action and
associated alternatives. The draft
supplemental environmental impact
statement for license renewal prepared
under § 51.95(c) will rely on
conclusions as amplified by the
supporting information in the GEIS for
issues designated as Category 1 in
appendix B to subpart A of this part.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
The draft supplemental environmental
impact statement must contain an
analysis of those issues identified as
Category 2 in appendix B to subpart A
of this part that are open for the
proposed action. The analysis for all
draft environmental impact statements
will, to the fullest extent practicable,
quantify the various factors considered.
To the extent that there are important
qualitative considerations or factors that
cannot be quantified, these
considerations or factors will be
discussed in qualitative terms.
Consideration will be given to
compliance with environmental quality
standards and requirements that have
been imposed by Federal, State,
regional, and local agencies having
responsibility for environmental
protection, including applicable zoning
and land-use regulations and water
pollution limitations or requirements
issued or imposed under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The
environmental impact of the proposed
action will be considered in the analysis
with respect to matters covered by
environmental quality standards and
requirements irrespective of whether a
certification or license from the
appropriate authority has been obtained.
While satisfaction of Commission
standards and criteria pertaining to
radiological effects will be necessary to
meet the licensing requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act, the analysis will, for
the purposes of NEPA, consider the
radiological effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
*
*
*
*
*
Compliance with the environmental
quality standards and requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(imposed by EPA or designated permitting
states) is not a substitute for, and does not
negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all
environmental effects of the proposed action,
including the degradation, if any, of water
quality, and to consider alternatives to the
proposed action that are available for
reducing adverse effects. Where an
environmental assessment of aquatic impact
from plant discharges is available from the
permitting authority, the NRC will consider
the assessment in its determination of the
magnitude of environmental impacts for
striking an overall cost-benefit balance at the
construction permit and operating license
and early site permit and combined license
stages, and in its determination of whether
the adverse environmental impacts of license
renewal are so great that preserving the
option of license renewal for energy planning
decision-makers would be unreasonable at
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
37317
the license renewal stage. When no such
assessment of aquatic impacts is available
from the permitting authority, NRC will
establish on its own, or in conjunction with
the permitting authority and other agencies
having relevant expertise, the magnitude of
potential impacts for striking an overall costbenefit balance for the facility at the
construction permit and operating license
and early site permit and combined license
stages, and in its determination of whether
the adverse environmental impacts of license
renewal are so great that preserving the
option of license renewal for energy planning
decision-makers would be unreasonable at
the license renewal stage.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 51.95 by revising
paragraph (c) introductory text and the
second sentence of paragraph (c)(4) to
read as follows:
■
§ 51.95 Postconstruction environmental
impact statements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Operating license renewal stage. In
connection with the renewal of an
operating license or combined license
for a nuclear power plant under 10 CFR
parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the
Commission shall prepare an
environmental impact statement, which
is a supplement to the Commission’s
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants’’ (June 2013), which is
available in the NRC’s Public Document
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * * In order to make
recommendations and reach a final
decision on the proposed action, the
NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and
Commission shall integrate the
conclusions in the generic
environmental impact statement for
issues designated as Category 1 with
information developed for those
Category 2 issues applicable to the plant
under § 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and any new and
significant information. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
5. In appendix B to subpart A of part
51, Table B–1 is revised to read as
follows:
■
Appendix B to Subpart A—
Environmental Effect of Renewing the
Operating License of a Nuclear Power
Plant
*
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
*
*
20JNR2
*
*
37318
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1
Category 2
Issue
Finding 3
Land Use
Onsite land use ...........................................
1
Offsite land use ...........................................
1
Offsite land use in transmission line rightof-ways (ROWs) 4.
1
SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear power
plant site and would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee.
SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would continue with no change in land use
restrictions.
Visual Resources
Aesthetic impacts ........................................
1
SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant structures or transmission lines are expected from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Air Quality
Air quality impacts (all plants) .....................
1
Air quality effects of transmission lines 4 ....
1
SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal are expected to be small at all plants. Emissions resulting
from refurbishment activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after these refurbishment activities are completed. Operating experience has shown that the scale of
refurbishment activities has not resulted in exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants, and best management practices including fugitive dust
controls and the imposition of permit conditions in State and local air emissions
permits would ensure conformance with applicable State or Tribal Implementation
Plans.
Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and routine operations
of boilers used for space heating would not be a concern, even for plants located
in or adjacent to nonattainment areas. Impacts from cooling tower particulate
emissions even under the worst-case situations have been small.
SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not
contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.
Noise
Noise impacts .............................................
1
SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors
during continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Geologic Environment
Geology and soils .......................................
1
SMALL. The effect of geologic and soil conditions on plant operations and the impact of continued operations and refurbishment activities on geology and soils
would be small for all nuclear power plants and would not change appreciably during the license renewal term.
Surface Water Resources
1
Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures.
1
Altered salinity gradients .............................
1
Altered thermal stratification of lakes ..........
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Surface water use and quality (non-cooling
system impacts).
1
Scouring caused by discharged cooling
water.
1
Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent.
1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
SMALL. Impacts are expected to be small if best management practices are employed to control soil erosion and spills. Surface water use associated with continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would not increase significantly or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant
outage.
SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.
SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the area in the vicinity of
the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating
nuclear power plants.
SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the area in the vicinity of
the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating
nuclear power plants.
SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have
been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit process.
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
37319
TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1—
Continued
Category 2
Issue
Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes,
and minor chemical spills.
1
Surface water use conflicts (plants with
once-through cooling systems).
Surface water use conflicts (plants with
cooling ponds or cooling towers using
makeup water from a river).
Effects of dredging on surface water quality.
1
2
1
Temperature effects on sediment transport
capacity.
1
Finding 3
SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by Federal and State environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES
permit process. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear
power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.
SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water
demands.
SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a
problem for surface water quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local agencies.
SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear
power plants and are not expected to be a problem.
Groundwater Resources
Groundwater contamination and use (noncooling system impacts).
1
Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw less than 100 gallons per minute
[gpm]).
Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute
[gpm]).
Groundwater use conflicts (plants with
closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river).
1
Groundwater quality degradation resulting
from water withdrawals.
Groundwater quality degradation (plants
with cooling ponds in salt marshes).
1
1
Groundwater quality degradation (plants
with cooling ponds at inland sites).
2
Radionuclides released to groundwater .....
2
SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Industrial practices involving the use
of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of
wastewater ponds or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site groundwater,
soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to State or Environmental Protection
Agency regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The application of best management practices for handling any materials produced or used during these activities would reduce impacts.
SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any
groundwater use conflicts.
2
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm could
cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users.
2
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge.
The significance of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water
availability, and competing water demands.
SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality degradation.
SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality.
However, groundwater in salt marshes is naturally brackish and thus, not potable.
Consequently, the human use of such groundwater is limited to industrial purposes.
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Inland sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could
degrade groundwater quality. The significance of the impact would depend on
cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction
of surface water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and pump rate of
water wells.
SMALL or MODERATE. Leaks of radioactive liquids from plant components and
pipes have occurred at numerous plants. Groundwater protection programs have
been established at all operating nuclear power plants to minimize the potential
impact from any inadvertent releases. The magnitude of impacts would depend on
site-specific characteristics.
Terrestrial Resources
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system impacts).
2
Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides.
1
Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).
1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Impacts resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal may affect terrestrial communities.
Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts.
The magnitude of impacts would depend on the nature of the activity, the status of
the resources that could be affected, and the effectiveness of mitigation.
SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.
SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or animals have been reported as a
result of increased water temperatures, fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to the low concentrations of contaminants in cooling system effluents, uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of wildlife exposed to the
contaminated water or aquatic food sources are not expected to be significant
issues.
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37320
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1—
Continued
Category 2
Issue
Cooling tower impacts on
(plants with cooling towers).
vegetation
1
Bird collisions with plant structures and
transmission lines 4.
1
Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup water from
a river).
Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management impacts on terrestrial resources 4.
Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna
(plants, agricultural crops, honeybees,
wildlife, livestock) 4.
2
1
1
Finding 3
SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with
cooling tower operation have the potential to affect adjacent vegetation, but these
impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected
to change over the license renewal term.
SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and other plant structures and transmission lines occur at rates that are unlikely to affect local or migratory populations and the rates are not expected to change.
SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources in riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance.
SMALL. Continued ROW management during the license renewal term is expected
to keep terrestrial communities in their current condition. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts.
SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna
have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Aquatic Resources
2
Impingement and entrainment of aquatic
organisms (plants with cooling towers).
1
Entrainment
of
phytoplankton
zooplankton (all plants).
and
1
Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms
(plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).
2
Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms
(plants with cooling towers).
Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all
plants).
1
Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and
eutrophication.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Impingement and entrainment of aquatic
organisms (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds).
1
Effects of non-radiological contaminants on
aquatic organisms.
1
Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides.
1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
1
PO 00000
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of impingement and entrainment are
small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with
once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling system
withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the site.
SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at plants that use closedcycle cooling with cooling towers because the rates and volumes of water withdrawal needed for makeup are minimized.
SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem
during the license renewal term.
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects associated with thermal discharges are localized and are not expected to affect overall stability of populations
or resources. The magnitude of impacts, however, would depend on site-specific
thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic resources in the area.
SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use cooling towers are expected
to be small because of the reduced amount of heated discharge.
SMALL. Continued operations during the license renewal term are expected to have
small thermal impacts with respect to the following:
Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with oncethrough cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been found to be
a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds,
and is not expected to be a problem.
Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants and are not expected to be a problem.
Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the larger
geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.
Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem.
Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was a
problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants
with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem.
SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear
power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been mitigated. Low dissolved oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power plant with a once-through
cooling system but has been mitigated. Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and resulting effects on chemical and biological oxygen demands have not been found
to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants.
SMALL. Best management practices and discharge limitations of NPDES permits
are expected to minimize the potential for impacts to aquatic resources during
continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Accumulation of metal contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants
but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes
with those of another metal.
SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic organisms.
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
37321
TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1—
Continued
Category 2
Issue
Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms ..
1
Water use conflicts with aquatic resources
(plants with cooling ponds or cooling
towers using makeup water from a river).
Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling
system impacts).
2
Impacts of transmission line right-of-way
(ROW) management on aquatic resources 4.
Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses.
1
1
1
Finding 3
SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to occur infrequently, would
be of relatively short duration, and would affect relatively small areas. Dredging is
performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly,
from other State or local agencies.
SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on aquatic resources in stream communities affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance in some situations.
SMALL. Licensee application of appropriate mitigation measures is expected to result in no more than small changes to aquatic communities from their current condition.
SMALL. Licensee application of best management practices to ROW maintenance is
expected to result in no more than small impacts to aquatic resources.
SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating
nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Special Status Species and Habitats
Threatened, endangered, and protected
species and essential fish habitat.
2
The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat would depend on the occurrence of listed
species and habitats and the effects of power plant systems on them. Consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed to determine whether special status species or habitats are present and whether they would be adversely affected
by continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural resources 4 .................
2
Continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to have no more than small impacts on historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the transmission line ROW because most impacts could be
mitigated by avoiding those resources. The National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) requires the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate Native American Tribes to determine the potential effects on historic properties and mitigation, if necessary.
Socioeconomics
1
Tax revenues ..............................................
1
Community services and education ............
1
Population and housing ..............................
1
Transportation .............................................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Employment and income, recreation and
tourism.
1
SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of employees with higher
than average wages and salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism
impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small.
SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy
production. The amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term as a
result of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal
is not expected to change.
SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal to local community and educational services would be small.
With little or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant, value of the power
plant, payments on energy production, and PILOT payments expected during the
license renewal term, community and educational services would not be affected
by continued power plant operations.
SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal to regional population and housing availability and value
would be small. With little or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant expected during the license renewal term, population and housing availability and
values would not be affected by continued power plant operations.
SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal to traffic volumes would be small.
Human Health
Radiation exposures to the public ..............
1
Radiation exposures to plant workers ........
1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to continue at current levels, and
would be well below regulatory limits.
SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the current license term, and would continue to be well below regulatory limits.
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37322
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1—
Continued
Category 2
Issue
Human health impact from chemicals ........
1
Microbiological hazards to the public
(plants with cooling ponds or canals or
cooling towers that discharge to a river).
2
Microbiological hazards to plant workers ....
1
Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) 4,6.
N/A 5
Physical occupational hazards ...................
1
Electric shock hazards 4 ..............................
2
Finding 3
SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be minimized by
the licensee implementing good industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and
the potential for impacts to the public are expected to be minimized by adherence
to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits.
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes,
or canals, or that discharge into rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific
characteristics.
SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures as
required by permits and Federal and State regulations.
Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence
linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that
have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic
acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because
the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human
health impacts is possible.
SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to all types of electrical
generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and are of small significance if
the workers adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment as required
by Federal and State regulations.
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is of small significance
for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each
nuclear power plant’s in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to determine
the significance of the electrical shock potential.
Postulated Accidents
Design-basis accidents ...............................
1
Severe accidents ........................................
2
SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of designbasis accidents are of small significance for all plants.
SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout
onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic
impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to
mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.
Environmental Justice
Minority and low-income populations ..........
2
Impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence consumption resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal
will be addressed in plant-specific reviews. See NRC Policy Statement on the
Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004).
Waste Management
1
Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel ..........
1
Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.
N/A 5
Mixed-waste storage and disposal .............
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Low-level waste storage and disposal ........
1
Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal
1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public
doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain small during the license renewal term.
SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20
years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal
term with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants.
Uncertain impact. The generic conclusion on offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste is not being finalized pending the completion of a
generic environmental impact statement on waste confidence.7
SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures
that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses
and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and
the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any
individual plant at licensed sites are small.
SMALL. No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive waste are anticipated
during the license renewal term. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure
continued proper handling, storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure
to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
37323
TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1—
Continued
Category 2
Issue
Finding 3
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts .....................................
2
Cumulative impacts of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered on a plant-specific basis. Impacts would depend on regional resource characteristics, the resource-specific impacts of license
renewal, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the resource.
Uranium Fuel Cycle
Offsite radiological impacts—individual impacts from other than the disposal of
spent fuel and high-level waste.
1
Offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of
spent fuel and high-level waste.
1
Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel
cycle.
Transportation .............................................
1
1
SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological exposures have been considered by the Commission in Table S–3 of this part. Based on information in the
GEIS, impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory
limits.
There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public
from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health effects on the basis of
collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and
operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The Commission
concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation
under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission
has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.
SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant would be small.
SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the environment are expected to be small.
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Termination of plant operations and decommissioning.
1
SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect on the impacts of
terminating operations and decommissioning on all resources.
1 Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG–1437, Revision 1, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ (June 2013).
2 The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:
Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic;
(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for Offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste); and
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional
plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.
Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that one or more of the criteria of
Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is required.
3 The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ‘‘small,’’ may be negligible. The definitions of significance follow:
SMALL—For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do
not exceed permissible levels in the Commission’s regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table.
MODERATE—For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE—For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in determining significance.
4 This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as transmission lines that connect the
nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power
to the nuclear plant from the grid.
5 NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.
6 If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health
agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews
of these health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue.
7 As a result of the decision of United States Court of Appeals in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (DC Cir. 2012), the NRC cannot rely upon
its Waste Confidence Decision and Rule until it has taken those actions that will address the deficiencies identified by the D.C. Circuit. Although
the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule did not assess the impacts associated with disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a repository, it did reflect the Commission’s confidence, at the time, in the technical feasibility of a repository and when that repository could have
been expected to become available. Without the analysis in the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule regarding the technical feasibility and
availability of a repository, the NRC cannot assess how long the spent fuel will need to be stored onsite.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
37324
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of June 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–14310 Filed 6–19–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 51 and 54
[NRC–2008–0608]
RIN 3150–AI42
Preparation of Environmental Reports
for Nuclear Power Plant License
Renewal Applications
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Regulatory guide; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 1
to Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2,
Supplement 1 (RG 4.2S1), ‘‘Preparation
of Environmental Reports for Nuclear
Power Plant License Renewal
Applications.’’ This regulatory guide
provides guidance to applicants in the
preparation of environmental reports
that are submitted with the application
for the renewal of a nuclear power plant
operating license. Applicants should
use this regulatory guide when
preparing an environmental report for
license renewal to ensure that the
information they submit to the NRC is
complete and facilitates the NRC staff’s
review.
DATES: June 20, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2008–0608 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access information related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly available,
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0608. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Jun 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
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. Revision
1 of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement
1, is available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML13067A354.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s Public Document Room O1–
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
Regulatory guides are not
copyrighted, and NRC approval is not
required to reproduce them.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emmanuel Sayoc, telephone: 301–415–
1924, email: Emmanuel.Sayoc@nrc.gov,
or Edward O’Donnell, telephone: 301–
251–7455, email:
Edward.Odonnell@nrc.gov. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is issuing a revision to an
existing regulatory guide in the NRC’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe and make
available to the public information such
as methods that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing specific
parts of the agency’s regulations,
techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or
postulated accidents, and data that the
staff needs in its review of applications
for permits and licenses.
The NRC is publishing a final rule,
‘‘Revisions to Environmental Review for
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses’’ (RIN 3150–AI42;
NRC–2008–0608), in the Rules and
Regulations section of this issue of the
Federal Register that amends its
environmental protection regulations by
updating the Commission’s 1996
findings on the environmental impacts
of renewing the operating license of a
nuclear power plant. The NRC complies
with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) through the implementation
of its regulations in Part 51 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) (see Table B–1 in Appendix B to
Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51). The
environmental reports submitted by
license renewal applicants are part of
the process set forth in 10 CFR part 51.
The final rule incorporates lessons
learned and knowledge gained from
license renewal environmental reviews
conducted by the NRC since 1996.
Specifically, the final rule amends Table
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B–1 by redefining the number and scope
of the environmental impact issues that
must be considered by the NRC during
license renewal environmental reviews
and amends other related regulations in
10 CFR part 51 (i.e., 10 CFR 51.53,
51.71, and 51.95). For renewal of
nuclear power plant operating licenses,
RG 4.2S1, Revision 1, provides guidance
to applicants in the preparation of
environmental reports.
Also in the Rules and Regulations
section of this issue of the Federal
Register, the NRC is publishing
Revision 1 to NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’
(ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML13106A241, ML13106A242, and
ML13106A244); and Revision 1 to
NUREG–1555, ‘‘Standard Review Plans
for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear
Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating
License Renewal’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13106A246).
II. Further Information
The NRC made the draft of Revision
1 of RG 4.2S1 available for public
comment as Draft Guide (DG)–4015 on
July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38238), with a 75day public comment period. The NRC
extended the public comment period for
another 90 days, with a closing date of
January 12, 2010 (74 FR 51522; October
7, 2009). The NRC received 3 public
comments from the Nuclear Energy
Institute, New York State Office of the
Attorney General, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. The
NRC staff’s response to public
comments is available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML13067A355.
III. Congressional Review Act
This regulatory guide is a rule as
designated in the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808). However, the
Office of Management and Budget has
not found it to be a major rule as
designated in the Congressional Review
Act.
IV. Backfitting and Issue Finality
This regulatory guide provides the
NRC’s first guidance on compliance
with the revised provisions of 10 CFR
part 51. The statement of considerations
for the final rule that amended 10 CFR
part 51 explains that issuance of the
final rule does not constitute
‘‘backfitting’’ as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1) of the Backfit Rule and is
not otherwise inconsistent with the
applicable issue finality provisions in
10 CFR part 52 (see Section XIX,
‘‘Backfitting and Issue Finality,’’ of the
final rule). The first issuance of
guidance on a new rule does not
E:\FR\FM\20JNR2.SGM
20JNR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37281-37324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14310]
[[Page 37281]]
Vol. 78
Thursday,
No. 119
June 20, 2013
Part II
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 51, 54
Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses; Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear
Power Plant License Renewal Applications; License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plants; Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Standard
Review Plans for Environmental Reviews; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 37282]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
RIN 3150-AI42
[NRC-2008-0608]
Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
environmental protection regulations by updating the Commission's 1996
findings on the environmental effect of renewing the operating license
of a nuclear power plant. The final rule redefines the number and scope
of the environmental impact issues that must be addressed by the NRC
during license renewal environmental reviews. This final rule also
incorporates lessons learned and knowledge gained from license renewal
environmental reviews conducted by the NRC since 1996.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 22, 2013. However, compliance is
not required until June 20, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0608 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this final rule. You may
access information and comment submittals related to this final
rulemaking, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0608. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this final rule.
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 XII,
``Availability of Documents,'' of this document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stewart Schneider, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4123; email:
Stewart.Schneider@nrc.gov; or Mr. Jeffrey Rikhoff, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1090; email: Jeffrey.Rikhoff@nrc.gov.
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the NRC to issue
commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses for up to 40 years.
The NRC's regulations allow for the renewal of these operating licenses
for up to an additional 20 years. The license renewal process includes
reviewing a license renewal application, conducting the assessment, and
then, if all applicable safety standards are met, renewing the license.
The NRC's review of a license renewal application proceeds along two
independent regulatory tracks: one for safety issues and another for
environmental issues. The license renewal process is defined by a clear
set of regulations that are designed to ensure safe operation and
protection of the environment during the license renewal term. The
NRC's regulations for the license renewal safety review are set forth
in Part 54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The
NRC's environmental protection regulations are set forth in 10 CFR part
51.
The renewal application is the principal document that an applicant
provides to both request and support renewal for a nuclear power
reactor's operating license. The license renewal application includes
both general and technical information that demonstrates that an
applicant is in compliance with the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part
54. During the renewal process, the license renewal applicant must
confirm whether the design assumptions used for the original licensing
basis will continue to be valid throughout the period of extended
operation and that the aging effects will be adequately managed. The
applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be managed in
such a way that the intended functions of ``passive'' or ``long-lived''
structures and components (such as the reactor vessel, reactor coolant
system, piping, steam generators, pressurizer, pump casings, and
valves) will be maintained during the license renewal term (also known
as the period of extended operation). For active components, such as
motors, diesel generators, cooling fans, batteries, relays, and
switches, the Commission's ongoing regulatory oversight programs
already ensure that the components continue to perform their intended
function during the period of license renewal. This information must be
sufficiently detailed in the application to permit the NRC staff to
determine if the applicant's management of these issues is adequate to
allow operation during the extended period of operation without undue
risk to the public and workers' health and safety.
In addition to the safety assessment, the applicant must also
prepare an evaluation of the potential impacts to the environment of
facility operation for an additional 20 years. Under the NRC's
environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51, which implement
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear
power plant operating license requires the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS). To support the preparation of
these EISs, the NRC issued a rule in 1996 to define which impacts would
essentially be the same at all nuclear power plants (Category 1 issues)
and which ones could be different at different plants and would require
a plant-specific analysis to determine the impacts (Category 2 issues).
For each license renewal application, those impacts that require a
plant-specific analysis must be analyzed by the applicant in its
environmental report and by the NRC in its associated EIS. The final
rule amends those regulations by updating the Commission's 1996 rule.
The final rule redefines the number and scope of the environmental
impact issues that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during
license renewal environmental reviews. These changes are based
primarily on lessons learned and knowledge gained from license renewal
environmental reviews conducted by the NRC since 1996.
The NRC prepared a regulatory analysis to determine the expected
quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits of the final rule. The
analysis concluded that the final rule will result
[[Page 37283]]
in net savings to the industry and the NRC. For more information,
please see the regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML110760321).
Summary of the Major Rule Changes
In the 1996 rule, there were 92 environmental impact issues, 23 of
which required a plant-specific analysis (Category 2 issues) during
license renewal environmental reviews. In the final rule, there are 78
environmental impact issues, 17 of which require a plant-specific
analysis. The following bullets summarize the major changes to the
rule:
Based on the related nature of the issues, several
Category 1 issues were consolidated with other Category 1 issues. This
includes some issues that were changed from Category 2 to Category 1
and subsequently combined with other, related Category 1 issues.
Similarly, several Category 2 issues were combined with related
Category 2 issues.
New Category 1 issues were added: geology and soils;
effects of dredging on surface water quality; groundwater use and
quality; exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides; exposure
of aquatic organisms to radionuclides; effects of dredging on aquatic
organisms; impacts of transmission line right-of-way management on
aquatic resources; employment and income; tax revenues; human health
impacts from chemicals; and physical occupational hazards.
Several issues were changed from Category 2 to Category 1:
Offsite land use, air quality, public services (several issues), and
population and housing.
New Category 2 issues were added: Radionuclides released
to groundwater, water use conflicts with terrestrial resources, water
use conflicts with aquatic resources, and cumulative impacts.
One uncharacterized issue was reclassified as Category 2:
Environmental justice/minority and low-income populations.
One Category 1 issue was revised to narrow the scope of
its finding due to the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) decision in New York v. NRC, 681
F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated the NRC's 2010 Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule (75 FR 81032 and 81037; December 23,
2010): Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel.
One Category 1 issue was reclassified as uncategorized due
to the New York v. NRC decision: Offsite radiological impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Public Meetings
III. Discussion
IV. Response to Public Comments
A. Overview
B. Summary of Comments Resulting in Substantive Changes to the
Rule
C. Summary of Other Comments
V. Related Issues of Importance
A. Fukushima Events
B. Removal of References to the Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule
C. Effective and Compliance Dates for Final Rule
D. Best Management Practices
E. Definition of ``Historic Properties''
VI. Revisions to 10 CFR 51.53
A. Reclassifying Category 2 Issues as Category 1 Issues
B. Adding New Category 2 Issues
VII. Response to Specific Request for Voluntary Information
VIII. Final Actions and Basis for Changes to Table B-1
IX. Section-by-Section Analysis
X. Guidance Documents
XI. Agreement State Compatibility
XII. Availability of Documents
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XIV. Environmental Impact--Categorical Exclusion
XV. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XVI. Plain Writing
XVII. Regulatory Analysis
XVIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XIX. Backfitting and Issue Finality
XX. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
Rulemaking History
In 1986, the NRC initiated a program to develop license renewal
regulations and associated regulatory guidance in anticipation of
receiving applications for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating
licenses. In 1996, the NRC published a final rule that amended the
environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51 for applicants
seeking to renew an operating license for up to an additional 20
years.\1\ The 1996 final rule was based upon the analyses and findings
of a May 1996 NRC environmental impact statement, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,''
NUREG-1437 (the ``1996 GEIS'') (Vol. 1, ``Main Report,'' ADAMS
Accession No. ML040690705; Vol. 2, ``Appendices,'' ADAMS Accession No.
ML040690738).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 61 FR 28467 (June 5, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the findings of the 1996 GEIS, the 1996 final rule
identified those license renewal environmental impact issues for which
a generic analysis had been determined to be appropriate and therefore,
did not have to be addressed by a license renewal applicant in its
plant-specific environmental report or by the NRC in its plant-specific
supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) to the 1996 GEIS.
Similarly, based upon the findings of the 1996 GEIS, the 1996 final
rule identified those environmental impacts for which a site- or plant-
specific analysis was required, both by the applicant in its
environmental report and by the NRC in its SEIS. The 1996 final rule,
amongst other amendments to 10 CFR part 51, added Appendix B to Subpart
A of 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating
License of a Nuclear Power Plant.'' Appendix B included Table B-1,
``Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plants,'' which summarized the findings of the 1996 GEIS.
In preparing the 1996 GEIS, the Commission determined that certain
environmental impacts associated with the renewal of a nuclear power
plant operating license were the same or similar for all plants and, as
such, could be treated on a generic basis. In this way, repetitive
reviews of these environmental impacts could be avoided. The Commission
based its generic assessment of certain environmental impacts on the
following factors:
(1) License renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which the
environmental impacts of operation are well understood as a result of
lessons learned and knowledge gained from operating experience and
completed license renewals.
(2) Activities associated with license renewal are expected to be
within this range of operating experience; thus, environmental impacts
can be reasonably predicted.
(3) Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are
gradual and predictable.
The 1996 GEIS improved the efficiency of the license renewal
process by: (1) Providing an evaluation of the types of environmental
impacts that may occur from renewing commercial nuclear power plant
operating licenses; (2) identifying and assessing impacts that are
expected to be generic (i.e., the same or similar) at all nuclear power
plants or plants with specified plant or site characteristics; and (3)
defining the number and scope of environmental impacts that need to be
addressed in plant-specific SEISs to the 1996 GEIS.
In short, the 1996 final rule identified environmental impact
issues (i.e., Category 1 issues) \2\ that do not have to
[[Page 37284]]
be addressed by licensees in environmental reports for nuclear power
plant license renewal applications or by the NRC in plant-specific
SEISs because these issues have been addressed generically for all
nuclear power plants in the 1996 GEIS. Similarly, the 1996 final rule
also identified environmental impact issues (i.e., Category 2 issues)
\3\ that must be addressed in plant-specific reviews by licensees in
their environmental reports and by the NRC in the SEISs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A Category 1 issue is one that meets the following criteria:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been
determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to
plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified
plant or site characteristic; (2) a single significance level (i.e.,
small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except
for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and
from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal); and (3) mitigation
of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in
the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-
specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently
beneficial to warrant implementation.
\3\ A Category 2 issue is one where one or more of the Category
1 criteria cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific
review is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), the NRC amended the final rule
published in 1996 to incorporate minor clarifying and conforming
changes and to add language omitted from Table B-1 in Appendix B to
Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 (hereafter ``Table B-1 in Appendix B to
Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51'' is referred to as ``Table B-1'').
1999 Final Rule
The NRC amended 10 CFR part 51, including Table B-1, on September
3, 1999 (64 FR 48496). This amendment expanded the generic findings
pertaining to the environmental impacts resulting from transportation
of fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power plant. This
amendment also incorporated rule language consistent with the 1996
GEIS, which addressed local traffic impacts attributable to the
continued operations of a nuclear power plant during the license
renewal term.
Current Rulemaking
As stated in the 1996 final rule that incorporated the findings of
the GEIS in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC recognized that environmental
impact issues might change over time and that additional issues may
need to be considered. As further stated in the preamble to Table B-1,
the NRC indicated that it intended to review the material in Table B-1
on a 10-year basis.
The NRC began this review on June 3, 2003, by publishing a notice
of intent to revise the 1996 GEIS (68 FR 33209). As part of this
process and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.29, the NRC conducted scoping and
held a series of public meetings (see 74 FR 38119 for more details).
The original public comment period began in June 2003 and closed in
September 2003. The project was inactive for the next 2 years due to
limited NRC staff resources and competing demands. On October 3, 2005
(70 FR 57628), the NRC reopened the public comment period and extended
it until December 30, 2005.
On July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38117), the NRC published the proposed
rule, ``Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses,'' for public comment in the Federal Register.
The proposed rule would amend Table B-1 by updating the Commission's
1996 findings on the environmental impacts related to the renewal of
nuclear power plant operating licenses and other NRC environmental
protection regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 51.53, which sets forth the
contents of the applicant's environmental report). Together with the
proposed rule, the NRC also published a notice of availability of the
draft revised GEIS (ADAMS Accession No. ML090220654); a proposed
Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, Supplement 1, ``Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal
Applications'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML091620409); and a proposed
Revision 1 to NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, ``Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090230497), in the Federal Register (74 FR 38238). All of the
documents requested public comments.
The proposed amendments were based on consideration of (1) Comments
received from the public during the public scoping period, (2) a review
of comments received on plant-specific SEISs completed since the 1996
GEIS was issued, and (3) lessons learned and knowledge gained from
previous and ongoing license renewal environmental reviews. The history
of this rulemaking is discussed in more detail in the July 31, 2009 (74
FR 38117), proposed rule. The draft revised GEIS provided the
regulatory basis for the July 2009 proposed rule.
The proposed rule provided a 75-day public comment period, which
closed on October 14, 2009. The NRC received requests to extend the
comment period to provide the public more time to analyze and review
the legal, regulatory, and policy issues covered by the proposed rule
and supporting documents. On October 7, 2009 (74 FR 51522), the NRC
granted the requests, and the public comment period for the proposed
rule and the proposed revisions to the GEIS, the regulatory guide, and
standard review plan was extended to January 12, 2010.
II. Public Meetings
During the public comment period, the NRC conducted six public
meetings to solicit comments on the proposed rule, draft revised GEIS,
and related draft guidance documents. The official transcripts, written
comments, and meeting summaries for the following public meetings are
available electronically for public inspection at the NRC's PDR or
online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html:
(1) September 15, 2009, Atlanta, GA (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092810007);
(2) September 17, 2009, Newton, MA (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092931681);
(3) September 24, 2009, Oak Brook, IL (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092931545);
(4) October 1, 2009, Rockville, MD (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092931678);
(5) October 20, 2009, Pismo Beach, CA (ADAMS Accession No.
ML093070174); and
(6) October 22, 2009, Dana Point, CA (ADAMS Accession No.
ML093100505).
A summary of these meetings is publicly available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML093070141.
On June 21, 2011, the NRC conducted another public meeting to
discuss final rule implementation in Rockville, MD. No public comments
were solicited at this meeting because the public comment period for
the proposed rule had closed on January 12, 2010. A summary of this
meeting is publicly available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML11182B535.
III. Discussion
1996 GEIS
Under the NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part
51, which implements Section 102(2) of NEPA, renewal of a nuclear power
plant operating license requires the preparation of an EIS (see 10 CFR
51.20(b)(2)). The 1996 GEIS summarized the findings of a systematic
inquiry into the environmental impacts of continued operations and
refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. Of the 92
environmental issues identified and analyzed by the NRC, 69 issues were
determined to be generic (i.e., Category 1); 21 were determined to be
plant-specific (i.e., Category 2); and two did not fit into either
category (i.e., uncategorized). Category 1 issues concern those
potential environmental impacts resulting from license renewal that are
common or generic to all
[[Page 37285]]
nuclear power plants (or for some issues, to plants having a specific
type of cooling system or other specified plant or site
characteristic). Category 2 issues concern those potential
environmental impacts resulting from license renewal that are not
common or generic to all nuclear power plants and, as such, require a
plant-specific analysis to determine the level of impact. The two
uncategorized issues would be addressed by the NRC in each SEIS. Table
B-1 summarizes the findings of the environmental impact analyses
conducted for the 1996 GEIS and lists each issue and its category
level.
Impact levels (small, moderate, or large) were determined for most
NEPA issues (e.g., land use, air, water) evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. A
small impact means that the environmental effects are not detectable,
or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably
alter any important attribute of the resource. A moderate impact means
that the environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but
not destabilize, important attributes of the resource. A large impact
means that the environmental effects would be clearly noticeable and
would be sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the
resource.
The 1996 GEIS has been effective in focusing the NRC's resources on
important license renewal environmental impact issues and has increased
the efficiency of the environmental review process. Currently, 73
nuclear units at 43 plant sites have received renewed operating
licenses.
Revised GEIS
The revised GEIS (Vol. 1, ``Main Report,'' ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A241; Vol. 2, ``Public Comments,'' ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A242; and Vol. 3, ``Appendices,'' ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A244) is both an update and a re-evaluation of the potential
environmental impacts arising from the renewal of an operating license
for a nuclear power reactor for an additional 20 years. Lessons learned
and knowledge gained during previous license renewal environmental
reviews provided a significant source of new information for the
revised GEIS. In addition, public comments received during previous
license renewal environmental reviews were re-examined to validate
existing environmental issues and identify new ones. In preparing the
revised GEIS, the NRC considered the need to modify, add to,
consolidate, or delete any of the 92 environmental issues evaluated in
the 1996 GEIS.
In the proposed rule and draft revised GEIS, the NRC carried
forward 78 environmental impact issues for detailed consideration.
Fifty-eight of these issues were determined to be Category 1. Of the
remaining 20 issues, 19 were determined to be Category 2 and one issue,
``Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects,'' remained uncategorized.\4\
These issues were summarized in the July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38117),
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects'' remains an
uncategorized issue. Due to the lack of a scientific consensus on
the impacts of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields, the NRC
has not categorized this issue and did not perform a plant-specific
analysis. Once a scientific consensus is reached, the NRC will
categorize the issue for license renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on public comments received on the proposed rule and draft
revised GEIS, a number of the environmental impact issues identified in
the proposed rule were re-evaluated for detailed consideration in the
final revised GEIS and are reflected in the changes made by the final
rule. These changes are discussed in detail in Section VIII, ``Final
Actions and Basis for Changes to Table B-1,'' of this document and are
briefly summarized as follows:
(1) ``Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and
maintenance areas)'' issue was changed from a Category 2 to a Category
1 issue and renamed, ``Air quality impacts (all plants).''
(2) ``Groundwater and soil contamination'' issue was changed from a
Category 2 to a Category 1 issue and consolidated with the
``Groundwater use and quality'' issue into a single renamed Category 1
issue, ``Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system
impacts).''
(3) ``Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms'' issue was changed to
remove several Category 1 thermal impacts issues (these Category 1
issues were consolidated together with a Category 2 thermal impact
issue in the proposed rule) to create a new separate combined Category
1 issue, ``Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants),'' which
also includes the previously separate ``Stimulation of aquatic nuisance
species (e.g., shipworms),'' Category 1 thermal impact issue.
(4) ``Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms'' issue was
changed to remove a single impingement and entrainment Category 1 issue
(consolidated with other impingement and entrainment issues in the
proposed rule) to create a new, separate Category 1 issue,
``Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton (all plants).''
In addition to the changes previously discussed, the NRC has made
changes to the ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' issue and the
``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste disposal'' issue as a result of the United States Court of
Appeals decision in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
which vacated the NRC's 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (75 FR
81032 and 81037; December 23, 2010). The Category 1 ``Onsite storage of
spent nuclear fuel'' issue was revised to limit the period of time
covered by the issue to the license renewal term. Similarly, the NRC
revised the Category 1 issue, ``Offsite radiological impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal'' by reclassifying the issue
from a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small to an
uncategorized issue with an impact level of uncertain. Section V of
this document, ``Related Issues of Importance,'' provides further
details on the NRC's revisions to these issues in response to the New
York v. NRC decision.
Ultimately, 59 environmental impact issues were determined to be
Category 1 and would not require additional plant-specific analysis
unless new and significant information is identified during the license
renewal environmental review. Of the remaining 19 issues, 17 were
determined to be Category 2, one remained uncategorized with respect to
determining the impact level (``Chronic effects of electromagnetic
fields (EMFs)''), and one was reclassified from Category 1 to
uncategorized (``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste disposal''). These 78 issues were evaluated in the
revised GEIS and are summarized in the final rule. No environmental
issues identified in Table B-1 and evaluated in the 1996 GEIS were
eliminated, but certain issues were consolidated or grouped according
to similarities.
Environmental issues in the revised GEIS are arranged by resource
area. This perspective is a change from the 1996 GEIS in which
environmental issues are arranged by power plant systems (e.g., cooling
systems, transmission lines) and activities (e.g., refurbishment). The
structure of the revised GEIS conforms to the NRC's standard format for
EISs found in Appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, ``Format for
Presentation of Material in Environmental Impact Statements.'' The
environmental impacts of license renewal activities, including plant
operations, maintenance, and
[[Page 37286]]
refurbishment activities, along with replacement power alternatives,
are addressed in each resource area. The revised GEIS evaluated
environmental impact issues under the following resource areas: (1)
Land use and visual resources, (2) air quality and noise, (3) geologic
environment, (4) water resources (surface water resources and
groundwater resources), (5) ecological resources (terrestrial
resources, aquatic resources, special status species and habitats), (6)
historic and cultural resources, (7) socioeconomics, (8) human health,
(9) environmental justice, and (10) waste management and pollution
prevention. The final rule revises Table B-1 to follow the
organizational format of the revised GEIS.
In the 1996 GEIS, the NRC assumed that licensees would need to
conduct major refurbishment activities to ensure the safe and economic
operation of nuclear power plants beyond the current license term.
Activities included replacement and repair of major components and
systems, upgrades, and equipment. Replacement of many systems,
structures, and components included steam generators and pressurizers
for pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and recirculation piping systems
for boiling water reactors (BWRs). It was assumed that many nuclear
power plants would also undertake construction projects to replace or
improve infrastructure. Such projects could include construction of new
parking lots, roads, storage buildings, structures, and other
facilities.
Licensee practice since publication of the 1996 GEIS has shown that
many refurbishment activities have already taken place (e.g., steam
generator and vessel head replacement). Most license renewal applicants
have not identified any refurbishment activities associated with
license renewal. Therefore, the revised GEIS assumes that impacts from
refurbishment activities outside of license renewal have been accounted
for in annual site evaluation reports, environmental operating reports,
and radiological environmental monitoring program reports. Detailed
analyses have not been performed for refurbishment actions in the
revised GEIS. Instead, the impacts of typical activities during the
license renewal term, including any refurbishment activities, are
addressed for each resource area.
Environmental impacts of license renewal and the resources that
could be affected are identified in the revised GEIS. The general
analytical approach for identifying environmental impacts was to: (1)
Describe the nuclear power plant activity that could result in an
environmental impact, (2) identify the resource that may be affected,
(3) evaluate past license renewal reviews and other available
information, (4) assess the nature and magnitude of the environmental
impact on the affected resource, (5) characterize the significance of
the effects, and (6) determine whether the results of the analysis
apply to all nuclear power plants (i.e., whether the impact issue is
Category 1 or Category 2).
The revised GEIS, and therefore the final rule, retains the 1996
GEIS definitions of a Category 1 and Category 2 issue. While some
Category 2 issues have been changed to Category 1, no Category 1 issue
has been changed to Category 2. The final rule makes four major types
of changes:
(1) New Category 1 Issues: New Category 1 issues are either new
Category 1 issues (i.e., not previously evaluated in the 1996 GEIS and
listed in Table B-1) or multiple Category 1 issues from the 1996 GEIS
(and listed as multiple Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of the current
rule) that have been consolidated into a single Category 1 issue in the
revised GEIS and in Table B-1. An applicant for license renewal does
not need to assess the potential environmental impacts from these
issues in its environmental report. However, under 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(iv), the applicant is still responsible for reporting in
the environmental report any ``new and significant information'' of
which the applicant is aware. If the applicant is not aware of any new
and significant information that changes the conclusion in the revised
GEIS, the applicant must state this determination in the environmental
report. The NRC has addressed the environmental impacts of these
Category 1 issues generically for all plants in the revised GEIS.
(2) New Category 2 Issues: New Category 2 issues are either new
Category 2 issues (i.e., not previously evaluated in the 1996 GEIS and
listed in Table B-1) or multiple Category 2 issues from the 1996 GEIS
(and listed as multiple Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of the current
rule) that have been consolidated into a single Category 2 issue in the
revised GEIS and in Table B-1. For each new Category 2 issue, an
applicant must conduct a plant-specific assessment of the potential
environmental impacts related to that issue and include it in its
environmental report. The NRC will then analyze the potential
environmental impacts related to that issue in the SEIS.
(3) Existing Issue Category Changes from Category 2 to Category 1:
These are issues that were determined to be Category 2 in the 1996 GEIS
and have been re-evaluated and determined to be Category 1 in the
revised GEIS. Table B-1 has been amended by the final rule. An
applicant is no longer required to conduct a plant-specific assessment
of the environmental impacts associated with these issues in its
environmental report. Similarly, the NRC is no longer required to
analyze the potential environmental impacts related to that issue in
the SEIS. However, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(iv), an applicant is still required to describe in its
environmental report any ``new and significant information'' of which
it is aware.
(4) Existing Issue Changes from Category 1 to Uncategorized: The
``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste disposal'' issue \5\ was determined to be a Category 1 issue in
the 1996 GEIS, but given the DC Circuit decision in New York v. NRC,
the NRC reclassified the issue to uncategorized in the revised GEIS.
Table B-1 has been amended by the final rule. Because the issue is
uncategorized in this final rule, pending further action by the
Commission, an applicant is not required to conduct a plant-specific
assessment of the environmental impacts associated with this issue in
its environmental report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The issue was named ``Offsite radiological impacts (spent
fuel and high waste disposal)'' in the 1996 rule and GEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Response to Public Comments
A. Overview
The public comment period for the proposed rule, draft revised
GEIS, and draft guidance documents associated with this rulemaking,
ended on January 12, 2010. The NRC received 32 document submissions
containing comments from industry stakeholders, representatives of
Federal and State agencies, and other interested parties. The NRC also
received verbal comments at the six public meetings held during the
public comment period. A detailed description of all public comments
submitted on the proposed rule, draft revised GEIS, and draft guidance
documents, and the NRC's responses to those comments, are contained in
separate documents (see Section XII, ``Availability of Documents,'' of
this document). The following section summarizes the major issues
raised during the public comment period resulting in substantive
changes to the rule and other issues raised for which no changes were
made to the rule.
[[Page 37287]]
B. Summary of Comments Resulting in Substantive Changes to the Rule
Several issues were raised during the public comment period that
resulted in substantive changes to the proposed rule, which are briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Seismic issues. Many commenters wanted seismic issues to be
included in the rule and pointed out the importance of reassessing
seismic conditions in determining the safety of operating nuclear power
plants. Industry commenters disagreed and argued that seismology should
not be considered as part of the issue of ``Impacts of nuclear plants
on geology and soils'' in the proposed rule because it is an ongoing
safety issue that is being addressed at all plants.
NRC Response. The NRC agrees with the industry commenters that
consideration of seismic conditions is an ongoing safety issue.
Although seismic conditions at nuclear power plants were generically
discussed in the revised GEIS as part of the geologic environment,
seismology was not identified as a separate issue in the revised GEIS
because the NRC considered historical earthquake data for each nuclear
power plant when that plant was first licensed. The NRC requires all
licensees to take seismic hazards into account in order to maintain
safe operating conditions at all nuclear power plants. When new seismic
hazard information becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new data
and models to determine if any changes are needed at existing plants.
This continuous oversight process, which includes seismic safety,
remains separate from license renewal and takes place on an ongoing
basis at all licensed nuclear facilities.
Sections 3.4 and 4.4.1 of the revised GEIS explain that geologic
and seismic conditions were considered in the original design of
nuclear power plants and are part of the license bases for operating
plants. Seismic conditions are attributes of the geologic environment
that are not affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment
and are not expected to change appreciably during the license renewal
term for all nuclear power plants. The findings relative to geologic
and soil conditions were re-evaluated in the revised GEIS and as such,
the issue has been renamed, ``Geology and soils,'' in Table B-1, and
the findings have been revised for clarity.
Air quality impacts. Several commenters objected to the issue,
``Air quality (nonattainment and maintenance areas),'' being listed as
a Category 2 issue in the proposed rule. These commenters argued that
air quality impacts would be small even in worst-case situations,
because licensees are required to operate within State air permit
requirements.
NRC Response. The NRC agrees with the commenters. The final rule
revises Table B-1 by reclassifying the issue as a Category 1 issue.
Operating experience has shown that the potential impact from emergency
generators and boilers on air quality would be small for all plants
and, given the infrequency and short duration of maintenance testing,
would not be an air quality concern even at plants located in or
adjacent to nonattainment areas.
In addition, the analysis presented in the revised GEIS has shown
that the worst-case emissions from cooling tower drift and particulate
emissions at operating plants were also small. Air quality impacts from
vehicle, equipment, and fugitive dust emissions associated with
refurbishment would also be small for most plants but could be a cause
for concern for plants located in or near air quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas. However, the impacts are expected to be temporary
and would cease once projects were completed. In addition, operating
experience has shown that refurbishment activities have not required
the large numbers of workers and extended durations conservatively
predicted and analyzed in the 1996 GEIS, nor have such activities
resulted in exceedances in the de minimis thresholds for criteria
pollutants in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Consequently, the
NRC agrees with these commenters' arguments that air quality impacts
would be small for all plants and, therefore, a Category 1 issue.
Groundwater and soil contamination. Several commenters objected to
the new Category 2 issue, ``Groundwater and soil contamination,'' in
the proposed rule and asserted that contamination from industrial
practices is addressed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and State regulations that monitor and address these impacts.
Specifically, the use, storage, disposal, release, and/or cleanup of
spilled or leaked solvents, hydrocarbons, and other potentially
hazardous materials are governed by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)).
NRC Response. While classified as a Category 2 issue in the
proposed rule, further consideration of the ``Groundwater and soil
contamination'' issue and public comments revealed that the potential
impacts on groundwater and soil quality from common industrial
practices (e.g., the use, handling, storage, and disposal of chemicals,
petroleum products, waste, and hazardous material) can be addressed
generically because industrial practices employed by nuclear power
plants are not unique, but common to all industrial facilities. The NRC
concludes that the overall impact of industrial practices on
groundwater use and quality from past and current operations is small
for all nuclear power plants and not expected to change appreciably
during the license renewal term. The NRC agrees with the commenters to
the extent that clarification was needed and that common industrial
practices that can cause groundwater or soil contamination can be
addressed generically as a Category 1 issue.
Further, the final rule combines the reclassified ``Groundwater and
soil contamination'' issue with the Category 1 proposed rule issue,
``Groundwater use and quality,'' and renames the consolidated Category
1 issue as ``Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system
impacts).'' These issues were consolidated because they both consider
the impact of industrial activities associated with the continued
operations of a nuclear power plant (not directly related to cooling
system effects) on groundwater use and quality. Consolidating these
issues also conforms to the resource-based approach used in the revised
GEIS and serves to facilitate the license renewal environmental review
process.
The finding column of Table B-1 for ``Impacts of refurbishment on
groundwater use and quality'' prior to the final rule, as analyzed in
the 1996 GEIS, indicated that impacts of continued operations and
refurbishment on groundwater use and quality would be small, as
extensive dewatering is not anticipated, and the application of best
management practices for handling any materials produced or used during
activities would reduce impacts. These findings were re-evaluated in
the revised GEIS and are retained in the finding column of Table B-1
for the consolidated issue.
This new consolidated issue also considers the impacts on
groundwater, soil, and subsoil from the industrial use of solvents,
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals at nuclear power plant
sites during the license renewal
[[Page 37288]]
term, including the impacts resulting from the use of wastewater
disposal ponds or lagoons (both lined or unlined). Industrial practices
at all nuclear power plants have the potential to contaminate
groundwater and soil, especially on sites with unlined wastewater and
storm water lagoons. Contaminants have been found in groundwater and
soil samples at some nuclear power plants during previous license
renewal environmental reviews.
Any groundwater and soil contamination at operating nuclear power
plants is subject to characterization and clean-up under EPA- and
State-regulated remediation and monitoring programs. In addition,
wastewater disposal ponds and lagoons are subject to discharge
authorizations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and related State wastewater discharge permit programs.
Each operating nuclear power plant must comply with these EPA and State
regulatory requirements. As such, each site has an established program
for handling chemicals, waste, and other hazardous materials. Moreover,
nuclear power plant licensees are expected to employ best management
practices, both in minimizing effluents and in remediation. Thus, this
new consolidated issue, as set forth in the final revised GEIS and the
final rule, is listed as a Category 1 issue.
C. Summary of Other Comments
Radionuclides in groundwater. Several commenters expressed
opposition to the inclusion of a new Category 2 issue, ``Radionuclides
released to groundwater,'' with an impact estimate of small to moderate
in the proposed rule. Some commenters indicated that the issue category
should be changed to Category 1; others suggested that the levels of
significance should range to large. The argument for changing the issue
to Category 1 was based on the voluntary industry-wide initiative,
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 07-07, ``Industry Ground Water
Protection Initiative--Final Guidance Document'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML072610036), designed to protect groundwater.
NRC Response. This new, Category 2 issue evaluates the potential
contamination and degradation of groundwater resources resulting from
inadvertent discharges of radionuclides into groundwater from nuclear
power plants. Within the past several years, there have been numerous
events at power reactor sites that involved unknown, uncontrolled, and
unmonitored releases of radionuclides into the groundwater. The number
of these events and the high level of public controversy have made this
an issue that the NRC believes needs a ``hard look,'' as required by
NEPA.
As a voluntary action, NEI 07-07 cannot be enforced by the NRC. As
such, no violations can be issued against a licensee who fails to
comply with the guidance in NEI 07-07. Furthermore, the NRC cannot rely
on a voluntary initiative as a basis to ensure that the nuclear power
industry will monitor and have adequate information available for the
NRC to determine whether the issue does or does not have an adverse
impact on groundwater resources.
Regarding the magnitude of impact, the NRC bases its determination
of small to moderate impact on a review of existing plants that have
had inadvertent releases of radioactive liquids. Even though the NRC
expects impacts for all plants to be within this range, a conclusion of
large impact would not be precluded for a future license renewal review
based on new and significant information, if the data supports such a
conclusion. As reflected in the revised final GEIS and the final rule,
``Radionuclides released to groundwater,'' remains a Category 2 issue.
Radiation exposures to the public. Several commenters identified
recent studies that claim an association between cancer risk and
proximity to nuclear power facilities.
NRC Response. The NRC's regulatory limits for radiological
protection are set to protect workers and the public from the harmful
health effects (i.e., cancer and other biological impacts) of radiation
to humans. The limits are based on the recommendations of scientific
standards-setting organizations. These radiation standards reflect
extensive scientific study by national and international organizations.
The NRC actively participates in and monitors the work of these
organizations to remain current on the latest trends in radiation
protection. If the NRC determines that there is a need to revise its
radiation protection regulations, it will initiate a separate
rulemaking. The models recognized by the NRC for use by licensees to
calculate dose incorporate conservative assumptions to ensure that
workers and members of the public are adequately protected from
radiation.
On April 7, 2010, the NRC announced that it asked the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform a state-of-the-art study on cancer
risk for populations surrounding nuclear power facilities (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100970142). The NAS has a broad range of medical and
scientific experts who can provide the best available analysis of the
complex issues involved in discussing cancer risk and commercial
nuclear power plants. The NAS is a nongovernmental organization
chartered by the U.S. Congress to advise the nation on issues of
science, technology, and medicine. Through the National Research
Council and Institute of Medicine, it carries out studies independently
of the Government, using processes designed to promote transparency,
objectivity, and technical rigor. More information on its methods for
performing studies is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.
The NAS study will update the 1990 U.S. National Institutes of
Health National Cancer Institute (NCI) report, ``Cancer in Populations
Living Near Nuclear Facilities'' (NCI 1990), which concluded there was
no evidence that nuclear facilities may be linked causally with excess
death from leukemia or from other cancers in populations living
nearby.\6\ The study's objectives are to: (1) Evaluate whether cancer
risk is different for populations living near nuclear power facilities,
(2) include cancer occurrence, (3) develop an approach to assess cancer
risk in geographic areas that are smaller than the county level, and
(4) evaluate the study results in the context of offsite doses from
normal reactor operations. The study began in the summer of 2010 and is
expected to be completed within 4 years. The final revised GEIS has
added a discussion on the NRC's sponsorship of this follow-up to the
1990 NCI study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ More information on this report is available at https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, waste disposal, and Yucca
Mountain. Several commenters expressed concern about the increasing
volume of spent nuclear fuel at existing power plant sites and the
availability of a geological repository at Yucca Mountain for future
waste disposal.
NRC Response. The Commission is aware that geologic disposal, at
Yucca Mountain or elsewhere, may not be available in the timeframe that
was originally envisioned. As an alternative, the Commission has
considered the storage of spent nuclear fuel on reactor sites where it
is generated. The impacts associated with onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel at nuclear power plant sites during the license renewal
term are discussed in Section 4.11.1.2 of the revised GEIS. The impacts
associated with offsite radiological impacts from
[[Page 37289]]
spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal are discussed in
Section 4.11.1.3 of the revised GEIS. In light of the DC Circuit's
decision in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471, the NRC has revised two
Table B-1 issues, ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' and
``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste disposal.'' Section V of this document, ``Related Issues of
Importance,'' provides a discussion of the NRC's revisions to these two
issues, as well as the actions the NRC has taken or will take in
response to the New York v. NRC decision.
Postulated accidents. Numerous comments were received on the NRC's
evaluation and classification of postulated accidents in the draft
revised GEIS. One commenter disagreed with the GEIS' conclusion that
environmental impact from design basis accidents (DBAs) is small. Also,
several commenters disagreed with the GEIS conclusion that the
environmental impact from severe accidents is small and further, that
the evaluation is not adequate because of its use of probability-
weighted risk assessments. Their position is that for severe accidents,
the revised GEIS should also evaluate the consequences of reactor
accidents and expand the evaluation to include spent fuel pool
accidents and accidents due to age-related plant component degradation.
In addition, some of the commenters stated that the NRC has gained
enough information from the many plant licenses it has renewed to make
a determination, on a generic basis, that the ``severe accidents''
issue should be reclassified as Category 1.
NRC Response.
Design Basis Accidents. The NRC does not agree that the GEIS'
evaluation of DBAs is incorrect. The NRC evaluates and presents the
potential consequences of DBAs in nuclear power plant licensing
documents and considers them in the GEIS for license renewal.
In order to receive NRC approval for an initial operating license,
an applicant must submit a final safety analysis report (FSAR) as part
of its application. The FSAR presents the applicable design criteria
and design information for the proposed reactor, as well as
comprehensive data on the proposed site. The FSAR also discusses
hypothetical reactor accident situations and addresses the safety
features that prevent and mitigate those accidents. During the initial
licensing process for a power reactor, the NRC reviews the FSAR to
determine whether or not the plant design meets the NRC's regulations.
At initial licensing, the NRC also considered the environmental
impact of DBAs at each operating nuclear power plant. The DBAs are
those events that both the applicant and the NRC evaluate to ensure
that the plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients (e.g.,
rapid changes in reactor power) without undue risk to the health and
safety of the public. Although the NRC does not expect that all of
these postulated events will occur during the life of the plant, the
NRC evaluates them to establish the basis for the preventive and
mitigative safety systems of the facility. The acceptance criteria for
DBAs are described in 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities,'' and 10 CFR part 100, ``Reactor
Site Criteria.'' Compliance with these regulations provides reasonable
assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
During operations, the NRC requires each power plant licensee to
maintain acceptable design and performance criteria in accordance with
the NRC's regulations, including during any license renewal period.
Therefore, the calculated releases from DBAs will remain within the
NRC's regulatory limits.
The 1996 GEIS, in Section 5.2, discusses the impacts of potential
accidents. It contains a discussion of plant accidents and
consequences. This discussion addresses general characteristics of
design basis (and severe) accidents, characteristics of fission
products, meteorological considerations, possible exposure pathways,
potential adverse health effects, avoiding adverse health effects,
accident experience and observed impacts, and emergency preparedness.
The revised GEIS reexamined the information from the 1996 GEIS and
concluded that it is still valid. Because the information on DBAs is
valid and has not changed, the revised GEIS does not repeat the
information from the 1996 GEIS.
Severe Accidents. The NRC does not agree with the comments that the
revised GEIS evaluation is inadequate regarding the impacts from severe
accidents because it uses probability-weighted risk assessments. Severe
accidents (i.e., beyond design basis accidents) are those that could
result in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there
are serious off-site consequences. The 1996 GEIS estimated and
considered the potential impacts on human health and economic factors
from full-power severe reactor accidents initiated by internal events
at different types of nuclear facilities located in different types of
settings. That evaluation included modeling the release of radioactive
materials into the environment and modeling the pathways (i.e.,
exposure to the radioactive plume, inhalation of radioactivity,
consumption of contaminated food) through which members of the public
could potentially be exposed to doses of radiation. Based on the
calculated doses, the GEIS reported the consequences (i.e., potential
early and latent fatalities) from such accidents. In developing a
potential impact level, however, the NRC took into account the very low
probability of such events, as well as their potential consequences,
and concluded that the likely impact from individual nuclear power
plants is small.
In the revised GEIS, the NRC expanded the scope of the severe
accident evaluations and used more recent technical information that
included both internal and external event core-damage frequency, as
well as improved severe accident source terms, spent fuel pool
accidents, low power and reactor shutdown events, new radiation risk-
coefficients from the National Academy of Sciences, ``Health Risks from
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII'' report,\7\ and risk impacts of reactor
power uprates and higher fuel burn-up levels. As a result, the revised
GEIS considers updated information in determining the potential
consequences of a reactor accident. Considering this updated
information and that severe reactor accidents remain unlikely, the
revised GEIS concludes that the environmental impacts of a severe
accident remain small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The BEIR VII report can be accessed at https://search.nap.edu/napsearch.php?term=beir+vii. The NRC staff reviewed
this report in SECY-05-0202, ``Staff Review of the National
Academies Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII),'' dated October 29, 2005 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML052640532).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC notes, however, that the GEIS is not the primary vehicle
the NRC uses to address and regulate risks from severe accidents. The
NRC's regulations and regulatory practices employ safety standards in
the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants as well
as risk models to ensure the public is adequately protected on an on-
going basis. The NRC's ongoing oversight addresses the public's risk
from nuclear power plant accidents, accounts for the effects of
proposed changes that may be made as part of power plant operations,
and considers new information about the facility or its environment
when necessary.
[[Page 37290]]
Although the NRC has determined that impacts from severe accidents
are small for all facilities, the NRC continues to maintain that severe
accidents cannot be a Category 1 issue because plant-specific
mitigation measures vary greatly based on plant designs, safety
systems, fuel type, operating procedures, local environment,
population, and siting characteristics. Thus, severe accidents remain a
Category 2 issue. Accordingly, the NRC has not changed the requirements
in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) that an applicant's environmental report
must contain a discussion that considers alternatives to mitigate
severe accidents if the NRC has not previously considered this issue in
an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment for the
facility.
Spent Fuel Pool Accidents. The 1996 GEIS included a quantitative
analysis of a severe accident involving a reactor operating at full
power. A qualitative evaluation of SFP accidents is presented in
Appendix E of the revised GEIS. Based on this evaluation, the revised
GEIS concludes that the environmental impacts from accidents involving
SFPs are comparable to those from the reactor accidents at full power
that were evaluated in the 1996 GEIS and as such, SFP accidents do not
warrant separate evaluation. Based on the continued validity of
conclusions from the 1996 GEIS, as affirmed by the Commission (see
following paragraph), the revised GEIS does not contain a quantitative
evaluation of SFP accidents.
The issue of an accident involving the spent fuel pool was
specifically addressed by the NRC in its denial of two petitions for
rulemaking (PRM): PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12, submitted by the Attorney
General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2006 and the Attorney
General of California in 2007, respectively.\8\ The petitioners
requested that the NRC initiate a rulemaking concerning the
environmental impacts of the high density storage of spent nuclear fuel
in SFPs. The petitioners asserted that ``new and significant
information'' shows that the NRC incorrectly characterized the
environmental impacts of high-density spent fuel storage as
``insignificant'' in the 1996 GEIS for the renewal of nuclear power
plant licenses. Specifically, the petitioners asserted that spent fuel
stored in high-density SFPs is more vulnerable to a zirconium fire than
the NRC concluded in its NEPA analysis. The NRC denied the two
petitions, and the NRC denial was upheld by the United States Court of
Appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These PRMs were denied in the same Federal Register notice
(73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aging-related Degradation. Issues related to age-related plant
component degradation are addressed in the NRC's safety evaluation of
the plant's license renewal application. The regulations covering the
safety review for license renewal are in 10 CFR part 54, ``Requirements
for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.''
The 1996 GEIS discusses the potential effects of age on the
physical plant and notes that such deterioration could result in an
increased likelihood of component or structure failure that could
increase the rate of plant accidents. The GEIS notes that the NRC
requires an applicant for license renewal to address the issue of age-
related degradation by identifying, in an integrated plant assessment
process, those passive, long-lived structures and components that are
susceptible to age-related degradation and whose functions are
necessary to ensure that the facility's current licensing basis is
maintained. The GEIS found that the safety evaluation performed by the
NRC as part of the license renewal process provides reasonable
assurance that age-related degradation is managed and adequate
protection of the health and safety of the public is maintained during
the license renewal period. Therefore, the 1996 GEIS concluded, ``. . .
the probability of any radioactive releases from accidents will not
increase over the license renewal period.'' Based on nuclear power
plants' continued compliance with 10 CFR part 54 to manage age-related
degradation, the revised GEIS did not alter or revise this conclusion
from the 1996 GEIS.
Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Several commenters
discussed the need to include a discussion of the effects of climate
change on plant operations and the effect of continued operations
during the license renewal period on environmental resources affected
by climate change.
NRC Response. The NRC acknowledges these concerns. The NRC has
begun to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its
implications for global climate change in its environmental reviews for
both new reactor and license renewal applications. Changes in climate
have the potential to affect air and water resources, ecological
resources, and human health, and should be taken into account when
evaluating cumulative impacts over the license renewal term.
Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule and during the
public comment period, the Commission issued a memorandum and order
concerning two combined operating license applications for new reactor
units at the Tennessee Valley Authority Bellefonte site in Alabama and
the Duke Energy Carolinas Lee site in South Carolina (CLI-09-21). The
memorandum and order stated:
because the Staff is currently addressing the emerging issues
surrounding greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews
required for the licensing of nuclear facilities, we believe it is
prudent to provide the following guidance to the Staff. We expect
the Staff to include consideration of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major
licensing actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. The
Staff's analysis for reactor applications should encompass emissions
from the uranium fuel cycle as well as from construction and
operation of the facility to be licensed. The Staff should ensure
that these issues are addressed consistently in agency NEPA
evaluations and, as appropriate, update Staff guidance documents to
address greenhouse gas emissions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In the matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined
License Application for William States Lee III Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2); In the matter of Tennessee Valley Authority
(Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-09-21 (NRC
November 3, 2009).
Presently, insufficient data exists to support an impact level on a
generic basis. The NRC only has direct emission data for a handful of
facilities. Although some states have varying reporting requirements,
GHG emissions reporting nationwide is in its infancy. The EPA
promulgated its GHG emissions reporting rule on October 30, 2009 (74 FR
56260). In accordance with this rule, the first industry reporting date
was March 31, 2011.\10\ Moreover, the 25,000 annual metric ton
reporting threshold EPA established in the final rule of October 30,
2009, is not an indication of what EPA considers to be a significant
(or insignificant) level of GHG emissions on a scientific basis, but a
threshold chosen by EPA for policy evaluation purposes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 74 FR at 56267: October 30, 2009, codified at 40 CFR
98.3(b) (``The annual GHG report must be submitted no later than
March 31 of each calendar year for GHG emissions in the previous
calendar year'').
\11\ The EPA concluded for policy evaluation purposes, that the
25,000 metric ton threshold more effectively targets large
industrial emitters and suppliers, covers approximately 85 percent
of the U.S. emissions, and minimizes the burden on smaller
facilities (74 FR 56264; October 30, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to comply with the Commission's direction in CLI-09-21 and
in response to the comments received, a new section, ``Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Climate Change'' (Chapter 4, Section 4.12.3), summarizing
the potential cumulative
[[Page 37291]]
impacts of GHG emissions and global climate change, has been added to
the final revised GEIS. The NRC will also include within each SEIS a
plant-specific analysis of any impacts caused by GHG emissions over the
course of the license renewal term as well as any impacts caused by
potential climate change upon the affected resources during the license
renewal term. The final rule was not revised to include any reference
to GHG emissions or climate change.
Recent advances in alternative energy technologies. Several
commenters asserted that much of the information describing alternative
energy technologies did not reflect the state-of-the-science. In some
cases, commenters noted facts and events that occurred after the
publication date of the draft revised GEIS.
NRC Response. The NRC has updated the final revised GEIS to
incorporate the latest information on replacement power alternatives,
but it is inevitable that rapidly evolving technologies will outpace
the information presented in the final revised GEIS. Incorporation of
this information is more appropriately made in the context of plant-
specific license renewal reviews, rather than in the evaluations
contained in the revised GEIS. As with renewable energy technologies,
energy policies are evolving rapidly. While the NRC acknowledges that
legislation, technological advancements, and public policy can underlie
a fundamental paradigm shift in energy portfolios, the NRC cannot make
decisions based on anticipated or speculative changes. Instead, the NRC
considers the status of replacement power alternatives and energy
policies when conducting plant-specific reviews. The final revised GEIS
has been updated to clarify the NRC's approach to conducting
replacement power alternative evaluations.
Emergency preparedness and security. Several commenters expressed
concern with emergency preparedness, evacuation, and safety and
security at nuclear power plants. Commenters stated that these topics
were not addressed in the proposed rule and not adequately covered in
the revised GEIS and should be included in the scope of the plant-
specific SEISs.
NRC Response. Emergency preparedness and planning are part of the
current licensing basis for each holder of a 10 CFR part 50 operating
license and are outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. Before
a plant is licensed to operate, the NRC must have ``reasonable
assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in
the event of a radiological emergency'' (10 CFR 50.47). The
Commission's regulatory scheme provides continuing assurance that
emergency planning for every operating nuclear power plant is adequate.
The Commission has determined that there is no need for a special
review of emergency planning issues in the context of an environmental
review for license renewal because the ongoing decisions and findings
concerning emergency preparedness at nuclear power plants address
concerns as they arise.
The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency
planning issues in the context of license renewal during its rulemaking
proceedings on 10 CFR part 54, which included public notice and
comment. As discussed in the Statement of Considerations for the 10 CFR
part 54 rulemaking (56 FR 64966; December 13, 1991), the programs for
emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all nuclear
power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection
from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license
date. The NRC requirements related to emergency planning are in the
regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50,
``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization
Facilities.'' These requirements apply to all holders of operating
licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with renewed
licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission
reviews existing emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of
any facility, keeping up with changing demographics and other site-
related factors.
Further, the NRC actively reviews its regulatory framework to
ensure that the regulations are current and effective. The agency began
a major review of its emergency preparedness framework in 2005,
including a comprehensive review of the emergency preparedness
regulations and guidance, the issuance of generic communications
regarding the integration of emergency preparedness and security, and
outreach efforts to interested persons to discuss emergency
preparedness issues. These activities informed a rulemaking effort to
enhance the NRC's emergency preparedness regulations and guidance. This
effort culminated in a final rule, which was published in the Federal
Register on November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72560).
Security issues are not tied to a license renewal action but are
treated on an ongoing basis as a part of the current (and renewed)
operating license. If issues related to security are discovered at a
nuclear power plant, they are addressed immediately, and any necessary
changes are reviewed and incorporated under the current operating
license. For example, after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, the NRC issued security-related orders and guidance to nuclear
power plant licensees. These orders and guidance included interim
measures for emergency planning. Nuclear industry groups and Federal,
State, and local government agencies assisted in the prompt
implementation of these measures and participated in drills and
exercises to test these new planning elements. The NRC reviewed
licensees' commitments to address these requirements and verified their
implementation through inspections to ensure public health and safety.
In summary, the issue of security is not unique to nuclear power
plants requesting license renewal. The NRC routinely assesses threats
and other information provided by other Federal agencies and sources.
The NRC also ensures that licensees meet their security requirements
through its ongoing regulatory process (routine inspections) as a
current and generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear power
plants. Therefore, as discussed in the Statement of Considerations for
the 10 CFR part 54 rulemaking (56 FR 64966), the Commission determined
that there is no need for an evaluation of security issues in the
context of a license renewal review.
V. Related Issues of Importance
This section addresses five issues of related importance to the
final rule: (1) Consideration of the recent events at the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, (2) removal of those parts of the final
rule that refer to and rely upon the NRC's Waste Confidence Decision
and Rule, (3) a description of the final rule's effective and
compliance dates, (4) clarification of the term ``best management
practices,'' and (5) deletion of the proposed definition of the term
``historic properties.''
A. Fukushima Events
On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake off the east coast of
Honshu, Japan produced a devastating tsunami that struck the coastal
town of Fukushima. The six-unit Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant
was directly impacted by these events. The resulting damage caused the
failure of several of the units' safety systems needed to maintain
cooling water flow to the reactors. As a result of the loss of cooling,
the fuel overheated, and there
[[Page 37292]]
was a partial meltdown of the fuel contained in several of the
reactors. Damage to the systems and structures containing reactor fuel
resulted in the release of radioactive material to the surrounding
environment.
In response to the earthquake, tsunami, and resulting reactor
accidents at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant (hereafter
referred to as the ``Fukushima events''), the Commission directed the
NRC staff to convene an agency task force of senior leaders and experts
to conduct a methodical and systematic review of the relevant NRC
regulatory requirements, programs, and processes, including their
implementation, and to recommend whether the agency should make near-
term improvements to its regulatory system. As part of the short-term
review, the task force concluded that, while improvements are expected
to be made as a result of the lessons learned from the Fukushima
events, the continued operation of nuclear power plants and licensing
activities for new plants do not pose an imminent risk to public health
and safety.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st
Century, The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident'' (July 12, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML111861807).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the time that the task force was conducting its review,
groups of individuals and non-governmental organizations petitioned the
Commission to suspend all licensing decisions in order to conduct a
separate, generic NEPA analysis to determine whether the Fukushima
events constituted ``new and significant information'' under NEPA that
must be analyzed as part of environmental reviews. The Commission found
the request premature and noted, ``[i]n short, we do not know today the
full implications of the [Fukushima] events for U.S. facilities.'' \13\
However, the Commission found that if ``new and significant information
comes to light that requires consideration as part of the ongoing
preparation of application-specific NEPA documents, the agency will
assess the significance of that information, as appropriate.'' \14\ The
Federal courts of appeal and the Commission have interpreted NEPA such
that an EIS must be updated to include new information only when that
new information provides ``a seriously different picture of the
environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously
envisioned.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant,
Unit 2), CLI-11-05, -- NRC --, -- (slip op. at 30) (Sept. 9, 2011).
\14\ Id. at 30-31.
\15\ Id. at 31 (quoting Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road,
Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999)
(citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373
(1989))). The Commission also noted that it can modify a facility's
operating license outside of a renewal proceeding and made clear
that ``it will use the information from these activities to impose
any requirement it deems necessary, irrespective of whether a plant
is applying for or has been granted a renewed operating license.''
Id. at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the revised GEIS and this rulemaking, the
Fukushima events are considered a severe accident (i.e., a type of
accident that may challenge a plant's safety systems at a level much
higher than expected) and more specifically, a severe accident
initiated by an event external to the plant. The 1996 GEIS concluded
that risks from severe accidents initiated by external events (such as
an earthquake) could have potentially high consequences but found that
external events are adequately addressed through a consideration of a
severe accident initiated by an internal event (such as a loss of
cooling water). Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need only
analyze the environmental impacts from an internal event in order to
adequately characterize the environmental impacts from either type of
event. The revised GEIS examined more recent and up-to-date information
regarding external events and concluded that the analysis in the 1996
GEIS remains valid. The Fukushima events are not considered in the
revised GEIS because the analysis in the revised GEIS was completed
prior to the Fukushima events.
The NRC's evaluation of the consequences of the Fukushima events is
ongoing. As such, the NRC will continue to evaluate the need to make
improvements to existing regulatory requirements based on the task
force report and additional studies and analyses of the Fukushima
events as more information is learned. To the extent that any revisions
are made to the NRC's regulatory requirements, they would be made
applicable to nuclear power reactors regardless of whether or not they
have a renewed license. Therefore, no additional analyses have been
performed in the revised GEIS as a result of the Fukushima events. In
the event that the NRC identifies information from the Fukushima events
that constitutes new and significant information with respect to the
environmental impacts of license renewal, the NRC will discuss that
information in its site-specific SEISs to the GEIS, as it does with all
such new and significant information.
B. Removal of References to the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule
The Waste Confidence Decision and Rule represented the Commission's
generic determination that spent nuclear fuel can continue to be stored
safely and without significant environmental impacts for a period of
time after the end of the licensed life for operation of a nuclear
power plant.\16\ This generic determination meant that the NRC did not
need to consider the storage of spent nuclear fuel after the end of a
reactor's licensed life for operation in the NEPA documents that
support its reactor and spent-fuel storage license application reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The NRC first adopted the Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule in 1984. The NRC amended the decision and rule in 1990,
reviewed them in 1999, and amended them again in 2010. 49 FR 34694
(August 31, 1984); 55 FR 38474 (September 18, 1990); 64 FR 68005
(December 6, 1999); and 75 FR 81032 and 81037 (December 23, 2010).
The NRC made a minor amendment to the rule in 2007 to clarify that
it applies to combined licenses. 72 FR 49509 (August 28, 2007). The
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule are codified in the NRC
regulation 10 CFR 51.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 23, 2010, the Commission published a revision of the
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to reflect information gained from
experience in the storage of spent nuclear fuel and the increased
uncertainty in the siting and construction of a permanent geologic
repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste.\17\ In response to the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule,
the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont, along
with several other parties, challenged the Commission's NEPA analysis
in the decision, which provided the regulatory basis for the rule. On
June 8, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit, in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacated the
NRC's Waste Confidence Decision and Rule, after finding that it did not
comply with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 75 FR 81032 and 81037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court concluded that the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule is
a major federal action necessitating either an EIS or an environmental
assessment that results in a ``finding of no significant impact.'' In
vacating the 2010 decision and rule, the court identified three
specific deficiencies in the analysis:
1. As to the Commission's conclusion that permanent disposal will
be available ``when necessary,'' the court held that the Commission did
not evaluate the environmental effects of failing to secure permanent
disposal;
2. As to the storage of spent fuel on-site at nuclear plants after
the expiration
[[Page 37293]]
of a plant's operating license, the court concluded that the Commission
failed to properly examine the risk of spent fuel pool leaks in a
forward-looking fashion; and
3. Also related to the post-license storage of spent fuel, the
court concluded that the Commission failed to properly examine the
consequences of spent fuel pool fires.
In response to the court's ruling, the Commission issued CLI-12-16
on August 7, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12220A212), in which the
Commission determined that it would not issue licenses that rely upon
the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule until the issues identified in
the court's decision are appropriately addressed by the Commission.
CLI-12-16 provided, however, that the decision not to issue licenses
only applied to final license issuance; all licensing reviews and
proceedings should continue to move forward. In SRM-COMSECY-12-0016,
``Approach for Addressing Policy Issues Resulting from Court Decision
to Vacate Waste Confidence Decision and Rule,'' dated September 6, 2012
(ADAMS Accession No. 12250A032), the Commission directed the NRC staff
to proceed with a rulemaking that includes the development of a generic
EIS to support a revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule and to
publish both the EIS and the revised decision and rule in the Federal
Register within 24 months. The Commission indicated that both the EIS
and the revised Waste Confidence Decision and Rule should build on the
information already documented in various NRC studies and reports,
including the existing environmental assessment that the NRC developed
as part of the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and Rule. The Commission
directed that any additional analyses should focus on the three
deficiencies identified in the court's decision. The Commission also
directed that the NRC staff provide ample opportunity for public
comment on both the draft EIS and the proposed Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule.
In accordance with CLI-12-16, the NRC will not approve any site-
specific license renewal applications until the deficiencies identified
in the court's decision have been resolved. Two Table B-1 license
renewal issues that rely, wholly or in part, upon the Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule are the ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' and
``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste disposal.'' Both of these issues were classified as Category 1 in
the 10 CFR part 51 rule that was promulgated in 1996; the 2009 proposed
rule continued the Category 1 classification for both of these issues.
As part of the NRC's response to the New York v. NRC decision, this
final rule revises these two issues accordingly. Specifically, this
final rule revises the Category 1 ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear
fuel'' issue to narrow the period of onsite storage to the license
renewal term. In both the 1996 rule \18\ and the 2009 proposed rule,
the NRC relied upon the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to make a
generic finding that spent nuclear fuel could be stored safely onsite
with no more than a small environmental impact for the term of the
extended license (from approval of the license renewal application to
the expiration of the operating license) plus a 30-year period
following the permanent shutdown of the power reactor and expiration of
the operating license.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The issue was named ``On-site spent fuel'' in the 1996
rule.
\19\ Prior to the December 23, 2010, final rule, 10 CFR 51.23(a)
read: ``The Commission has made a generic determination that, if
necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely
and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years
beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term
of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel
storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel
storage installations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Waste Confidence Decision and Rule provided the basis for the
30-year period following the permanent shutdown of the reactor and
expiration of the operating license. The 2010 Waste Confidence Decision
and Rule extended this post-reactor shutdown onsite storage period from
30 years to 60 years. Given the New York v. NRC decision, and pending
the issuance of a generic EIS and revised Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule (as directed by SRM-COMSECY-12-0016), the final rule excludes from
this issue the period of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel following
the permanent shutdown of the power reactor and expiration of the
operating license. As revised by this final rule, this issue now covers
the onsite storage of spent fuel for the term of the extended license
only.
Similarly, this final rule revises the Category 1 issue ``Offsite
radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste
disposal.'' \20\ In both the 1996 rule and the 2009 proposed rule, this
issue pertained to the long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste, including possible disposal in a deep geologic
repository. Although the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule did not
assess the impacts associated with disposal of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste in a repository, it did reflect the Commission's
confidence, at the time, in the technical feasibility of a repository
and when that repository could have been expected to become available.
Without the analysis in the Waste Confidence Decision, the NRC cannot
assess how long the spent fuel will need to be stored onsite.
Therefore, the final rule reclassifies this issue from a Category 1
issue with no assigned impact level to an uncategorized issue with an
impact level of uncertain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The issue was named ``Offsite radiological impacts (spent
fuel and high level waste disposal)'' in the 1996 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon issuance of the generic EIS and revised Waste Confidence Rule,
the NRC will make any necessary conforming amendments to this rule. As
referenced previously, the Commission will not approve any license
renewal application for an operating nuclear power plant until the
issues identified in the court's decision are appropriately addressed
by the Commission.
C. Effective and Compliance Dates for Final Rule
The amendments made by the final rule shall be effective 30 days
after the final rule's publication in the Federal Register. License
renewal applicants are not required to comply with the amended rule
until 1 year after the final rule's publication in the Federal
Register. The Commission has decided on a 1-year compliance date given
the long lead time required for preparation of license renewal
applicant environmental reports.
D. Best Management Practices
``Best management practices'' is a term used to describe a type,
method, or treatment technique for preventing pollution or reducing the
quantities of pollutants released to the environment. The term, as used
herein, includes the physical components used to control or minimize
pollution (e.g., filters, barriers, mechanical devices, and retention
ponds), as well as operational or procedural practices (e.g.,
minimizing use of a pollutant, spill control, and operator training).
Best management practices are used in a variety of industrial sectors.
In the nuclear power reactor sector, as in other industrial sectors,
best management practices offer flexibility to achieve a balance
between protecting the environment and the efficiency and economic
limitations associated with the operations of a given plant. Both in
the 1996 GEIS and in the revised GEIS, several issues have been
determined to be a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small based
upon the assumption that the license renewal applicant employs and will
continue to employ best management practices
[[Page 37294]]
during the license renewal term. The NRC's regulatory experience has
shown that licensees employ such best management practices.
The NRC's jurisdiction is limited to radiological health and safety
and common defense and security. Therefore, the NRC does not generally
impose a requirement that its licensees adopt those best management
practices that concern non-radiological pollutants. The NRC nuclear
power plant licensees, however, are subject to a host of regulatory
requirements that are monitored and enforced by other Federal agencies
(e.g., the EPA) or State or local regulatory agencies. The NRC-licensed
nuclear power plants must obtain a variety of permits from these other
agencies before they can operate (e.g., under the CWA, a licensee must
obtain a NPDES permit from the EPA or, if the EPA has delegated its CWA
authority to a particular State, from the appropriate agency of that
State). These permits typically require that the licensee adopt and
adhere to best management practices.
Therefore, an assumption underlying the revised GEIS is that NRC
licensees will use best management practices to comply with other
Federal, State, and local government requirements to prevent or reduce
the quantities of non-radiological pollutants released to the
environment. This description of best management practices is not a
regulatory or policy change by the NRC because the use of best
management practices by nuclear power plant licensees was also an
underlying assumption of the 1996 GEIS. Rather, the NRC seeks to make
transparent its basis for determining that certain issues are Category
1 issues with a small level of impact.
E. Definition of ``Historic Properties''
The proposed rule would have amended 10 CFR part 51 by adding a
definition of the term ``historic properties'' to 10 CFR 51.14(a). Upon
further consideration, the NRC determined that adding the definition
was unnecessary. The NRC's license renewal determination to renew or
not renew a nuclear power plant operating license is considered an
undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR part
800. The regulations define the term ``historic property'' in 36 CFR
800.16(l)(1). The NRC uses the term ``historic property'' or ``historic
properties'' in the same context as set forth in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1).
VI. Revisions to 10 CFR 51.53
The final rule revises 10 CFR 51.53 to conform to those changes
made by the final rule to Table B-1. Because some Category 2 issues
have been reclassified as Category 1 issues, license renewal applicants
no longer need to assess these issues and, therefore, the final rule
removes the requirements for applicants to provide information on these
issues in their environmental reports. The final rule also adds new
requirements to 10 CFR 51.53 for the new Category 2 issues for which
applicants are now required to provide information in their
environmental reports. The following describes each revision.
A. Reclassifying Category 2 Issues as Category 1 Issues
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F). The final rule removes and reserves 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) because the final rule reclassifies the Category
2 issue, ``Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and
maintenance areas),'' to Category 1 and renames the issue, ``Air
quality impacts (all plants).'' The removed regulatory language
required the applicant to assess anticipated vehicle exhaust emissions
at the time of refurbishment for plants located in or near a
nonattainment or maintenance area, as those terms are defined under the
Clean Air Act.
The final rule reclassifies this issue as Category 1 based upon
public comments received on the proposed rule \21\ and a subsequent re-
evaluation of the data in the draft revised GEIS, which showed that air
quality impacts from refurbishment have not resulted in exceedances in
the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants in nonattainment and
maintenance areas due to construction vehicle, equipment, and fugitive
dust emissions. Significant air quality impacts are no longer
anticipated from future license renewals. Therefore, applicants no
longer need to assess the impacts on air quality of continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal in their
environmental reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The proposed rule renamed the ``Air quality during
refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas)'' issue as ``Air
quality (nonattainment and maintenance areas)'' and retained the
Category 2 classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section IV, ``Response to Public Comments,'' of this document
provides a summary of the comments received on this issue, and Section
VIII, ``Final Actions and Basis for Changes to Table B-1,'' of this
document discusses this issue in more detail under Issue 5, ``Air
quality impacts (all plants).''
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). The final rule removes and reserves 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) because several Category 2 socioeconomic issues
are reclassified as Category 1. The removed regulatory language
required the applicant to assess the impacts of the proposed license
renewal on housing availability, land use, and public schools (impacts
from refurbishment activities only) within the vicinity of the plant.
Additionally, the removed regulatory language required the applicant to
assess the impact of population increases attributable to the proposed
project on the public water supply. Specifically, the final rule
reclassifies the following 1996 GEIS Category 2 socioeconomic issues:
Housing impacts; \22\ Public services: public utilities; \23\ Public
services, education (refurbishment); \24\ Offsite land use
(refurbishment); and Offsite land use (license renewal term).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The final rule renames this issue as ``Population and
housing'' (see Issue (55) under Section VIII, ``Final Actions and
Basis for Changes to Table B-1,'' of this document).
\23\ The final rule merges this issue into the consolidated
issue, ``Community services and education'' (see Issue (54) under
Section VIII of this document).
\24\ The final rule merges this issue into the consolidated
issue, ``Community services and education'' (see Issue (54) under
Section VIII of this document).
\25\ The final rule merges ``Offsite land use (refurbishment)''
and ``Offsite land use (license renewal term) into the consolidated
issue, ``Offsite land use'' (see Issue (2) under Section VIII of
this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule reclassifies these issues as Category 1 because
significant changes in housing availability, land use, and increased
population demand attributable to the proposed refurbishment project on
the public water supply have not occurred at relicensed nuclear power
plants. Therefore, impacts to these resources are no longer anticipated
for future license renewals. In addition, refurbishment activities
(such as steam generator and vessel head replacement) have not required
the large numbers of workers and the months of time that were
conservatively analyzed in the 1996 GEIS. As such, significant impacts
on housing availability, land use, public schools, and the public water
supply are no longer anticipated from continued operations during the
license renewal term and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J). The final rule removes and reserves 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) because the Category 2 issue, ``Public services,
transportation,'' is reclassified as Category 1 (the final rule also
renames the issue, ``Transportation''). The removed
[[Page 37295]]
regulatory language required the applicant to assess the impact of
highway traffic generated by the proposed project on the level of
service of local highways during periods of license renewal
refurbishment activities and during the term of the renewed license.
Therefore, applicants no longer need to assess the impacts on local
traffic volumes of continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal in their environmental reports.
The issue was reclassified to Category 1 because refurbishment
activities (such as steam generator and vessel head replacement) have
not required the large numbers of workers and the months of time that
was conservatively analyzed in the 1996 GEIS. As such, significant
transportation impacts are not anticipated from future refurbishment
activities. Section VIII, ``Final Actions and Basis for Changes to
Table B-1,'' of this document discusses this issue in more detail under
Issue 56, ``Transportation.''
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O). The proposed rule added a new paragraph
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) to address ``Groundwater and soil
contamination'' as a Category 2 issue. However, based upon public
comments received on the proposed rule \26\ and further evaluation by
the NRC, it was determined that this issue is properly classified as
Category 1. Therefore, the proposed paragraph was not adopted by the
final rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Section IV, ``Response to Public Comments,'' of this
document provides a summary of the comments received on this issue.
\27\ The final rule merges this issue into the consolidated
issue, ``Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system
impacts)'' (see Issue (20) under Section VIII of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Adding New Category 2 Issues
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N). The final rule adds a new paragraph 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N) \28\ to address ``Minority and low-income
populations'' as a Category 2 issue. This new Category 2 issue is
listed under the resource area ``Environmental Justice'' in the revised
Table B-1. It addresses the effects of nuclear power plant operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal on minority
populations and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the
plant. This issue was listed in the original Table B-1 but was not
evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. The finding in the original Table B-1
stated that ``[t]he need for and the content of an analysis of
environmental justice will be addressed in plant specific reviews.''
This issue was not classified as either a Category 1 or 2 issue in the
1996 GEIS because guidance for implementing Executive Order (E.O.)
12898, dated February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7629), which initiated the
Federal government's environmental justice program, was not available
before the completion of the 1996 GEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The final rule adopts the proposed rule language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2004, the Commission issued a policy statement on
implementation of E.O. 12898: ``NRC's Policy Statement on the Treatment
of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing
Actions'' (69 FR 52040). As stated therein, ``the NRC is committed to
the general goals of E.O. 12898, [and] it will strive to meet those
goals through its normal and traditional NEPA review process.'' By
making this a Category 2 issue, the final rule requires license renewal
applicants to identify, in their environmental reports, minority and
low-income populations and communities residing in the vicinity of the
nuclear power plant. The NRC will then assess the information provided
by the applicant in the NRC's plant-specific environmental review.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O). The final rule adds a new paragraph 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) \29\ to address ``Cumulative impacts'' as a
Category 2 issue. This new Category 2 issue was added to Table B-1 to
evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of continued operations
during the license renewal term and refurbishment associated with
license renewal at nuclear power plants. The NRC did not address
cumulative impacts in the 1996 GEIS but has been evaluating these
impacts in plant-specific supplements to the GEIS. The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 40 CFR 1508.7 defines cumulative impacts
as ``the impact on the environment which results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-
Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.'' \30\ The NRC
considers potential cumulative impacts on the environment resulting
from the incremental impact of license renewal when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The proposed rule added this paragraph as 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). The final rule redesignates it as 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) because paragraph 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) of
the proposed rule, which concerned ``Groundwater and soil
contamination'' (see discussion in Section VI, ``A. Reclassifying
Category 2 Issues as Category 1 Issues,'' of this document) was not
adopted by the final rule.
\30\ The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51 incorporate the CEQ
definition of cumulative impacts (10 CFR 51.14(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule change requires license renewal applicants to
provide information about other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions occurring in the vicinity of the nuclear
power plant that may result in a cumulative impact. An example of the
type of information to be provided includes data on the construction
and operation of other power plants and other industrial commercial
facilities in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant. Section VIII,
``Final Actions and Basis for Changes to Table B-1,'' of this document
discusses this issue in more detail under Issue 73, ``Cumulative
impacts.''
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). The final rule adds a new paragraph 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P) \31\ to address ``Radionuclides released to
groundwater'' as a Category 2 issue. This new Category 2 issue has been
added to Table B-1 to evaluate the potential combined impact of
inadvertent discharges of radioactive liquids from all plant systems
into groundwater. The issue is relevant to license renewal because all
commercial nuclear power plants have spent fuel pools, liquid storage
tanks, and piping that contain and transport radioactive liquids. Over
time, these systems and piping have a potential to degrade and release
radioactive liquids that could migrate into the groundwater. The NRC
has investigated several cases where radioactive liquids have been
inadvertently released into the groundwater in an uncontrolled manner.
In accordance with NRC requirements, residual activity from these
inadvertent releases is subject to characterization and evaluation of
the potential hazard. For this new Category 2 issue, the license
renewal applicant is required to provide information on radioactive
liquids released to groundwater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The proposed rule added this paragraph as 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q). The final rule redesignates it as paragraph 10
CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P) because the paragraph added as 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) by the proposed rule, which concerned groundwater
and soil contamination caused by non-radionuclide, industrial
contaminants, was not adopted by the final rule (see discussion in
Section VI, ``A. Reclassifying Category 2 Issues as Category 1
Issues,'' of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final rule, the NRC modified the language of the proposed
rule to specify that only ``documented'' releases need to be included
in the applicant's environmental report. The NRC provides specific
guidance on what constitutes a documented release in Regulatory Guide
4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, ``Preparation of Environmental Reports
for Nuclear
[[Page 37296]]
Power Plant License Renewal Applications.''
Section IV, ``Response to Public Comments,'' of this document
provides a summary of the comments received on this issue, and Section
VIII, ``Final Actions and Basis for Changes to Table B-1,'' of this
document discusses this issue in more detail under Issue 27,
``Radionuclides released to groundwater.''
VII. Response to Specific Request for Voluntary Information
In Section VII of the Statement of Considerations for the July 31,
2009 (74 FR 38129-38130), proposed rule, the NRC requested voluntary
information from industry about refurbishment activities and employment
trends at nuclear power plants. Information on refurbishment would have
been used to evaluate the significance of impacts from this type of
activity. Information on employment trends would have been used to
assess the significance of socioeconomic effects of ongoing plant
operations on local economies.
The NRC received no response to these requests. The NRC interprets
this lack of response on these issues to mean that information on major
refurbishment and replacement activities and employment trends is
either unavailable or insufficient to assist the NRC in re-evaluating
the significance of refurbishment-related environmental impacts and
socioeconomic effects of ongoing plant operations on local economies.
Although no information was received regarding refurbishment activities
and employment trends at nuclear power plants, the NRC believes that it
has sufficient information based on lessons learned and knowledge
gained from completed license renewal environmental reviews to
substantiate the conclusions made in the final rule and GEIS.
VIII. Final Actions and Basis for Changes to Table B-1
The final rule revises Table B-1 to reflect the changes made in the
revised GEIS. The revised GEIS is being made available with the final
rule and provides a summary change table (in Appendix B) comparing the
92 environmental issues in the 1996 GEIS with the 78 environmental
issues in the revised GEIS.
Land Use
(1) Onsite Land Use: ``Onsite land use'' remains a Category 1
issue. The final rule amends Table B-1 by making minor clarifying
changes to the finding column entry for this issue. Specifically, the
final rule replaces the sentence ``Projected onsite land use changes
required during refurbishment and the renewal period would be a small
fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is
controlled by the applicant,'' with ``Changes in onsite land use from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal
would be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would
involve only land that is controlled by the licensee.''
(2) Offsite Land Use: The final rule amends Table B-1 by
consolidating two Category 2 issues, ``Offsite land use
(refurbishment),'' with an impact level range small to moderate, and
``Offsite land use (license renewal term),'' with an impact level range
small to large, and reclassifying the consolidated issue as a Category
1 issue, with an impact level of small, and naming the consolidated
issue, ``Offsite land use.'' The final rule also creates a new Category
1 issue, ``Tax revenues'' (Issue 53), which concerns the impact of
license renewal on state and local tax revenues, thereby removing tax
revenues from the 1996 GEIS ``Offsite land use (license renewal term)''
issue. The final rule amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for
``Offsite land use (refurbishment)'' and ``Offsite land use (license
renewal term),'' and by adding an entry for ``Offsite land use.'' The
finding column entry of ``Offsite land use'' states ``[o]ffsite land
use would not be affected by continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal.''
The Table B-1 finding column entry for the ``Offsite land use
(refurbishment)'' issue indicated that impacts may be of moderate
significance at plants in low population areas. Similarly, the finding
column entry for the ``Offsite land use (license renewal term)'' issue
indicates that significant changes (moderate to large) in land use may
be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from
license renewal. As described in the 1996 GEIS, environmental impacts
are considered to be small if refurbishment activities were to occur at
plants located in high population areas and if population and tax
revenues would not change.
As reflected in the revised GEIS, significant impacts on offsite
land use are not anticipated. Previous plant-specific license renewal
reviews conducted by the NRC have shown no substantial increases in the
number of workers during the license renewal term and that
refurbishment activities (such as steam generator and vessel head
replacement) have not required the large numbers of workers and the
months of time that was conservatively estimated in the 1996 GEIS.
These reviews support a finding that offsite land use impacts during
the license renewal term would be small for all nuclear power plants.
(3) Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways (ROWs): The
final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Power line right of way''
issue as ``Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs).'' It remains a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small.
The final rule amends the Table B-1 finding column entry for this issue
by replacing the statement,
Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no
change in restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of
small significance.
with the following:
Use of transmission line ROWs from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal would continue with no
change in land use restrictions.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by appending a footnote to
the issue column entry for ``Offsite land use in transmission line
right-of-ways (ROWs),'' concerning the extent to which transmission
lines and their associated ROWs have been analyzed in the revised GEIS.
The footnote states,
This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric
power transmission lines which are defined as transmission lines
that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where
electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system and
transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the
grid.
As stated in the revised GEIS, the final environmental statements
(essentially, the equivalent of environmental impact statements)
prepared for the original construction of the various nuclear power
plants (the construction permits) and for the initial operating
licenses evaluated the impacts of those transmission lines built to
connect the nuclear power plant to the regional electrical grid. Since
the original construction of those lines, regional expansion of the
electrical distribution grid has resulted in incorporation of those
lines originating at the power plant substations. In most cases, the
transmission lines originating at the power plant substations are no
longer owned or managed by the nuclear power plant licensees. These
lines would remain in place and be energized regardless of whether the
subject nuclear power plant license was renewed or not. For this
reason, those transmission lines that would not be impacted by a
license renewal decision (i.e., those lines that would not be
[[Page 37297]]
dismantled or otherwise decommissioned as a result of a plant
terminating operations because its operating license had not been
renewed) are considered beyond the scope of, and as such are not
analyzed in, the revised GEIS.
Visual Resources
(4) Aesthetic Impacts: The final rule amends Table B-1 by
consolidating three Category 1 issues, ``Aesthetic impacts
(refurbishment),'' ``Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term),'' and
``Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term),''
each with an impact level of small, into one new Category 1 issue,
``Aesthetic impacts.'' The new consolidated issue also has an impact
level of small. The 1996 GEIS concluded that renewal of operating
licenses and the refurbishment activities would have no significant
aesthetic impact during the license renewal term. Impacts are
considered to be small if the visual appearance of plant and
transmission line structures would not change. Previous license renewal
reviews conducted by the NRC show that the appearance of nuclear power
plants and transmission line structures do not change significantly
over time or because of refurbishment activities. Therefore, because
aesthetic impacts are not anticipated and the three issues are similar,
they have been consolidated to facilitate the environmental review
process. The final rule amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for
``Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment),'' ``Aesthetic impacts (license
renewal term),'' and ``Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license
renewal term),'' and adding an entry for ``Aesthetic impacts.'' The
finding column entry for the new combined entry states ``[n]o important
changes to the visual appearance of plant structures or transmission
lines are expected from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal.''
Air Quality
(5) Air Quality Impacts (All Plants): The final rule amends Table
B-1 by renaming the ``Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment
and maintenance areas)'' issue as ``Air quality impacts (all plants).''
The final rule reflects the revised GEIS's expansion of the issue to
include air emission impacts from emergency diesel generators, boilers,
and particulate emissions from cooling towers. Based on public comments
received on the proposed rule and the re-evaluation of information as
described in the revised GEIS, the final rule further amends Table B-1
by revising this Category 2 issue, with an impact level range small to
large, to a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small.\32\ The
final rule further amends Table B-1 by revising the finding column
entry for this issue to state,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Under the proposed rule, the issue had been proposed to be
renamed ``Air quality (nonattainment and maintenance areas);'' it
would have remained a Category 2 issue with an impact level range of
small to large (74 FR 38121, 38134; July 31, 2009).
Air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be small at all
plants. Emissions resulting from refurbishment activities at
locations in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas
would be short-lived and would cease after these refurbishment
activities are completed. Operating experience has shown that the
scale of refurbishment activities has not resulted in exceedance of
the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants, and best
management practices including fugitive dust controls and the
imposition of permit conditions in State and local air emissions
permits would ensure conformance with applicable State or Tribal
Implementation Plans.
Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and
routine operations of boilers used for space heating would not be a
concern, even for plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment
areas. Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions even under
the worst-case situations have been small.
Operating experience has shown that air quality impacts from these
emission sources (including particulate emissions from cooling towers
at operating plants) have been small at all nuclear power plants,
including those plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment areas.
In addition, air quality impacts during refurbishment have also
been small. These types of emissions could be a cause for concern if
they occur at plants located in or near air quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas. However, these impacts have been temporary and would
cease once these activities were completed. Operating experience has
also shown that refurbishment activities have not required the large
numbers of workers and the months of time that was conservatively
predicted and analyzed in the 1996 GEIS, nor have such activities
resulted in exceedances in the de minimis thresholds for criteria
pollutants in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Implementation of best management practices, including fugitive
dust controls as required by the imposition of conditions in State and
local air emissions permits, would ensure conformance with applicable
State or Tribal Implementation Plans, in accordance with EPA's revised
General Conformity Regulations (75 FR 17254; April 5, 2010). On the
basis of these considerations, the NRC has concluded that the air
quality impact of continued nuclear power plant operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal would be small for all
plants.
(6) Air Quality Effects of Transmission Lines: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by appending a footnote to the issue column entry for
``Air quality effects of transmission lines,'' concerning the extent to
which transmission lines and their associated right of ways have been
analyzed under the revised GEIS. This footnote is the same one that was
added to Issue 3, ``Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs).'' See the description of the changes made by the final rule to
Issue 3 for further explanation of this amendment.
Noise
(7) Noise Impacts: The final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the
issue ``Noise'' as ``Noise impacts.'' The issue remains a Category 1
issue with an impact level of small. The final rule further amends
Table B-1 by making minor clarifying changes to the finding column
entry for this issue. Specifically, the final rule replaces the
sentence ``Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants
and is not expected to be a problem at any plant during the license
renewal term,'' with ``Noise levels would remain below regulatory
guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal.''
Geologic Environment
(8) Geology and Soils: The final rule amends Table B-1 by adding a
new Category 1 issue, ``Geology and soils.'' This issue has an impact
level of small. The finding column entry for this issue states,
The effect of geologic and soil conditions on plant operations
and the impact of continued operations and refurbishment activities
on geology and soils would be small for all nuclear power plants and
would not change appreciably during the license renewal term.
This issue was not evaluated in the 1996 GEIS, as described in the
proposed rule.\33\ This new Category 1 issue considers geology and
soils from the perspective of those resource conditions or attributes
that can be affected by
[[Page 37298]]
continued operations during the renewal term. The final rule does not
require the license renewal applicant to assess this issue in its
environmental report unless the applicant is aware of new and
significant information about geologic and soil conditions and
associated impacts at or near the nuclear power plant site that could
change the conclusion in the GEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The proposed rule named the issue ``Impacts of nuclear
plants on geology and soils.'' Under the proposed rule, the issue
was also a Category 1 issue, with an impact level of small (74 FR
38121, 38134; July 31, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An understanding of geologic and soil conditions has been well
established at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission
lines during the current licensing term, and these conditions are
expected to remain unchanged during the 20-year license renewal term
for each plant. The impact of these conditions on plant operations and
the impact of continued power plant operations and refurbishment
activities on geology and soils are small for all nuclear power plants
and not expected to change appreciably during the license renewal term.
Operating experience shows that any impacts to geologic and soil strata
would be limited to soil disturbance from construction activities
associated with routine infrastructure renovation and maintenance
projects during continued plant operations. Implementing best
management practices would reduce soil erosion and subsequent impacts
on surface water quality. Information in plant-specific SEISs prepared
to date and reference documents have not identified these impacts as
being significant.
Surface Water Resources
(9) Surface Water Use and Quality (Non-Cooling System Impacts): The
final rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating two Category 1 issues,
``Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality'' and ``Impacts of
refurbishment on surface water use,'' both with an impact level of
small, and names the consolidated issue, ``Surface water use and
quality (non-cooling system impacts).'' These two issues were
consolidated because the impacts of refurbishment on both surface water
use and quality are negligible and the effects are closely related. The
consolidated issue has also been expanded to include the impacts of
continued operations. The consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue with
an impact level of small.
The final rule amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for
``Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality'' and ``Impacts of
refurbishment on surface water use'' and adding an entry for ``Surface
water use and quality (non-cooling system impacts).'' The finding
column entry for the new consolidated issue states,
Impacts are expected to be small if best management practices
are employed to control soil erosion and spills. Surface water use
associated with continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal would not increase significantly or would be
reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage.
The NRC expects licensees to use best management practices during
the license renewal term for both continuing operations and
refurbishment activities. Use of best management practices will
minimize soil erosion. In addition, implementation of spill prevention
and control plans will reduce the likelihood of any liquid chemical
spills. If refurbishment activities take place during a plant outage,
with the reactor shutdown, the overall water use by the facility will
be reduced. Based on this conclusion, the impact on surface water use
and quality during the license renewal term will continue to be small
for all plants.
(10) Altered Current Patterns at Intake and Discharge Structures,
(11) Altered Salinity Gradients, (12) Altered Thermal Stratification of
Lakes, and (13) Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling Water: These four
issues remain Category 1 issues, each with an impact level of small.
The final rule amends Table B-1 by making minor clarifying changes to
the finding column entries for each of these issues.
The final rule amends the ``Altered current patterns at intake and
discharge structures'' finding column entry by replacing the statement,
Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem
during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in the
vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have
been small at operating nuclear power plants.
The final rule amends the ``Altered salinity gradients'' finding
column entry by replacing the statement,
Salinity gradients have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem
during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the area in
the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts
have been small at operating nuclear power plants.
The final rule amends the ``Altered thermal stratification of
lakes'' finding column entry by replacing the statement,
Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be
a problem during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the area
in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These
impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.
The final rule amends the ``Scouring caused by discharged cooling
water'' finding column entry by replacing the statement,
Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating
nuclear power plants and has caused only localized effects at a few
plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
with the following:
Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the vicinity of
the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small
at operating nuclear power plants.
These changes reflect the findings of environmental reviews
conducted since the publication of the 1996 GEIS, which show that the
effects of these four issues are localized in the vicinity of the
plant's intake and discharge structures.
(14) Discharge of Metals in Cooling System Effluent: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by renaming ``Discharge of other metals in waste
water'' as ``Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent.'' It
remains a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The final
rule also makes minor clarifying changes to the finding column entry
for this issue. Specifically, the final rule amends the finding column
entry by replacing the statement,
These discharges have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat
dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other
plants. They are not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
with the following:
Discharges of metals have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat
dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other
plants. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
process.
(15) Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary Wastes, and Minor Chemical
Spills: The final rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating two Category 1
issues, ``Discharge of chlorine or other biocides'' and ``Discharge of
sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills,'' both with an impact level
of small, and naming the consolidated issue ``Discharge of biocides,
sanitary wastes,
[[Page 37299]]
and minor chemical spills.'' The consolidated issue is a Category 1
issue with an impact level of small. Specifically, the final rule
amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for ``Discharge of chlorine or
other biocides'' and ``Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical
spills'' and adding an entry for ``Discharge of biocides, sanitary
wastes, and minor chemical spills.'' The finding column entry for the
new consolidated issue states,
The effects of these discharges are regulated by Federal and
State environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and
controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have
been small at operating nuclear power plants.
(16) Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Once-Through Cooling
Systems): ``Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling
systems)'' remains a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small.
The final rule amends Table B-1 by adding the word ``Surface'' to the
title of this issue.
(17) Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or
Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River): The final rule amends
Table B-1 by adding the term ``surface'' and removing the terms
``small'' and ``low flow'' from the title and the associated numerical
definition contained in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) for low flow rivers
from this and other related river flow issues. This issue remains a
Category 2 issue with an impact range of small to moderate. The final
rule also amends the finding column entry by replacing the statement,
The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with
cooling ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream
and riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate
significance in some situations. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
with the following:
Impacts could be of small or moderate significance, depending on
makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water
demands.
The 1996 GEIS distinguished between surface water use impacts
during low flow conditions on ``small'' versus ``large'' rivers. Any
river, regardless of size, can experience low flow conditions of
varying severity during periods of drought and changing conditions in
the affected watersheds such as upstream diversions and use of river
water. Similarly, the NRC has determined that the use of the term ``low
flow'' in categorizing river flow is of little value considering that
plants that withdraw makeup water from a river can experience low flow
conditions and would be required to conduct a plant-specific assessment
of water use conflicts.
(18) Effects of Dredging on Surface Water Quality: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Effects of
dredging on surface water quality,'' which evaluates the impacts of
dredging to maintain intake and discharge structures at nuclear power
plant facilities. This issue has an impact level of small. The finding
column entry for this issue states,
Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the vicinity of
intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping has
not been found to be a problem for surface water quality. Dredging
is performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
possibly, from other State or local agencies.
The impact of dredging on surface water quality was not considered
in the 1996 GEIS and was not listed in Table B-1 prior to this final
rule. Most plants have intake and discharge structures that must be
maintained by periodic dredging of sediment accumulated in or on the
structures. The NRC has found that dredging, while temporarily
increasing turbidity in the source water body, generally has little
long-term effect on water quality. In addition to maintaining intake
and discharge structures, dredging is often done to keep barge slips
and channels open to service the plant. Dredged material is most often
disposed on property owned by the applicant and usually contains no
hazardous materials. Dredging must be performed under a permit issued
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and consequently, each
dredging action would be subject to a site-specific environmental
review conducted by the Corps. Temporary impacts of dredging are
measurable in general water quality terms, but the impacts have been
shown to be small.
(19) Temperature Effects on Sediment Transport Capacity: There are
no changes to this issue, and it remains a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small.
Groundwater Resources
(20) Groundwater Contamination and Use (Non-Cooling System
Impacts): The final rule amends Table B-1 by expanding the scope of
``Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality'' issue to
include the effects of continued nuclear power plant operations during
the license renewal term. This Category 1 issue, with an impact level
of small, was renamed ``Groundwater use and quality'' in the proposed
rule.
The final rule also amends Table B-1 by changing the proposed
rule's new Category 2 issue ``Groundwater and soil contamination,''
with an impact range of small to moderate (see 74 FR 38122, 38135), to
Category 1, with an impact level of small. This issue was then
consolidated with the ``Groundwater use and quality'' issue and renamed
``Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts).''
These issues were consolidated because they consider the impact of
industrial activities associated with the continued operations of a
nuclear power plant (not directly related to cooling system effects)
and refurbishment on groundwater use and quality. The final rule
further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which
states,
Extensive dewatering during the original construction on some
sites will not be repeated during refurbishment on any sites. Any
plant wastes produced during refurbishment will be handled in the
same manner as in current operating practices and are not expected
to be a problem during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater ponds
or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil,
and subsoil. Contamination is subject to State or Environmental
Protection Agency regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The
application of best management practices for handling any materials
produced or used during these activities would reduce impacts.
The consolidated Category 1 issue considers the impacts from
groundwater use and the impacts on groundwater, soil, and subsoil from
the industrial use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other
chemicals at nuclear power plant sites from continued operation during
the license renewal term and refurbishment. The consolidated issue also
includes the use of wastewater disposal ponds or lagoons and non-
radionuclide, industrial contaminants released inadvertently or as
effluents into the environment. Industrial practices at all nuclear
power plants have the potential to contaminate groundwater and soil,
especially on sites with unlined wastewater and storm water ponds or
lagoons. Any contamination of this type is subject to characterization
and clean-up under EPA or State regulated remediation and monitoring
programs.
Non-radionuclide contaminants have been found in groundwater and
soil
[[Page 37300]]
samples at some nuclear power plants during previous license renewal
environmental reviews. Release of these contaminants into groundwater
and soil degrades the quality of these resources, even if applicable
groundwater quality standards are not exceeded. However, each site has
its own program for handling chemicals, waste, and other hazardous
materials in accordance with Federal and State regulations and is
expected to employ best management practices. The use of wastewater
disposal ponds or lagoons, whether lined or unlined, may increase the
potential for groundwater and soil contamination. However, they are
subject to discharge authorizations under NPDES and related State
wastewater discharge permit programs.
The finding column of Table B-1 for ``Groundwater use and quality''
prior to this final rule, as analyzed in the 1996 GEIS, indicated that
impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on groundwater use
and quality would be small, as extensive dewatering is not anticipated.
This finding was re-evaluated in the revised GEIS and is retained in
Table B-1.
While the proposed rule's ``Groundwater and soil contamination''
issue was identified as a Category 2 issue, further consideration of
the ``Groundwater and soil contamination'' issue and public comments
revealed that the potential impacts on groundwater and soil quality
from common industrial practices can be addressed generically, as these
practices are common to all industrial facilities and are not unique to
nuclear power plants. Moreover, as supported by the analysis in the
revised GEIS, the NRC concludes that the overall impact of industrial
practices on groundwater use and quality from past and current
operations is small for all nuclear power plants and not expected to
change appreciably during the license renewal term.
(21) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants that Withdraw Less Than 100
Gallons per Minute [gpm]): The final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming
the ``Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water; plants
that use <100 gpm)'' issue as ``Groundwater use conflicts (plants that
withdraw less than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]).'' It remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The final rule further
amends Table B-1 by making minor clarifying changes to the finding
column entry for this issue. Specifically, the final rule replaces the
entry statement ``Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to
cause any ground-water conflicts,'' with ``Plants that withdraw less
than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts.''
(22) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants that Withdraw More Than 100
Gallons per Minute [gpm]): The final rule amends Table B-1 by
consolidating two Category 2 issues, ``Groundwater use conflicts
(potable and service water, and dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm)''
and ``Ground-water use conflicts (Ranney wells),'' each with an impact
level range of small to large, and names the consolidated issue,
``Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons
per minute [gpm]).'' Because Ranney wells produce significantly more
than 100 gpm, the Ranney wells issue was consolidated with the general
issue of groundwater use conflicts for plants using more than 100 gpm
of groundwater. The consolidated issue is a Category 2 issue, with an
impact level range of small to large. The final rule further amends
Table B-1 by removing the entries for ``Groundwater use conflicts
(potable and service water, and dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm)''
and ``Ground-water use conflicts (Ranney wells)'' and adding an entry
for ``Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100
gallons per minute [gpm]).'' The finding column entry for the new
consolidated issue states ``Plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm
could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users.''
(23) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling
Systems that Withdraw Makeup Water from a River): The final rule amends
Table B-1 by renaming ``Ground-water use conflicts (plants using
cooling towers withdrawing makeup water from a small river)'' as
``Groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle cooling systems
that withdraw makeup water from a river).'' It remains a Category 2
issue, with an impact level range of small to large. The final rule
further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which
states,
Water use conflicts may result from surface water withdrawals
from small water bodies during low flow conditions which may affect
aquifer recharge, especially if other ground-water or upstream
surface water users come on line before the time of license renewal.
See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
with the following:
Water use conflicts could result from water withdrawals from
rivers during low-flow conditions, which may affect aquifer
recharge. The significance of impacts would depend on makeup water
requirements, water availability, and competing water demands.
The 1996 GEIS distinguished between surface water use impacts
during low flow conditions on ``small'' versus ``large'' rivers. Any
river, regardless of size, can experience low flow conditions of
varying severity during periods of drought and changing conditions in
the affected watersheds such as upstream diversions and use of river
water. The NRC has thus determined that the use of the term ``small
river'' or ``small water bodies'' is of little value considering that
plants that withdraw makeup water from a river can experience low-flow
conditions and would be required to conduct a plant-specific assessment
of water use conflicts.
(24) Groundwater Quality Degradation Resulting from Water
Withdrawals: The final rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating two
Category 1 issues, ``Ground-water quality degradation (Ranney wells)''
and ``Ground-water quality degradation (saltwater intrusion),'' each
with an impact level of small, and names the consolidated issue,
``Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals.''
The consolidated issue remains a Category 1 issue, with an impact level
of small. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the
entries for ``Ground-water quality degradation (Ranney wells)'' and
``Ground-water quality degradation (saltwater intrusion)'' and, by
adding an entry for ``Groundwater quality degradation resulting from
water withdrawals.'' The finding column entry for the consolidated
issue states ``Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power
plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality
degradation.'' The two issues were consolidated as they both consider
the possibility of groundwater quality becoming degraded as a result of
plant operations drawing water of potentially lower quality into the
aquifer.
(25) Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds in
Salt Marshes): The final rule amends Table B-1 by revising the title of
the issue ``Ground-water quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt
marshes)'' to ``Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling
ponds in salt marshes).'' The issue remains a Category 1 issue, with an
impact level of small. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by
replacing the finding column entry, which states,
Sites with closed-cycle ponds may degrade ground-water quality.
Because water in salt marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for
plants located in salt marshes.
with the following:
[[Page 37301]]
Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater
quality. However, groundwater in salt marshes is naturally brackish
and thus, not potable. Consequently, the human use of such
groundwater is limited to industrial purposes.
The final rule change to the finding column entry reflects the
NRC's response to a public comment on the proposed rule by: (1)
Deleting the term ``plants'' to eliminate any confusion that the NRC
might have meant marsh ``plants'' rather than ``nuclear power plants;''
and (2) clarifying that the focus of this issue is on the degradation
of groundwater quality for human use. Brackish groundwater has limited
human use, thus, any impacts on groundwater quality caused by continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are not
significant.
(26) Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds at
Inland Sites): The final rule amends Table B-1 by revising the title of
the issue ``Ground-water quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland
sites)'' to ``Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling
ponds at inland sites).'' The issue remains a Category 2 issue, with an
impact level range of small to large. The final rule further amends
Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which states,
Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade ground-water
quality. For plants located inland, the quality of the ground water
in the vicinity of the ponds must be shown to be adequate to allow
continuation of current uses. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D).
with the following:
Inland sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade
groundwater quality. The significance of the impact would depend on
cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic conditions (including
the interaction of surface water and groundwater), and the location,
depth, and pump rate of water wells.
(27) Radionuclides Released to Groundwater: The final rule amends
Table B-1 by adding a new Category 2 issue, ``Radionuclides released to
groundwater,'' with an impact level range of small to moderate, to
evaluate the potential impact of discharges of radionuclides from plant
systems into groundwater. The finding column entry for this issue
states,
Leaks of radioactive liquids from plant components and pipes
have occurred at numerous plants. Groundwater protection programs
have been established at all operating nuclear power plants to
minimize the potential impact from any inadvertent releases. The
magnitude of impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics.
This new Category 2 issue has been added to evaluate the potential
impact to groundwater quality from the discharge of radionuclides from
plant systems, piping, and tanks. This issue was added because within
the past several years there have been events at nuclear power reactor
sites that involved unknown, uncontrolled, and unmonitored releases of
radioactive liquids into the groundwater. The issue is relevant to
license renewal because this experience has shown that components and
piping at nuclear power plants have the potential to leak radioactive
material into the groundwater and degrade its quality. While the NRC's
regulations in 10 CFR part 20 and in 10 CFR part 50 limit the amount of
radioactive material released (i.e., from routine and inadvertent
sources) from a nuclear power plant into the environment, the
regulations are focused on protecting the public, not the quality of
the groundwater. Therefore, as required by NEPA, the NRC must consider
the potential impacts to the groundwater from radioactive liquids
released into groundwater.
The majority of the inadvertent radioactive liquid release events
involved tritium, which is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. However,
in some of the events, radioactive isotopes of cesium and strontium
have also been released. Non-routine releases of radioactive liquids
into the groundwater have occurred from plant systems and buried
piping.
In 2006, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations chartered a
task force to conduct a lessons-learned review of these incidents. On
September 1, 2006, the Task Force issued its report: ``Liquid
Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Report'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML062650312). A significant conclusion of the report
dealt with the potential health impacts to the public from the
inadvertent releases. Although there were numerous events where
radioactive liquids were released to the groundwater in an unplanned,
uncontrolled, and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, the
task force did not identify any instances where public health and
safety was adversely impacted. However, the task force did not evaluate
the impact of the releases to groundwater quality. The task force also
identified that under the existing regulatory requirements, the
potential exists for radioactive liquid releases from leaking systems
to not be detected for a period of time and, therefore, the
contaminants could migrate into groundwater.
In response to these groundwater events, NEI, which represents the
nuclear industry, in 2007 committed to the NRC to develop a voluntary
initiative for each nuclear power plant to have a site-specific
groundwater protection program. NEI provided guidance to the nuclear
industry (NEI 07-07, ADAMS Accession No. ML072610036) on the
development and implementation of a groundwater protection program. The
program covers the assessment of plant systems and components, site
hydrogeology, and methods to detect leaks to determine the needs for
each site-specific program. To monitor the actions of the nuclear
industry, the NRC routinely inspects nuclear power plant licensees to
verify continued implementation of the Groundwater Protection
Initiative programs, to review records of identified leakage and spill
events, to assess whether the source of the leak or spill was
identified and mitigated, and to review any remediation actions taken
for effectiveness.
On the basis of the information and experience with these
groundwater events and the evaluation in the revised GEIS, the NRC
concludes that the impact to groundwater quality from the release of
radionuclides is dependent on site-specific variables and could be
small or moderate, depending on the magnitude of the leak,
radionuclides involved, and the response time of plant personnel to
identify and stop the leak in a timely fashion. Therefore,
``Radionuclides released to groundwater'' is a Category 2 issue and, as
such, a site-specific evaluation in the environmental report is needed
for each application for license renewal. Similarly, the NRC will
analyze this issue in the SEIS for each license renewal action.
Terrestrial Resources
(28) Effects on Terrestrial Resources (Non-Cooling System Impacts):
The final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Refurbishment
impacts'' issue as ``Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling
system impacts).'' It remains a Category 2 issue, with an impact level
range of small to large.\34\ The issue, as set forth in the 1996 GEIS,
addressed only the impacts upon terrestrial resources resulting from
any refurbishment activities during the license renewal term. The
analysis in the revised GEIS builds on the analysis in the 1996 GEIS to
include the environmental impacts resulting from continued plant
operations during the license renewal term. The final rule
[[Page 37302]]
further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which
states,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The proposed rule named the issue, ``Impacts of continued
plant operations on terrestrial ecosystems'' (74 FR 38123, 38136;
July 31, 2009).
Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of important
plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether
important plant and animal communities may be affected until the
specific proposal is presented with the license renewal application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
with the following:
Impacts resulting from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal may affect terrestrial communities.
Application of best management practices would reduce the potential
for impacts. The magnitude of impacts would depend on the nature of
the activity, the status of the resources that could be affected,
and the effectiveness of mitigation.
(29) Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides: The final
rule amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Exposure of
terrestrial organisms to radionuclides.'' The new issue has been
determined to have an impact level of small. The finding column entry
for this issue states,
Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be
well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.
This new issue evaluates the potential impact of radionuclides on
terrestrial organisms resulting from continued operations of a nuclear
power plant during the license renewal term and refurbishment
associated with license renewal. This issue was not evaluated in the
1996 GEIS. Subsequent to the publication of the 1996 GEIS, however,
members of the public and various Federal and State agencies commented
on the need to evaluate the potential impact of radionuclides on
terrestrial organisms during plant-specific license renewal reviews.
The revised GEIS evaluates the potential impact of radionuclides on
terrestrial biota at nuclear power plants from continued operations
during the license renewal term. For the evaluation, site-specific
radionuclide concentrations in environmental media (e.g., water, air,
milk, crops, food products, sediment, and fish and other aquatic biota)
were obtained from publicly available Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program (REMP) annual reports from 15 nuclear power plants.
The REMP is conducted at every NRC licensed nuclear power plant to
assess the environmental impacts from plant operations. This is done by
collecting samples of environmental media from areas surrounding the
plant for analysis to measure the amount of radioactivity, if any, in
the samples. The media samples reflect the radiation exposure pathways
to the public from radioactive effluents released by the nuclear power
plant and from background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, naturally-
occurring radioactive material, including radon and global fallout).
These 15 plants were selected to represent sites that reported a range
of radionuclide concentrations in the sample media and included both
boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors. Site-specific
radionuclide concentrations in water and sediments, as reported in the
plant's REMP reports, were used in the calculations. The calculated
radiation dose rates to terrestrial biota, based on exposure to
radioactivity in the environmental media, were compared against
radiation-safety guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the National
Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), and the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The NRC
concluded that the impacts of radionuclides on terrestrial biota from
past and current normal operations are small for all nuclear power
plants and should not change appreciably during the license renewal
term.
(30) Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources (Plants with
Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds): The final rule amends
Table B-1 by renaming the ``Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial
resources'' issue as ``Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources
(plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).'' It
remains a Category 1 issue, with an impact level of small. The analysis
in the revised GEIS expands the scope of this issue to include plants
with once-through cooling systems. This analysis concludes that the
impacts on terrestrial resources from once-through cooling systems, as
well as from cooling ponds, is of small significance at all plants. The
final rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column
entry, which states,
Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial ecological resources are
considered to be of small significance at all sites.
with the following:
No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or animals have been
reported as a result of increased water temperatures, fogging,
humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to the low concentrations
of contaminants in cooling system effluents, uptake and accumulation
of contaminants in the tissues of wildlife exposed to the
contaminated water or aquatic food sources are not expected to be
significant issues.
(31) Cooling Tower Impacts on Vegetation (Plants with Cooling
Towers): The final rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating two Category
1 issues, ``Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation''
and ``Cooling tower impacts on native plants,'' both issues having an
impact level of small, and names the consolidated issue, ``Cooling
tower impacts on vegetation (plants with cooling towers).'' The
consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small.
The two issues were consolidated to conform to the resource-based
approach used in the revised GEIS. With the recent trend of replacing
lawns with native vegetation, some ornamental plants and crops are
native plants, and the original separation into two issues is
unnecessary and cumbersome. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by
removing the entries for ``Cooling tower impacts on crops and
ornamental vegetation'' and ``Cooling tower impacts on native plants,''
and by adding an entry for ``Cooling tower impacts on vegetation
(plants with cooling towers).'' The finding column entry for the new
consolidated issue states,
Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity
associated with cooling tower operation have the potential to affect
adjacent vegetation, but these impacts have been small at operating
nuclear power plants and are not expected to change over the license
renewal term.
(32) Bird Collisions with Plant Structures and Transmission Lines:
The final rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating two Category 1 issues,
``Bird collisions with cooling towers'' and ``Bird collision with power
lines,'' both issues having an impact level of small. The final rule
also expands the scope of the consolidated issue to address collisions
with all plant structures and names the issue, ``Bird collisions with
plant structures and transmission lines.'' The consolidated issue is a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The two issues were
consolidated to conform to the resource-based approach used in the
revised GEIS. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the
entries for ``Bird collisions with cooling towers'' and ``Bird
collision with power lines,'' and by adding an entry for ``Bird
collisions with plant structures and transmission lines.'' The finding
column entry for the new consolidated issue states,
[[Page 37303]]
Bird collisions with cooling towers and other plant structures
and transmission lines occur at rates that are unlikely to affect
local or migratory populations and the rates are not expected to
change.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by appending a footnote to
the issue column entry for ``Bird collisions with plant structures and
transmission lines,'' concerning the extent to which transmission lines
and their associated right of ways have been analyzed under the revised
GEIS. This footnote is the same one that was added to Issue 3,
``Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs).'' See the
description of the changes made by the final rule to Issue 3 for
further explanation of this amendment.
(33) Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants with
Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River): The
final rule amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 2 issue, ``Water
use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup water from a river),'' to evaluate water
use conflict impacts with terrestrial resources in riparian
communities. The 1996 GEIS already addresses the resource aspects of
this issue, and 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires a plant-specific
analysis of the impacts of surface water withdrawals from rivers for
cooling pond or cooling tower makeup on riparian ecological
communities. However, this stand-alone issue was created to clearly
separate out the related aspects and potential impacts on terrestrial,
riparian communities associated with surface water withdrawals from a
river for consumptive cooling water uses. The new issue has an impact
level range of small to moderate. The finding column entry for this
issue states,
Impacts on terrestrial resources in riparian communities
affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance.
As described in the revised GEIS, such impacts could occur when
water that supports these resources is diminished because of decreased
availability due to droughts; increased water demand for agricultural,
municipal, or industrial usage; or a combination of these factors. The
potential range of impact levels at plants, subject to license renewal,
with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river
cannot be generically determined. The NRC has also removed the term
``low flow'' from the title of this issue, as set forth in the proposed
rule, and other related river flow issues in the final rule as
previously discussed in this section (see Issue 17, ``Surface Water Use
Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup
Water from a River)'').
(34) Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) Management Impacts on
Terrestrial Resources: The final rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating
two Category 1 issues, ``Power line right-of-way management (cutting
and herbicide application)'' and ``Floodplains and wetland on power
line right-of-way,'' each with an impact level of small, and names the
consolidated issue, ``Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management
impacts on terrestrial resources.'' The consolidated issue is a
Category 1 issue, with an impact level of small. The two issues were
consolidated to conform to the resource-based approach used in the
revised GEIS. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the
entries for ``Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide
application)'' and ``Floodplains and wetland on power line right-of-
way,'' and, by adding an entry for ``Transmission line right-of-way
(ROW) management impacts on terrestrial resources.'' The finding column
entry for the consolidated issue states,
Continued ROW management during the license renewal term is
expected to keep terrestrial communities in their current condition.
Application of best management practices would reduce the potential
for impacts.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by appending a footnote to
the issue column entry for ``Transmission line right-of-way (ROW)
management impacts on terrestrial resources,'' concerning the extent to
which transmission lines and their associated rights of way have been
analyzed under the revised GEIS. This footnote is the same one that was
added to Issue 3, ``Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs).'' See the description of the changes made by the final rule to
Issue 3 for further explanation of this amendment.
(35) Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna (Plants,
Agricultural Crops, Honeybees, Wildlife, Livestock): There are no
changes to this issue, and it remains a Category 1 issue with a small
level of impact. The final rule amends Table B-1 by appending a
footnote to the issue column entry for ``Electromagnetic Fields on
Flora and Fauna (Plants, Agricultural Crops, Honeybees, Wildlife,
Livestock),'' concerning the extent to which transmission lines and
their associated rights of way have been analyzed under the revised
GEIS. This footnote is the same one that was added to Issue 3,
``Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs).'' See the
description of the changes made by the final rule to Issue 3 for
further explanation of this amendment.
Aquatic Resources
(36) Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with
Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds): The final rule amends
Table B-1 by consolidating two Category 2 issues, ``Entrainment of fish
and shellfish in early life stages (for plants with once-through
cooling and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)'' and ``Impingement
of fish and shellfish (for plants with once-through cooling and cooling
pond heat dissipation systems),'' both with impact level ranges of
small to large, and names the consolidated issue, ``Impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds).'' The consolidated issue is a Category 2
issue with an impact level range of small to large. The final rule
further amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for ``Entrainment of
fish and shellfish in early life stages (for plants with once-through
cooling and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)'' and ``Impingement
of fish and shellfish (for plants with once-through cooling and cooling
pond heat dissipation systems),'' and, by adding an entry for
``Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-
through cooling systems or cooling ponds).'' The finding column entry
for the consolidated issue states,
The impacts of impingement and entrainment are small at many
plants, but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-
through and cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling
system withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the
site.
For the revised GEIS, these issues were consolidated to facilitate
the review process in keeping with the resource-based approach and to
allow for a more complete analysis of the environmental impact. Nuclear
power plants typically conduct separate sampling programs to estimate
the numbers of organisms entrained and impinged, which explains the
original separation of these issues. However, it is the consolidated
effects of entrainment and impingement that reflect the total impact of
the cooling system intake on the resource. Environmental conditions are
different at each nuclear power plant site, and impacts cannot be
determined generically.
[[Page 37304]]
(37) Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with
Cooling Towers): The final rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating two
Category 1 issues, ``Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life
stages (for plants with cooling tower-based heat dissipation systems)''
and ``Impingement of fish and shellfish (for plants with cooling tower-
based heat dissipation systems),'' both with impact levels of small,
and names the consolidated issue, ``Impingement and entrainment of
aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers).'' The consolidated
issue is a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The final
rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for ``Entrainment
of fish and shellfish in early life stages (for plants with cooling
tower-based heat dissipation systems)'' and ``Impingement of fish and
shellfish (for plants with cooling tower-based heat dissipation
systems),'' and by adding an entry for ``Impingement and entrainment of
aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers).'' The finding column
entry for the consolidated issue states,
Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at plants that use
closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers because the rates and
volumes of water withdrawal needed for makeup are minimized.
The two issues have been consolidated given their similar nature
and to facilitate the environmental review process consistent with the
resource-based approach in the revised GEIS.
(38) Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton (all plants):
There are no changes to this issue, and it remains a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. The proposed rule had consolidated two
Category 2 issues, ``Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life
stages (for plants with once-through cooling and cooling pond heat
dissipation systems)'' and ``Impingement of fish and shellfish (for
plants with once-through cooling and cooling pond heat dissipation
systems)'' with the Category 1 issue, ``Entrainment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton (for all plants)'' (74 FR 38124, 38136; July 31, 2009).
Under the proposed rule, the consolidated issue would have been a
Category 2 issue, with an impact range of small to large. Subsequent to
the publication of the proposed rule, the NRC determined that such
consolidation would have the effect of making ``Entrainment of
phytoplankton and zooplankton (all plants),'' which is an issue generic
to all plants (Category 1), a site-specific issue (Category 2). As
there is no basis to support making the ``Entrainment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton (all plants)'' a site-specific issue, the NRC
determined not to adopt the proposed rule change. Instead, only the two
Category 2 issues were consolidated (see Issue 36), and this issue
remains separate.
(39) Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through
Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds): The final rule amends Table B-1 by
renaming the issue, ``Heat shock (for plants with once-through and
cooling pond heat dissipation systems)'' as ``Thermal Impacts on
Aquatic Organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling
ponds).'' It remains a Category 2 issue with an impact level range of
small to large. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing
the finding column entry for this issue, which states,
Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the possible
need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing
environmental conditions, the impacts may be of moderate or large
significance at some plants. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
with the following:
Most of the effects associated with thermal discharges are
localized and are not expected to affect overall stability of
populations or resources. The magnitude of impacts, however, would
depend on site-specific thermal plume characteristics and the nature
of aquatic resources in the area.
Environmental conditions are different at each nuclear power plant
site, and thermal impacts associated with once-through and cooling pond
heat dissipation systems cannot be determined generically. The proposed
rule had consolidated the Category 2 issue, ``Heat shock (for plants
with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)'' with
four Category 1 issues, ``Cold shock (for all plants),'' ``Thermal
plume barrier to migrating fish (for all plants),'' ``Distribution of
aquatic organisms (for all plants),'' and ``Premature emergence of
aquatic insects (for all plants)'' (74 FR 38124, 38136; July 31, 2009).
These issues were proposed for consolidation to facilitate the
environmental review process because they are all caused by thermal
effects. The final rule consolidates these four Category 1 issues with
another Category 1 issue, ``Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g.,
shipworms),'' as Issue 41, ``Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all
plants),'' as described later in this section.
(40) Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling
Towers): The final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the issue ``Heat
shock (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)''
as ``Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling
Towers).'' It remains a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column
entry for this issue, which states, ``Heat shock has not been found to
be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of
cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term,'' with the following, ``Thermal effects associated with
plants that use cooling towers are expected to be small because of the
reduced amount of heated discharge.''
The proposed rule had consolidated the Category 1 issue, ``Heat
shock (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)''
with four other Category 1 issues, ``Cold shock (for all plants),''
``Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish (for all plants),''
``Distribution of aquatic organisms (for all plants),'' and ``Premature
emergence of aquatic insects (for all plants)'' (74 FR 38124, 38136).
These issues were proposed for consolidation to facilitate the
environmental review process because they are all caused by thermal
effects. The final rule consolidates these four Category 1 issues with
another Category 1 issue, ``Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g.,
shipworms),'' as Issue 41, ``Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all
plants),'' as described in the following paragraphs.
(41) Infrequently Reported Thermal Impacts (All Plants): The final
rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating five Category 1 issues, ``Cold
shock (for all plants),'' ``Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish
(for all plants),'' ``Distribution of aquatic organisms (for all
plants),'' ``Premature emergence of aquatic insects (for all plants),''
and ``Stimulation of Nuisance Organisms (e.g., Shipworms),'' each with
an impact level of small, and names the consolidated issue,
``Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants).'' The
consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue, with an impact level of
small. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the entries
for ``Cold shock (for all plants),'' ``Thermal plume barrier to
migrating fish (for all plants),'' ``Distribution of aquatic organisms
(for all plants),'' ``Premature emergence of aquatic insects (for all
plants),'' and ``Stimulation of Nuisance Organisms (e.g., Shipworms),''
and, by adding an entry for ``Infrequently reported thermal impacts
(all plants).'' The finding column entry for the new consolidated issue
states,
[[Page 37305]]
Continued operations during the license renewal term are
expected to have small thermal impacts with respect to the
following:
Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating
nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems, has not endangered
fish populations or been found to be a problem at operating nuclear
power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not
expected to be a problem.
Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating
nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem.
Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected
to affect the larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.
Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at
some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and
is not expected to be a problem.
Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily
mitigated at the single nuclear power plant with a once-through
cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling
towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem.
The five issues are consolidated to facilitate the environmental
review process because they are all caused by thermal effects resulting
from operation of a plant's cooling system. Previous license renewal
reviews conducted by the NRC have shown that the previously described
thermal issues have not been a problem at operating nuclear power
plants and would not change during the license renewal term, and so no
future impacts are anticipated.
(42) Effects of Cooling Water Discharge on Dissolved Oxygen, Gas
Supersaturation, and Eutrophication: The final rule amends Table B-1 by
consolidating three Category 1 issues, ``Eutrophication,'' ``Gas
supersaturation (gas bubble disease),'' and ``Low dissolved oxygen in
the discharge,'' each with an impact level of small, and names the
consolidated issue, ``Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved
oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication.'' The consolidated
issue is a Category 1 issue, with an impact level of small. The three
issues are consolidated given their similar nature and to facilitate
the environmental review process. The final rule further amends Table
B-1 by removing the entries for ``Eutrophication,'' ``Gas
supersaturation (gas bubble disease),'' and ``Low dissolved oxygen in
the discharge,'' and, by adding an entry for ``Effects of cooling water
discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and
eutrophication.'' The finding column entry for the new consolidated
issue states,
Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating
nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been
mitigated. Low dissolved oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power
plant with a once-through cooling system but has been mitigated.
Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and resulting effects on chemical
and biological oxygen demands have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants.
(43) Effects of Non-Radiological Contaminants on Aquatic Organisms:
The final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the issue ``Accumulation of
contaminants in sediments or biota'' as ``Effects of non-radiological
contaminants on aquatic organisms.'' The renamed issue remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The final rule further
amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which states,
Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear
power plants but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing
copper alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
with the following:
Best management practices and discharge limitations of NPDES
permits are expected to minimize the potential for impacts to
aquatic resources during continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal. Accumulation of metal contaminants
has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants, but has been
satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes
with those of another metal.
(44) Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Exposure of
Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides,'' with an impact level of small.
The finding column entry for this issue states,
Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be well below
exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic organisms.
The issue has been added to evaluate the potential impact of
radionuclide discharges upon aquatic organisms, based on comments from
members of the public and Federal and State agencies raised during the
license renewal process for various plants.
The revised GEIS evaluates the potential impact of radionuclides on
aquatic organisms at nuclear power plants from continued operations
during the license renewal term. For the evaluation, site-specific
radionuclide concentrations in environmental media (e.g., water, air,
milk, crops, food products, sediment, and fish and other aquatic biota)
were obtained from publicly available REMP annual reports from 15
nuclear power plants. The REMP is conducted at every NRC licensed
nuclear power plant to assess the environmental impacts from plant
operations. This is done by collecting samples of environmental media
from areas surrounding the plant for analysis to measure the amount of
radioactivity, if any, in the samples. The media samples reflect the
radiation exposure pathways to the public from radioactive effluents
released by the nuclear power plant and from background radiation
(i.e., cosmic sources, naturally-occurring radioactive material,
including radon and global fallout). These 15 plants were selected to
represent sites that reported a range of radionuclide concentrations in
the sample media and included both boiling water reactors and
pressurized water reactors. Site-specific radionuclide concentrations
in water and sediments, as reported in the plant's REMP reports, were
used in the calculations. The calculated radiation dose rates to
aquatic organisms, based on exposure to radioactivity in the
environmental media, were compared against radiation-safety guidelines
issued by DOE, IAEA, NCRP, and ICRP. The NRC concluded that the impacts
of radionuclides on aquatic organisms from past and current normal
operations are small for all nuclear power plants and should not change
appreciably during the license renewal term.
(45) Effects of Dredging on Aquatic Organisms: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Effects of
dredging on aquatic organisms,'' with an impact level of small, to
evaluate the impacts of dredging on aquatic organisms. The finding
column entry for this issue states,
Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to occur
infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would
affect relatively small areas. Dredging is performed under permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other
State or local agencies.
Licensees conduct dredging to maintain intake and discharge
structures at nuclear power plant facilities and in some cases, to
maintain barge slips. Dredging may disturb or remove benthic
communities. In general, maintenance dredging for nuclear power plant
operations occur infrequently, is of relatively short duration, and
affects relatively small areas. Dredging is performed under a permit
issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and consequently, each
dredging action is subject to a site-specific environmental review
conducted by the Corps. Dredging
[[Page 37306]]
activities may also require permits from various State or local
agencies.
(46) Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants with
Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers using Makeup Water from a River): The
final rule amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 2 issue, ``Water
use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup water from a river),'' with an impact level
range of small to moderate, to evaluate water use conflicts with
aquatic resources in stream communities. The 1996 GEIS already
addresses the resource aspects of this issue, and 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires a plant-specific analysis of the impacts of
surface water withdrawals from rivers for cooling pond or cooling tower
makeup on stream (i.e., aquatic) ecological communities. However, this
stand-alone issue was created to clearly separate out the related
aspects and potential impacts on aquatic communities associated with
surface water withdrawals from a river for consumptive cooling water
uses.
The finding column entry for this issue states,
Impacts on aquatic resources in stream communities affected by
water use conflicts could be of moderate significance in some
situations.
Such impacts could occur when water that supports these resources
is diminished because of decreased availability due to droughts;
increased water demand for agricultural, municipal, or industrial
usage; or a combination of these factors. The potential range of impact
levels at plants, subject to license renewal, with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup water from a river cannot be generically
determined. The NRC has also removed the term ``low flow'' from the
title of this issue, as set forth in the proposed rule, and other
related river flow issues in the final rule as previously discussed in
this section (see Issue 17, ``Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with
Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River)'').
(47) Effects on Aquatic Resources (Non-Cooling System Impacts): The
final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Refurbishment'' issue as
``Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system impacts).'' \35\ It
remains a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The final
rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The proposed rule had renamed this issue ``Refurbishment
impacts on aquatic resources.'' (74 FR 38125, 38136; July 31, 2009).
During plant shutdown and refurbishment there will be negligible
effects on aquatic biota because of a reduction of entrainment and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
impingement of organisms or a reduced release of chemicals.
with the following:
Licensee application of appropriate mitigation measures is
expected to result in no more than small changes to aquatic
communities from their current condition.
(48) Impacts of Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) Management on
Aquatic Resources: The final rule amends Table B-1 by adding a new
Category 1 issue, ``Impacts of transmission line right-of-way (ROW)
management on aquatic resources,'' with an impact level of small, to
evaluate the impact of transmission line ROW management on aquatic
resources during the license renewal term. The finding column entry for
this issue states,
Licensee application of best management practices to ROW
maintenance is expected to result in no more than small impacts to
aquatic resources.
Impacts on aquatic resources from transmission line ROW maintenance
could occur as a result of the direct disturbance of aquatic habitats,
soil erosion, changes in water quality (from sedimentation and thermal
effects), or inadvertent releases of chemical contaminants from
herbicide use. As described in the revised GEIS, the NRC expects any
impact on aquatic resources resulting from transmission line ROW
maintenance to be small, short term, and localized for all plants
because of licensee application of best management practices.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by appending a footnote to
the issue column entry for ``Impacts of Transmission Line Right-of-Way
(ROW) Management on Aquatic Resources,'' concerning the extent to which
transmission lines and their associated ROW have been analyzed under
the revised GEIS. This footnote is the same one that was added to Issue
3, ``Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs).'' See
the description of the changes made by the final rule to Issue 3 for
further explanation of this amendment.
(49) Losses from Predation, Parasitism, and Disease Among Organisms
Exposed to Sublethal Stresses: There are no changes to this issue, and
it remains a Category 1 issue, with an impact level of small.
Special Status Species and Habitats
(50) Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Essential
Fish Habitat: The final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the issue
``Threatened or endangered species'' as ``Threatened, endangered, and
protected species and essential fish habitat.'' The final rule expands
the scope of the issue to include essential fish habitats protected
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA). The renamed and expanded issue is a Category 2 issue. The final
rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry,
which states,
Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operations are not
expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species.
However, consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed at
the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or
endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely
affected. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
with the following:
The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered, and
protected species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat
would depend on the occurrence of listed species and habitats and
the effects of power plant systems on them. Consultation with
appropriate agencies would be needed to determine whether special
status species or habitats are present and whether they would be
adversely affected by continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal.
The final rule also amends Table B-1 by removing the words ``SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE'' from the finding column entry because the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires other findings.\36\ In complying
with the ESA, the NRC determines whether the effects of continued
nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment (1) would have no
effect, (2) are not likely to adversely affect, (3) are likely to
adversely affect, or (4) are likely to jeopardize the listed species or
adversely modify the designated critical habitat of Federally listed
species populations or their critical habitat during the license
renewal term. For listed species where the NRC has found that its
action is ``likely to adversely affect'' the species or habitat, the
NRC may further characterize the effects as ``is [or is not] likely to
jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical
habitat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The proposed rule did not reflect this change (74 FR 38125,
38137; July 31, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the MSA also requires other findings. In complying with
the MSA, the NRC determines whether the effects
[[Page 37307]]
of continued nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal would have: (1) No adverse impact, (2)
minimal adverse impact, or (3) substantial adverse impact to the
essential habitat of federally managed fish populations during the
license renewal term. Therefore, the NRC believes that reporting its
ESA and MSA findings instead of the ``SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE''
significance levels of impact will clarify the results.
Historic and Cultural Resources
(51) Historic and Cultural Resources: The final rule amends Table
B-1 by renaming the issue ``Historic and archaeological resources'' as
``Historic and cultural resources.'' It remains a Category 2 issue. The
final rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column
entry, which states,
Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operations are
expected to have no more than small adverse impacts on historic and
archaeological resources. However, the National Historic
Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to consult with the
State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are
properties present that require protection. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K).
with the following:
Continued operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal are expected to have no more than small impacts on historic
and cultural resources located onsite and in the transmission line
ROW because most impacts could be mitigated by avoiding those
resources. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires
the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) and appropriate Native American Tribes to determine
the potential effects on historic properties and mitigation, if
necessary.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the words
``SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE'' from the finding column entry \37\
because the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires the NRC
to determine whether historic properties are present on or near the
project site, and if so, whether the license renewal decision would
result in any adverse effect upon such properties. Thus, the NRC in its
plant-specific environmental review makes the following determinations:
no historic properties present; historic properties are present, but
not adversely affected; or there is an adverse effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The proposed rule did not reflect this change (74 FR 38125,
38137; July 31, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If continued operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal result in any adverse effects, the NHPA Section 106 process
requires consultation with the requisite State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) and if appropriate, the requisite Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer. The license renewal applicant is typically an
active participant in such consultation, and the applicant may agree to
commit to carrying out the appropriate mitigation measures. If an
agreement is reached, the parties will execute a Memorandum of
Agreement. Therefore, the NRC believes that reporting its NHPA findings
in the plant-specific SEIS, instead of the ``SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE'' significance levels of impact, will clarify the results.
Socioeconomics
(52) Employment and Income, Recreation and Tourism: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Employment and
income, recreation and tourism,'' which includes the ``tourism and
recreation'' portion of a current Table B-1 Category 1 issue, ``Public
services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation.''
The issue has an impact level of small. The final rule consolidates the
tourism and recreation portion with the new generic analysis to cover
employment and income given the similar nature of these issues and to
facilitate the environmental review process. The revised GEIS provides
an analysis of this consolidated issue and concludes that the impacts
are generic to all plants undergoing license renewal. The finding
column entry for this issue states,
Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of employees
with higher than average wages and salaries, employment, income,
recreation, and tourism impacts from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be
small.
(53) Tax Revenues: The impact of changes to tax revenues was
discussed in the 1996 GEIS, but was not listed in Table B-1. The final
rule amends Table B-1 by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Tax
revenues,'' to evaluate the impacts of license renewal on tax revenues.
The issue has an impact level of small. The finding column entry for
this issue states,
Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local jurisdictions in the
form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or
tax payments on energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid
during the license renewal term as a result of continued operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal is not expected to
change.
Refurbishment activities, such as steam generator and vessel head
replacement, have not had a noticeable effect on the value of nuclear
power plants, thus changes in tax revenues are not anticipated from
future refurbishment activities. Refurbishment activities involve the
one-for-one replacement of existing components and are generally not
considered a taxable improvement. Also, new property tax assessments;
proprietary payments in lieu of tax stipulations, settlements, and
agreements; and State tax laws are continually changing the amounts
paid to taxing jurisdictions by nuclear power plant owners, and these
occur independent of license renewal and refurbishment activities.
(54) Community Services and Education: The final rule amends Table
B-1 by reclassifying two Category 2 issues, ``Public services: public
utilities,'' with an impact level range of small to moderate, and
``Public services, education (refurbishment),'' with an impact level
range of small to large, as Category 1 issues. The final rule
consolidates these two issues with the Category 1 issue, ``Public
services, education (license renewal term),'' which has an impact level
of small, and the ``Public safety and social service'' portion of the
Category 1 issue, ``Public services: public safety, social services,
and tourism and recreation,'' which also has an impact level of
small.\38\ The final rule names the consolidated issue, ``Community
services and education,'' and classifies it as a Category 1 issue with
an impact level of small. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by
removing the entries for ``Public services: public utilities,''
``Public services, education (refurbishment),'' ``Public services,
education (license renewal term),'' and ``Public services: public
safety, social services, and tourism and recreation,'' and by adding
the entry for ``Community services and education.'' The finding column
entry for the ``Community services and education'' issue states,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The ``tourism and recreation'' portion of the ``Public
services: public safety, social services, and tourism and
recreation'' issue was consolidated with the new generic analysis
concerning employment and income to form the consolidated Category 1
issue, ``Employment and income, recreation and tourism'' (see Issue
52).
Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal to local community and educational
services would be small. With little or no change in employment at
the licensee's plant, value of the power plant, payments on energy
production, and PILOT payments expected during the license renewal
term, community and educational services would not be affected by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
continued power plant operations.
The four issues are consolidated because all public services are
equally affected by changes in plant operations and refurbishment
associated with
[[Page 37308]]
license renewal. Any changes in the number of workers at a nuclear
power plant will affect demand for public services from local
communities. Nevertheless, past environmental reviews conducted by the
NRC since the issuance of the 1996 GEIS have shown that the number of
workers at relicensed nuclear power plants has not changed
significantly because of license renewal. Thus, no significant impacts
on community services are anticipated from future license renewals. In
addition, refurbishment activities, such as steam generator and vessel
head replacement, have not required the large numbers of workers and
the months of time that was conservatively analyzed in the 1996 GEIS,
and as such, significant impacts on community services are no longer
anticipated. Combining the four issues also facilitates the
environmental review process.
(55) Population and Housing: The final rule amends Table B-1 by
renaming the Category 2 issue, ``Housing impacts,'' with an impact
level range of small to large, to ``Population and housing.'' The final
rule reclassifies this issue as a Category 1 issue with an impact level
of small. As described in the revised GEIS, the availability and value
of housing are directly affected by changes in population. The final
rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the entry for ``Housing
impacts,'' and by adding an entry for ``Population and housing.'' The
finding column entry for this issue states,
Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal to regional population and housing
availability and value would be small. With little or no change in
employment at the licensee's plant expected during the license
renewal term, population and housing availability and values would
not be affected by continued power plant operations.
As described in the revised GEIS, the NRC has determined that the
impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities on
population and housing during the license renewal term would be small.
Moreover, any impacts are not dependent on the socioeconomic setting of
the nuclear power plant and are generic to all plants.
(56) Transportation: The final rule amends Table B-1 by
reclassifying the Category 2 issue, ``Public services,
Transportation,'' with an impact level range of small to large, as a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of small, and renaming it
``Transportation.'' The final rule further amends Table B-1 by
replacing the finding column entry, which states,
Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic
generated during plant refurbishment and during the term of the
renewed license are generally expected to be of small significance.
However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers
and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to
impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. See Sec.
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).
with the following:
Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal to traffic volumes would be small.
As described in the revised GEIS, the NRC has determined that the
numbers of workers have not changed significantly due to license
renewal, so transportation impacts from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are no longer expected to
be significant.
Human Health
(57) Radiation Exposures to the Public: The final rule amends Table
B-1 by consolidating two Category 1 issues, ``Radiation exposures to
the public during refurbishment'' and ``Radiation exposure to public
(license renewal term)'' and names the consolidated issue, ``Radiation
exposures to the public.'' The consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue
with an impact level of small. These issues are consolidated given
their similar nature and to facilitate the environmental review
process. The final rule amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for
``Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment'' and
``Radiation exposure to public (license renewal term)'' and by adding
an entry for ``Radiation exposures to the public.'' The finding column
entry for this consolidated issue states,
Radiation doses to the public from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to
continue at current levels, and would be well below regulatory
limits.
(58) Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers: The final rule amends
Table B-1 by consolidating two Category 1 issues, ``Occupational
radiation exposures during refurbishment'' and ``Occupational radiation
exposures (license renewal term)'' and names the consolidated issue,
``Radiation exposures to plant workers.'' The consolidated issue is a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. These issues are
consolidated given their similar nature and to facilitate the
environmental review process. The final rule amends Table B-1 by
removing the entries ``Occupational radiation exposures during
refurbishment'' and ``Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal
term)'' and by adding an entry for ``Radiation exposures to plant
workers.'' The finding column entry for the combined issue states,
Occupational doses from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be within the range
of doses experienced during the current license term and would
continue to be well below regulatory limits.
(59) Human Health Impact from Chemicals: The final rule amends
Table B-1 by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Human health impact from
chemicals,'' to evaluate the potential impacts to plant workers and
members of the public from exposure to chemicals. The new issue has an
impact level of small. The finding column entry for this issue states,
Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are
expected to be minimized by the licensee implementing good
industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and
State regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and the
potential for impacts to the public are expected to be minimized by
adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits.
The evaluation addresses the potential impact of chemicals on human
health resulting from normal operations of a nuclear power plant during
the license renewal term. Impacts of chemical exposure to human health
are considered to be small if the use of chemicals within the plant is
in accordance with industrial safety guides and discharges of chemicals
to water bodies are within effluent limitations designed to ensure
protection of water quality and aquatic life.
The disposal of hazardous chemicals used at nuclear power plants by
licensees is subject to the RCRA and the CWA (which requires licensees
to hold an NPDES permit). Adherence by the licensee to these statutory
requirements should minimize adverse impacts to the environment,
workers, and the public. It is anticipated that all plants would
continue to operate in compliance with all applicable permits and that
no mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current
license term would be warranted as a result of license renewal.
A review of the documents, as referenced in the revised GEIS,
operating monitoring reports, and consultations with utilities and
regulatory agencies that were performed for the 1996 GEIS, indicated
that the
[[Page 37309]]
effects of the discharge of chlorine and other biocides on water
quality have been of small significance for all power plants. Small
quantities of biocides are readily dissipated and/or are chemically
altered in the body of water receiving them, so significant cumulative
impacts to water quality would not be expected. The NRC expects no
major changes in the operation of plant cooling systems during the
license renewal term, so no changes are anticipated in the effects of
biocide discharges on the quality of the receiving waters. The EPA and
the States regulate discharges of sanitary wastes and heavy metals
through NPDES permits. The NRC considers discharges that do not violate
the permit limits to be of small significance. The effects of minor
chemical discharges and spills on water quality are also expected to be
of small significance during the license renewal term, and the
appropriate regulating agencies would require the licensee to mitigate
these discharges and spills as needed.
(60) Microbiological Hazards to the Public (Plants with Cooling
Ponds or Canals or Cooling Towers that Discharge to a River): The final
rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Microbiological organisms
(public health) (plants using lakes or canals, or cooling towers or
cooling ponds that discharge to a small river)'' issue as
``Microbiological hazards to the public (plants with cooling ponds or
canals or cooling towers that discharge to a river).'' The issue
remains a Category 2 issue, with an impact level range of small to
large. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding
column entry, which states,
These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most
operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds,
lakes, or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without site-
specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects
generically. See Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).
with the following:
These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most
operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds,
lakes, or canals, or that discharge into rivers. Impacts would
depend on site-specific characteristics.
(61) Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Microbiological organisms
(occupational health)'' issue as ``Microbiological hazards to plant
workers.'' It remains a Category 1 issue with an impact level of small.
The final rule amends Table B-1 by adding the phrase ``as required by
permits and Federal and State regulations'' to the end of the finding
column entry.
(62) Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs): The final
rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Electromagnetic fields, chronic
effects'' issue as ``Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields
(EMFs).'' It remains an uncategorized issue with an impact level of
uncertain because there is no national scientific consensus on the
potential impacts from chronic exposure to EMFs. The final rule further
amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which states,
Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields
have not found consistent evidence linking harmful effects with
field exposures. However, research is continuing in this area and a
consensus scientific view has not been reached.
with the following:
Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence
linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other
agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing
radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and
longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the
science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human
health impacts is possible.
Although there is no conclusion as to the impact level, and this
issue is not considered to be a Category 1 issue in the sense that a
generic conclusion on the impact level has not been reached, this issue
will be treated uniformly in plant-specific SEISs by essentially
providing the discussion appearing in this issue's finding column entry
in Table B-1 until a national scientific consensus has been reached.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by appending a footnote to
the issue column entry for ``Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
(EMFs),'' concerning the extent to which transmission lines and their
associated right of ways have been analyzed under the revised GEIS.
This footnote is the same one that was added to Issue 3, ``Offsite land
use in transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs).'' See the description of
the changes made by the final rule to Issue 3 for further explanation
of this amendment. In addition, the final rule retains the footnote
that was appended to issue column entry but renumbers that footnote
from ``5'' to ``6'' and retains the footnote that was appended to
category column entry but renumbers that footnote from ``4'' to ``5.''
(63) Physical Occupational Hazards: The final rule amends Table B-1
by adding a new Category 1 issue, ``Physical occupational hazards,'' to
evaluate the potential impact of physical occupational hazards on human
health resulting from normal nuclear power plant operations during the
license renewal term. The issue has an impact level of small. The
finding column entry for this issue states,
Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to all types
of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power plants,
and are of small significance if the workers adhere to safety
standards and use protective equipment as required by Federal and
State regulations.
Through a Memorandum of Understanding (53 FR 43950; October 31,
1988) between the NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), plant conditions that result in an occupational
risk, but do not affect the safety of licensed radioactive materials,
are under the statutory authority of OSHA rather than the NRC.
Nevertheless, the impact of physical occupational hazards on human
health has been raised by the public, as well as Federal and State
agencies during the license renewal process. As such, this issue has
been added to allow for a more complete analysis of the human health
impact of continued power plant operation during the license renewal
term. Occupational hazards can be minimized by licensees when workers
adhere to safety standards and use appropriate protective equipment,
although fatalities and injuries from accidents can still occur. Data
for occupational injuries in 2005 obtained from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics indicate that the rate of fatal injuries in the
utility sector is less than the rate for many sectors (e.g.,
construction, transportation and warehousing, agriculture, forestry,
fishing and hunting, wholesale trade, and mining) and that the
incidence rate for nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses is the
least for electric power generation, followed by electric power
transmission control and distribution. It is expected that over the
license renewal term, licensees would ensure that their workers
continue to adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment, so
adverse occupational impacts would be of small significance at all
sites.
(64) Electric Shock Hazards: The final rule amends Table B-1 by
renaming the ``Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock)''
issue as ``Electric shock hazards.'' It remains a Category 2 issue with
an impact level range of small to large. The final rule further amends
Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which states,
Electrical shock resulting from direct access to energized
conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures have not
been found to be a problem at most operating plants and generally
are not expected to be a problem during the license
[[Page 37310]]
renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine
the significance of the electric shock potential at the site. See
Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H).
with the following:
Electrical shock potential is of small significance for
transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the National
Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of conformance with
NESC criteria of each nuclear power plant's in-scope transmission
lines, it is not possible to generically determine the significance
of the electrical shock potential.
The final rule's change to the finding column entry reflects the
analysis in the revised GEIS concerning the potential of electrical
shock from transmission lines. The final rule further amends Table B-1
by appending a footnote to the issue column entry for ``Electric shock
hazards,'' concerning the extent to which transmission lines and their
associated right of ways have been analyzed under the revised GEIS.
This footnote is the same one that was added to Issue 3, ``Offsite land
use in transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs).'' See the description of
the changes made by the final rule to Issue 3 for further explanation
of this amendment.
Postulated Accidents
(65) Design-Basis Accidents and (66) Severe Accidents: ``Design-
basis accidents,'' and ``Severe accidents,'' with impact levels of
small, remain Category 1 and 2 issues, respectively. The final rule
amends Table B-1 by making minor clarifying changes to the finding
column entries for both of these issues.
Environmental Justice
(67) Minority and Low-Income Populations: The final rule amends
Table B-1 by adding a new Category 2 issue, ``Minority and low-income
populations,'' to evaluate the impacts of continued operations and any
refurbishment activities during the license renewal term on minority
and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the plant. This
issue was listed in Table B-1, prior to this final rule, but was not
evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. In that table the finding column entry for
this issue states, ``[t]he need for and the content of an analysis of
environmental justice will be addressed in plant-specific reviews.''
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) initiated the
Federal government's environmental justice program. The NRC's ``Policy
Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC
Regulatory and Licensing Actions'' (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004)
states, ``the NRC is committed to the general goals of E.O. 12898,
[and] it will strive to meet those goals through its normal and
traditional NEPA review process.'' Guidance for implementing E.O. 12898
was not available prior to the completion of the 1996 GEIS. By making
this a Category 2 issue, the final rule requires license renewal
applicants to identify, in their environmental reports, minority and
low-income populations and communities residing in the vicinity of the
nuclear power plant.
The final rule amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column
entry, which states,
The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental
justice will be addressed in plant-specific reviews.
with the following:
Impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence
consumption resulting from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal will be addressed in plant-specific
reviews. See NRC Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental
Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR
52040; August 24, 2004).
The final rule does not adopt the proposed rule's impact range of
small to moderate for this issue as E.O. 12898 requires a determination
of whether human health and environmental effects of continued
operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment associated
with license renewal on minority and low-income populations would be
disproportionately high and adverse. This determination will be made by
the NRC in each plant-specific SEIS.
The final rule removes the footnote from the category column entry
for this issue and removes footnote ``6'' from Table B-1 as footnote
``6'' is no longer necessary.
Waste Management
(68) Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal: This issue remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The final rule amends
Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which states,
The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the
low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the
radiological impacts to the environment will remain small during the
term of a renewed license. The maximum additional on-site land that
may be required for low-level waste storage during the term of a
renewed license and associated impacts will be small.
Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The
radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term
disposal of low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed
sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is
reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal
capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be
decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.
with the following:
The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the
low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the
radiological impacts to the environment would remain small during
the license renewal term.
(69) Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: The final rule amends
Table B-1 by renaming the ``Onsite spent fuel'' issue as ``Onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel.'' It remains a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. As described in Section V, ``Related Issues of
Importance,'' of this document, the final rule revises the finding
column entry for this issue to reflect the D.C. Circuit's decision in
New York v. NRC and the NRC's planned response thereto. Specifically,
the final rule reduces the period of time covered by this issue from
the period of extended license (from approval of the license renewal
application to the expiration of the operating license) plus 30 years
after the permanent shutdown of the reactor and expiration of the
operating license to the period of extended license only. The final
rule amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which
states,
The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an
additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated on site
with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all
plants if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is
not available.
with the following:
The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an
additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite
during the license renewal term with small environmental effects
through dry or pool storage at all plants.
(70) Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-
Level Waste Disposal: The final rule amends Table B-1 by renaming the
``Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste
disposal)'' issue as ``Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste disposal.'' As described in Section V
``Related Issues of Importance,'' of this document, the final rule
revises the finding column entry for this issue to reflect the D.C.
Circuit's decision in New York v. NRC and the NRC's planned response
thereto. Specifically, the final rule reclassifies this issue from
Category
[[Page 37311]]
1, with no impact level assigned, to an uncategorized issue with an
impact level of uncertain. The final rule removes the description in
the finding column entry and replaces it with the following:
``Uncertain impact. The generic conclusion on offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste is not being
finalized pending the completion of a generic environmental impact
statement on waste confidence.'' Upon issuance of the generic EIS and
revised Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC will make any necessary
confirming amendments to this rule.
(71) Mixed-Waste Storage and Disposal: This issue remains a
Category 1 issue with an impact level of small. The final rule amends
Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry for this issue, which
states,
The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and
procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as
well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the
public and the environment at all plants. License renewal will not
increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the
environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and
nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed
waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In
addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable
assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal capacity will be made
available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent
with NRC decommissioning requirements.
with the following:
The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and
procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as
well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the
public and the environment at all plants. License renewal would not
increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the
environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and
nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed
waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small.
(72) Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by renaming the issue ``Nonradiological waste'' as
``Nonradiological waste storage and disposal.'' It remains a Category 1
issue, with an impact level of small. The final rule further amends
Table B-1 by replacing the finding column entry, which states,
No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license
renewal. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued
proper handling and disposal at all sites.
with the following:
No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive waste are
anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities and
procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling,
storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic
materials for the public and the environment at all plants.
Cumulative Impacts
(73) Cumulative Impacts: The final rule amends Table B-1 by adding
a new Category 2 issue, ``Cumulative impacts,'' to evaluate the
potential cumulative impacts of license renewal. The term ``cumulative
impacts'' is defined in 10 CFR 51.14(b) by reference to the CEQ
regulations, 40 CFR 1508.7, as ``the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions.''
For the purposes of analysis, past actions are considered to be
when the nuclear power plant was licensed and constructed, present
actions are related to current plant operations, and future actions are
those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant
operations including the license renewal term. The geographic area over
which past, present, and future actions are assessed depends on the
affected resource.
The final rule requires license renewal applicants to identify
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as
the construction and operation of other power plants and other
industrial and commercial facilities in the vicinity of the nuclear
power plant. The finding column entry for this issue states,
Cumulative impacts of continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal must be considered on a plant-
specific basis. Impacts would depend on regional resource
characteristics, the resource-specific impacts of license renewal,
and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the
resource.
Uranium Fuel Cycle
(74) Offsite Radiological Impacts--Individual Impacts from Other
than the Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Offsite radiological impacts
(individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high
level waste)'' issue as ``Offsite radiological impacts--individual
impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level
waste.'' This issue remains a Category 1 issue with an impact level of
small. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the finding
column entry, which states,
Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered
by the Commission in Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in
the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid
releases including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.
with the following:
The impacts to the public from radiological exposures have been
considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this part. Based on
information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals from radioactive
gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99,
would remain at or below the NRC's regulatory limits.
(75) Offsite Radiological Impacts--Collective Impacts from Other
than the Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste: The final rule
amends Table B-1 by renaming the ``Offsite radiological impacts
(collective effects)'' issue as ``Offsite radiological impacts--
collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-
level waste.'' It remains a Category 1 issue with no impact level
assigned. The final rule further amends Table B-1 by replacing the
finding column entry, which states,
The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S.
population from the fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel
disposal excepted, is calculated to be about 14,800 person rem, or
12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year power reactor
operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon
releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed
over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically
be extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of
years as well as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a
calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel
cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some
statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated
(for example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that
these doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful.
However, these assumptions are questionable. In particular, science
cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no cancer
fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are
very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller
fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations.
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to
the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and
it makes no sense to repeat the same judgment in every case. Even
taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that
these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant,
that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be
eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a
single level of significance for the collective effects of the
[[Page 37312]]
fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.
with the following:
There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to
the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of
estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not
be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated
to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The
Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant,
that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be
eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a
single level of significance for the collective impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.
(76) Nonradiological Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle: The final
rule amends Table B-1 by making minor clarifying changes to the finding
column entry for this issue. This issue remains a Category 1 issue with
an impact level of small.
(77) Transportation: This issue remains a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small. The final rule amends Table B-1 by replacing the
finding column entry for this issue, which states,
The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent
uranium-235 with average burnup for the peak rod to current levels
approved by NRC up to 62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of
transporting high-level waste to a single repository, such as Yucca
Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent with the impact values
contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S-4--Environmental
Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-
Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or burnup
conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of
the implications for the environmental impact values reported in
Sec. 51.52.
with the following:
The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-
cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the environment are
expected to be small.
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
(78) Termination of Plant Operations and Decommissioning: The final
rule amends Table B-1 by consolidating a new Category 1 issue,
``Termination of nuclear power plant operations'' with six other
Category 1 issues related to the decommissioning of a nuclear power
plant: ``Radiation doses,'' ``Waste management,'' ``Air quality,''
``Water quality,'' ``Ecological resources,'' and ``Socioeconomic
impacts,'' each with an impact level of small. The final rule names the
consolidated issue, ``Termination of plant operations and
decommissioning.'' The consolidated issue is a Category 1 issue with an
impact level of small.
The final rule further amends Table B-1 by removing the entries for
``Radiation doses,'' ``Waste management,'' ``Air quality,'' ``Water
quality,'' ``Ecological resources,'' and ``Socioeconomic impacts,''
and, by adding an entry for ``Termination of plant operations and
decommissioning.'' The finding column entry for the consolidated issue
states,
License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect on the
impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning on all
resources.
The 1996 GEIS analysis indicates that the six decommissioning
issues are expected to be small at all nuclear power plant sites. The
new issue addresses the impacts from terminating nuclear power plant
operations and plant decommissioning. Termination of nuclear power
plant operations results in the cessation of many routine plant
operations as well as a significant reduction in the plant's workforce.
It is assumed that termination of plant operations would not lead to
the immediate decommissioning and dismantlement of the reactor or other
power plant infrastructure.
The final rule consolidates the six decommissioning issues and the
termination of nuclear power plant operations issue into one Category 1
issue to facilitate the environmental review process. For further
information about the environmental effects of decommissioning, see the
``2002 Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' NUREG-0586.
IX. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following section-by-section analysis discusses the sections in
10 CFR part 51 that are being amended as a result of the final rule.
Section 51.53(c)(2)
The NRC is clarifying the required contents of the license renewal
environmental report, which applicants must submit in accordance with
10 CFR 54.23, ``Contents of application--environmental information,''
by revising the second sentence in this subparagraph to read, ``This
report must describe in detail the affected environment around the
plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any
plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities.''
Sections 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A), (B), (C), and (E)
For those applicants seeking an initial license renewal and holding
either an operating license, construction permit, or combined license
as of June 30, 1995, the environmental report shall include the
information required in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) but is not required to
contain assessments of the environmental impacts of certain license
renewal issues identified as Category 1 (generically analyzed) issues
in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. The environmental report
must contain analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed
action, including the impacts of refurbishment activities, if any,
associated with license renewal and the impacts of operation during the
renewal term, for those issues identified as Category 2 (plant-specific
analysis required) issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51
and must include consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse
impacts of Category 2 issues. In addition, the environmental report
must contain any new and significant information regarding the
environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is
aware. The required analyses are listed in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)-
(P).
The final rule language for 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A), (B), (C),
(E), (F), (G), (I), (J), (K), and (N) consists of changes to conform to
the final changes in Table B-1, which in turn, reflects the revised
GEIS. The modified paragraphs more accurately reflect the specific
information needed in the environmental report that will help the NRC
conduct the environmental review of the proposed action.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) is revised to incorporate the findings
of the revised GEIS and to require applicants to provide information in
their environmental reports regarding water use conflicts encompassing
water availability and competing water demands, and related impacts on
stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) communities. The numerical
definition for a low flow river has also been deleted requiring that
applicants withdrawing makeup water for cooling towers or cooling ponds
from any river provide a plant-specific assessment of water use
conflicts in their environmental reports.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) is revised to replace ``heat shock''
with ``thermal changes'' to reflect the final changes in
[[Page 37313]]
Table B-1 as described earlier in this document under ``Aquatic
Resources'' environmental impact Issue 39, ``Thermal impacts on aquatic
organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling
ponds).''
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) is revised to delete the reference to
``Ranney wells'' to conform to the final changes made in the revised
Table B-1.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) is revised to expressly include nuclear
power plant continued operations within the scope of the impacts to be
assessed by license renewal applicants. The paragraph is further
revised to expand the scope of the provision to include all Federal
wildlife protection laws and essential fish habitat under the MSA.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F)
The final rule removes and reserves 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F)
because the final rule changes the Category 2 issue, ``Air quality
during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas),'' to
Category 1, ``Air quality impacts (all plants).''
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G)
The final rule language for 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) is revised to
delete the numerical definition for a low flow river to conform to the
final changes made in the revised Table B-1.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
The final rule removes and reserves 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
because several Category 2 socioeconomic issues are reclassified as
Category 1.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)
The final rule removes and reserves 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)
because the final rule changes the Category 2 issue, ``Public services,
Transportation,'' to Category 1, ``Transportation.''
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K)
The final rule language for 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) is revised to
more accurately reflect the specific information needed in the
environmental report that will help the NRC conduct the environmental
review of the proposed action.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N)
The final rule adds a new paragraph 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(N) to
require license renewal applicants to provide information on the
general demographic composition of minority and low-income populations
and communities (by race and ethnicity) residing in the immediate
vicinity of the plant that could be affected by the renewal of the
plant's operating license, including any planned refurbishment
activities, and ongoing and future plant operations.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O)
The final rule adds a new paragraph 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(O) to
require license renewal applicants to provide information about other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring in
the vicinity of the nuclear power plant that may result in a cumulative
effect.
Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P)
The final rule adds a new paragraph 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(P) to
require the license renewal applicant to assess the impact of any
documented inadvertent releases of radionuclides to groundwater. The
assessment must include a description of any groundwater protection
program used for the surveillance of piping and components containing
radioactive liquids for which a pathway to groundwater may exist. The
assessment must also include a description of any past inadvertent
releases, including the projected impact to the environment (e.g.,
aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds) during the license renewal term.
Section 51.71(d)
The final rule language for 10 CFR 51.71(d) is revised to make
minor conforming changes to clarify the readability and to include the
analysis of cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts were not addressed
in the 1996 GEIS, but are currently being evaluated by the NRC in
plant-specific supplements to the GEIS. The NRC is modifying this
paragraph to more accurately reflect the cumulative impacts analysis
conducted for environmental reviews of the proposed action.
Section 51.95(c)
The final rule language revisions to the introductory text of 10
CFR 51.95(c) are administrative in nature and replace the reference to
the 1996 GEIS for license renewal of nuclear power plants with a
reference to the revised GEIS.
Section 51.95(c)(4)
The final rule removes the terms ``resolved Category 2 issues'' and
``open Category 2 issues'' from the second sentence of 10 CFR
51.95(c)(4), makes other clarifying changes to enhance the readability
of the sentence, corrects a typographical error, and removes otherwise
ambiguous or unnecessary language. The terms ``resolved Category 2
issues'' and ``open Category 2 issues'' are not defined nor used in 10
CFR part 51. In addition, the revised GEIS does not contain these terms
nor does the NRC use these terms in SEISs. The only instance in past
NRC practice in which an ``open'' or ``resolved'' Category 2 issue
arises is for the Category 2 ``Severe accidents'' issue. The ``Severe
accidents'' issue requires the preparation of a severe accident
mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis as a prerequisite to license
renewal. If a license renewal applicant had not yet performed a SAMA
analysis for a given plant, then the issue would remain ``open''
pending the completion of a SAMA analysis. Some licensees, however,
have already performed a SAMA analysis at some point. Thus, if a
license renewal applicant had performed a SAMA analysis for a
particular plant, then the issue would be considered ``resolved,'' and
there would be no need to repeat a SAMA analysis as part of a license
renewal application. As the finding column entry for ``Severe
accidents'' already provides for a previously prepared SAMA analysis,
and the ``open'' or ``resolved'' terminology is not used in connection
with any other GEIS issue, there is no need to retain this language in
the second sentence of 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4).
Table B-1
The final rule revises Table B-1 to follow the organizational
format of the revised GEIS. Environmental issues in Table B-1 are
arranged by resource area. The environmental impacts of license renewal
activities, including plant operations and refurbishment along with
replacement power alternatives, are addressed in each resource area.
Table B-1 organizes environmental impact issues under the following
resource areas: (1) Land use; (2) visual resources; (3) air quality;
(4) noise; (5) geologic environment; (6) surface water resources; (7)
groundwater resources; (8) terrestrial resources; (9) aquatic
resources; (10) special status species and habitats; (11) historic and
cultural resources; (12) socioeconomics; (13) human health; (14)
postulated accidents; (15) environmental justice; (16) waste
management; (17) cumulative impacts; (18) uranium fuel cycle; and (19)
termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning.
Discussions of the environmental impact issues in each resource area
and classification of issues into Category 1 or Category 2 are provided
in Section VIII, ``Final Actions and Basis for Changes to Table B-1''
of this document. Additional changes to Table B-1 in the final rule
were discussed previously in applicable resource areas in Section VIII.
Footnote 1 was updated to reference the revised GEIS. A minor
[[Page 37314]]
edit was made to footnote 2, clause (3), to improve clarity. Footnote 4
was added to define the in-scope electric transmission lines.
Consequently, the previous footnotes 4 and 5 were renumbered as
footnotes 5 and 6, respectively. The previous footnote 6 was deleted,
as it is no longer needed.
X. Guidance Documents
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal
Register, the NRC is providing notice of the availability of three
additional documents related to this final rule: (1) A revised GEIS,
NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' Vol. 1, ``Main Report'' (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13106A241); Vol. 2, ``Public Comments'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A242); and Vol. 3, ``Appendices'' (ADAMS Acession No.
ML13106A244); (2) Revision 1 of Environmental Standard Review Plan
(ESRP), NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, ``Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating
License Renewal'' (ADAMS Acession No. ML13106A246); and (3) Revision 1
of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, ``Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications'' (ADAMS
Acession No. ML13067A354).
The revised GEIS is intended to improve the efficiency of the
license renewal process by (1) Providing an evaluation of the types of
environmental impacts that may occur from renewing commercial nuclear
power plant operating licenses, (2) identifying and assessing impacts
that are expected to be generic (the same or similar) at all nuclear
power plants (or plants with specific plant or site characteristics),
and (3) defining the number and scope of environmental impact issues
that need to be addressed in plant-specific supplemental EISs. The
content of the revised GEIS is discussed further in Section III,
``Discussion,'' of this document.
Revision 1 of RG 4.2, Supplement 1, provides general procedures for
the preparation of environmental reports, which are submitted as part
of the license renewal application for a nuclear power plant in
accordance with 10 CFR part 54. More specifically, this revised RG
explains the criteria for addressing Category 2 issues in the
environmental report as required by the revisions to 10 CFR part 51
under the final rule.
The revised ESRP provides guidance to the NRC staff on how to
conduct a license renewal environmental review. The ESRP parallels the
format in RG 4.2. The primary purpose of the ESRP is to ensure that
these reviews focus on those environmental concerns associated with
license renewal as described in 10 CFR part 51.
XI. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 20,
1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517), this rule is
classified as compatibility category ``NRC.'' Agreement State
Compatibility is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC
program elements in this category are those that relate directly to
areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, or the provisions of Title 10 of the CFR. Although an
Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it
may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a
mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative
procedure laws. Category ``NRC'' regulations do not confer regulatory
authority on the State.
XII. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified in the following table
available to interested persons through one or more of the methods
provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ADAMS Accession No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUREG-1437, Revision 1, ``Generic X X ML13106A241
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,''
Vol. 1, ``Main Report''.
NUREG-1437, Revision 1, ``Generic X X ML13106A242
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,''
Vol. 2, ``Public Comments''.
NUREG-1437, Revision 1, ``Generic X X ML13106A244
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,''
Vol. 3, ``Appendices''.
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, X X ML13067A354
Revision 1, ``Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power
Plant License Renewal Applications''.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, X X ML13106A246
``Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power
Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License
Renewal''.
Regulatory Analysis for RIN 3150-AI42, X X ML13029A471
Final Rulemaking Revisions to
Environmental Review for Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.
OMB Supporting Statement for RIN 3150- X X ML110760342
AI42, Final Rulemaking Revisions to
Environmental Review for Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.
SECY-12-0063, Final Rule: Revisions to X X ML110760033
Environmental Protection Regulations for
the Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses (10 CFR part 50; RIN
3150-AI42) (April 20, 2012).
Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-12- X X ML12341A134
0063 (December 6, 2012).
Meeting Between the U.S. Nuclear X X ML11182B535
Regulatory Commission and Public
Stakeholders Concerning Implementation
of Final Rule for Revisions to the
Environmental Protection Regulations for
the Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses and Other License
Renewal Environmental Review Issues (TAC
No. ME2308) (July 21, 2011).
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor X X ML111861807
Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-
Term Task Force Review of Insights from
the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident'' (July
12, 2011).
NRC Press Release No. 10-060, ``NRC Asks X X ML100970142
National Academy of Sciences to Study
Cancer Risk in Populations Living Near
Nuclear Power Facilities'' (April 7,
2010).
Summary of Public Meetings to Discuss X X ML093070141
Proposed Rule Regarding Title 10, part
51 of the Code of Federal Regulations
and the Draft Revision to the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-
1437, Revision 1 (November 3, 2009).
[[Page 37315]]
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to X X ML093100505
Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, Dana Point, CA
(October 22, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to X X ML093070174
Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, Pismo Beach, CA
(October 20, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to X X ML092931678
Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, Rockville, MD (October
1, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to X X ML092931545
Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, Oak Brook, IL
(September 24, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to X X ML092931681
Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, Newton, MA (September
17, 2009).
Official Transcript of Public Meeting to X X ML092810007
Discuss the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement, Atlanta, GA (September
15, 2009).
NRC Response to Public Comments Received X X ML111450013
on Proposed 10 CFR part 51 Rule,
``Revisions to Environmental Review for
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses'' (RIN 3150-AI42).
NRC Response to Public Comments Related X X ML13067A355
to Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-4015
(Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide
4.2, Supplement 1)--``Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power
Plant License Renewal Applications''
(RIN 3150-AI42).
Regulatory History for Proposed Rule, X X ML093160539
``Revisions to Environmental Review for
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses'' (RIN 3150-AI42).
Draft NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision X X ML090220654
1--``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants''.
Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-4015 (Proposed X X ML091620409
Revision 1 of RG 4.2, Supplement 1),
``Preparation of Environmental Reports
for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal
Applications''.
Draft NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision X X ML090230497
1--``Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power
Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License
Renewal''.
NEI 07-07, ``Industry Ground Water X X ML072610036
Protection Initiative--Final Guidance
Document''.
Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons X X ML062650312
Learned Task Force Final Report
(September 1, 2006).
NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, ``Generic X X ML040690720
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,''
Main Report, Section 6.3--
Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of
NEPA Issues for License Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plants.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, ``Generic X X ML040690705
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,''
Main Report.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2, ``Generic X X ML040690738
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,''
Appendices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. This final rulemaking,
which amends various provisions of 10 CFR part 51, does not constitute
the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable
requirements.
XIV. Environmental Impact--Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that the promulgation of this final rule is
a type of procedural action that meets the criteria of the categorical
exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(i) and (iii). Therefore,
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
XV. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule contains new or amended information collection
requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). These requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), control number 3150-0021.
The burden to the public for these information collections is
estimated to be reduced by an average of 311.15 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the information collection. Send comments on any aspect of
these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to the Information Services Branch (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by email to
INFOCOLLECTS.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0021), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to Chad--S.--
Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
XVI. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner
that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or
field and the intended audience. The NRC has attempted to use plain
language in promulgating this rule consistent with the Federal Plain
Writing Act guidelines.
[[Page 37316]]
XVII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis of this regulation. The
analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered
by the NRC. Availability of the regulatory analysis is provided in
Section XII, ``Availability of Documents,'' of this document.
XVIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final
rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees filing license renewal
applications. The companies that own these plants do not fall within
the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC
(10 CFR 2.810).
XIX. Backfitting and Issue Finality
Issuance of this final rule does not constitute ``backfitting'' as
defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) of the Backfit Rule and is not otherwise
inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provisions in 10 CFR
part 52. The final rule does not meet the definition of a backfit in 10
CFR 50.109(a)(1) because the document is not a ``modification of or
addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility;
or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the
procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a
facility.'' For these reasons, issuance of this final rule does not
constitute ``backfitting'' within the meaning of the definition of
``backfitting'' in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). Similarly, the issuance of the
this final rule does not constitute an action inconsistent with any of
the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
XX. Congressional Review Act
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC
has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified
this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the OMB.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC amends 10
CFR part 51 as follows:
Part 51--Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act sec. 161, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2201,
2297f); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 211 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5851); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704
(44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A also issued under National
Environmental Policy Act secs. 102, 104, 105 (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334,
4335); Pub. L. 95 604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033 3041; Atomic Energy
Act sec. 193 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80.
and 51.97 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135, 141,
148 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also issued under
Atomic Energy Act sec. 274 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste
Policy Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and
51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) (42
U.S.C. 10134(f)).
0
2. Amend Sec. 51.53 by:
0
a. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (c)(2);
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A);
0
c. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(F);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(G);
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(I) and (J);
0
i. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(K); and
0
j. Adding paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(N), (O), and (P).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 51.53 Postconstruction environmental reports.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * * This report must describe in detail the affected
environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the
environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment
activities. * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling
ponds and withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the
impact of the proposed action on water availability and competing water
demands, the flow of the river, and related impacts on stream (aquatic)
and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be provided. * *
*
(B) * * * If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall
assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish
resources resulting from thermal changes and impingement and
entrainment.
(C) If the applicant's plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total
onsite) of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the
proposed action on groundwater must be provided.
* * * * *
(E) All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related
construction activities on important plant and animal habitats.
Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed
action on threatened or endangered species in accordance with Federal
laws protecting wildlife, including but not limited to, the Endangered
Species Act, and essential fish habitat in accordance with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
* * * * *
(G) If the applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or
discharges into a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed
action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected
water must be provided.
* * * * *
(K) All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic
or archaeological properties and assess whether any of these properties
will be affected by future plant operations and any planned
refurbishment activities in accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act.
* * * * *
(N) Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic
composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by
race and ethnicity) residing in the immediate vicinity of the plant
that could be affected by the renewal of the plant's operating license,
including any planned refurbishment activities, and ongoing and future
plant operations.
(O) Applicants shall provide information about other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring in the vicinity of
the nuclear plant that may result in a cumulative effect.
(P) An applicant shall assess the impact of any documented
inadvertent releases of radionuclides into groundwater. The applicant
shall include in its assessment a description of any groundwater
protection program
[[Page 37317]]
used for the surveillance of piping and components containing
radioactive liquids for which a pathway to groundwater may exist. The
assessment must also include a description of any past inadvertent
releases and the projected impact to the environment (e.g., aquifers,
rivers, lakes, ponds, ocean) during the license renewal term.
0
3. In Sec. 51.71, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.71 Draft environmental impact statement--contents.
* * * * *
(d) Analysis. Unless excepted in this paragraph or Sec. 51.75, the
draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary
analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects, including
any cumulative effects, of the proposed action; the environmental
impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives
available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.
Additionally, the draft environmental impact statement will include a
consideration of the economic, technical, and other benefits and costs
of the proposed action and alternatives. The draft environmental impact
statement will indicate what other interests and considerations of
Federal policy, including factors not related to environmental quality,
if applicable, are relevant to the consideration of environmental
effects of the proposed action identified under paragraph (a) of this
section. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement prepared
at the license renewal stage under Sec. 51.95(c) need not discuss the
economic or technical benefits and costs of either the proposed action
or alternatives except if benefits and costs are either essential for a
determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of
alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the
supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license
renewal stage need not discuss other issues not related to the
environmental effects of the proposed action and associated
alternatives. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement for
license renewal prepared under Sec. 51.95(c) will rely on conclusions
as amplified by the supporting information in the GEIS for issues
designated as Category 1 in appendix B to subpart A of this part. The
draft supplemental environmental impact statement must contain an
analysis of those issues identified as Category 2 in appendix B to
subpart A of this part that are open for the proposed action. The
analysis for all draft environmental impact statements will, to the
fullest extent practicable, quantify the various factors considered. To
the extent that there are important qualitative considerations or
factors that cannot be quantified, these considerations or factors will
be discussed in qualitative terms. Consideration will be given to
compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements that
have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies
having responsibility for environmental protection, including
applicable zoning and land-use regulations and water pollution
limitations or requirements issued or imposed under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. The environmental impact of the proposed action
will be considered in the analysis with respect to matters covered by
environmental quality standards and requirements irrespective of
whether a certification or license from the appropriate authority has
been obtained. While satisfaction of Commission standards and criteria
pertaining to radiological effects will be necessary to meet the
licensing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the analysis will, for
the purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological effects of the proposed
action and alternatives.
* * * * *
Compliance with the environmental quality standards and
requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (imposed by
EPA or designated permitting states) is not a substitute for, and
does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all environmental
effects of the proposed action, including the degradation, if any,
of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed
action that are available for reducing adverse effects. Where an
environmental assessment of aquatic impact from plant discharges is
available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the
assessment in its determination of the magnitude of environmental
impacts for striking an overall cost-benefit balance at the
construction permit and operating license and early site permit and
combined license stages, and in its determination of whether the
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that
preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decision-makers would be unreasonable at the license renewal stage.
When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the
permitting authority, NRC will establish on its own, or in
conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having
relevant expertise, the magnitude of potential impacts for striking
an overall cost-benefit balance for the facility at the construction
permit and operating license and early site permit and combined
license stages, and in its determination of whether the adverse
environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that
preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decision-makers would be unreasonable at the license renewal stage.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 51.95 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and
the second sentence of paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.95 Postconstruction environmental impact statements.
* * * * *
(c) Operating license renewal stage. In connection with the renewal
of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power plant
under 10 CFR parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall
prepare an environmental impact statement, which is a supplement to the
Commission's NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (June 2013), which is available in
the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
* * * * *
(4) * * * In order to make recommendations and reach a final
decision on the proposed action, the NRC staff, adjudicatory officers,
and Commission shall integrate the conclusions in the generic
environmental impact statement for issues designated as Category 1 with
information developed for those Category 2 issues applicable to the
plant under Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and any new and significant
information. * * *
* * * * *
0
5. In appendix B to subpart A of part 51, Table B-1 is revised to read
as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart A--Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating
License of a Nuclear Power Plant
* * * * *
[[Page 37318]]
Table B-1--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category
Issue \2\ Finding \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite land use............................ 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear
power plant site and would involve only land that is
controlled by the licensee.
Offsite land use........................... 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
Offsite land use in transmission line right- 1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued
of-ways (ROWs) \4\. operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal would continue with no change in land use
restrictions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthetic impacts.......................... 1 SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance
of plant structures or transmission lines are
expected from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality impacts (all plants)........... 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal are
expected to be small at all plants. Emissions
resulting from refurbishment activities at locations
in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance
areas would be short-lived and would cease after
these refurbishment activities are completed.
Operating experience has shown that the scale of
refurbishment activities has not resulted in
exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for criteria
pollutants, and best management practices including
fugitive dust controls and the imposition of permit
conditions in State and local air emissions permits
would ensure conformance with applicable State or
Tribal Implementation Plans.
Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire
pumps and routine operations of boilers used for
space heating would not be a concern, even for plants
located in or adjacent to nonattainment areas.
Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions even
under the worst-case situations have been small.
Air quality effects of transmission lines 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is
\4\. insignificant and does not contribute measurably to
ambient levels of these gases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise impacts.............................. 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory
guidelines for offsite receptors during continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geologic Environment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geology and soils.......................... 1 SMALL. The effect of geologic and soil conditions on
plant operations and the impact of continued
operations and refurbishment activities on geology
and soils would be small for all nuclear power plants
and would not change appreciably during the license
renewal term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface water use and quality (non-cooling 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be small if best
system impacts). management practices are employed to control soil
erosion and spills. Surface water use associated with
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal would not increase significantly
or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a
plant outage.
Altered current patterns at intake and 1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to
discharge structures. the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge
structures. These impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power plants.
Altered salinity gradients................. 1 SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited
to the area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have been small
at operating nuclear power plants.
Altered thermal stratification of lakes.... 1 SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be
limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have been small
at operating nuclear power plants.
Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 1 SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area
in the vicinity of the intake and discharge
structures. These impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power plants.
Discharge of metals in cooling system 1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be
effluent. a problem at operating nuclear power plants with
cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have
been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants.
Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit process.
[[Page 37319]]
Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and 1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated
minor chemical spills. by Federal and State environmental agencies.
Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of
the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear power plants.
Surface water use conflicts (plants with 1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a
once-through cooling systems). problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-
through heat dissipation systems.
Surface water use conflicts (plants with 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or
cooling ponds or cooling towers using moderate significance, depending on makeup water
makeup water from a river). requirements, water availability, and competing water
demands.
Effects of dredging on surface water 1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the
quality. vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to
maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a
problem for surface water quality. Dredging is
performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local
agencies.
Temperature effects on sediment transport 1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a
capacity. problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not
expected to be a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater contamination and use (non- 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from
cooling system impacts). continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal. Industrial practices involving
the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or
other chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater ponds
or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site
groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is
subject to State or Environmental Protection Agency
regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The
application of best management practices for handling
any materials produced or used during these
activities would reduce impacts.
Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not
withdraw less than 100 gallons per minute expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts.
[gpm]).
Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more
withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts
[gpm]). with nearby groundwater users.
Groundwater use conflicts (plants with 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could
closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-
makeup water from a river). flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge.
The significance of impacts would depend on makeup
water requirements, water availability, and competing
water demands.
Groundwater quality degradation resulting 1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear
from water withdrawals. power plants would not contribute significantly to
groundwater quality degradation.
Groundwater quality degradation (plants 1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could
with cooling ponds in salt marshes). degrade groundwater quality. However, groundwater in
salt marshes is naturally brackish and thus, not
potable. Consequently, the human use of such
groundwater is limited to industrial purposes.
Groundwater quality degradation (plants 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Inland sites with closed-
with cooling ponds at inland sites). cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater
quality. The significance of the impact would depend
on cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic
conditions (including the interaction of surface
water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and
pump rate of water wells.
Radionuclides released to groundwater...... 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Leaks of radioactive liquids from
plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous
plants. Groundwater protection programs have been
established at all operating nuclear power plants to
minimize the potential impact from any inadvertent
releases. The magnitude of impacts would depend on
site-specific characteristics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrestrial Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on terrestrial resources (non- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Impacts resulting from
cooling system impacts). continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal may affect terrestrial
communities. Application of best management practices
would reduce the potential for impacts. The magnitude
of impacts would depend on the nature of the
activity, the status of the resources that could be
affected, and the effectiveness of mitigation.
Exposure of terrestrial organisms to 1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued
radionuclides. operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal are expected to be well below exposure
guidelines developed to protect these organisms.
Cooling system impacts on terrestrial 1 SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or
resources (plants with once-through animals have been reported as a result of increased
cooling systems or cooling ponds). water temperatures, fogging, humidity, or reduced
habitat quality. Due to the low concentrations of
contaminants in cooling system effluents, uptake and
accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of
wildlife exposed to the contaminated water or aquatic
food sources are not expected to be significant
issues.
[[Page 37320]]
Cooling tower impacts on vegetation (plants 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or
with cooling towers). increased humidity associated with cooling tower
operation have the potential to affect adjacent
vegetation, but these impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected
to change over the license renewal term.
Bird collisions with plant structures and 1 SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and other
transmission lines \4\. plant structures and transmission lines occur at
rates that are unlikely to affect local or migratory
populations and the rates are not expected to change.
Water use conflicts with terrestrial 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources in
resources (plants with cooling ponds or riparian communities affected by water use conflicts
cooling towers using makeup water from a could be of moderate significance.
river).
Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) 1 SMALL. Continued ROW management during the license
management impacts on terrestrial renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial
resources \4\. communities in their current condition. Application
of best management practices would reduce the
potential for impacts.
Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna 1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic
(plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been
wildlife, livestock) \4\. identified. Such effects are not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impingement and entrainment of aquatic 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of impingement
organisms (plants with once-through and entrainment are small at many plants but may be
cooling systems or cooling ponds). moderate or even large at a few plants with once-
through and cooling-pond cooling systems, depending
on cooling system withdrawal rates and volumes and
the aquatic resources at the site.
Impingement and entrainment of aquatic 1 SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at
organisms (plants with cooling towers). plants that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling
towers because the rates and volumes of water
withdrawal needed for makeup are minimized.
Entrainment of phytoplankton and 1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton
zooplankton (all plants). has not been found to be a problem at operating
nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.
Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects
(plants with once-through cooling systems associated with thermal discharges are localized and
or cooling ponds). are not expected to affect overall stability of
populations or resources. The magnitude of impacts,
however, would depend on site-specific thermal plume
characteristics and the nature of aquatic resources
in the area.
Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 1 SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use
(plants with cooling towers). cooling towers are expected to be small because of
the reduced amount of heated discharge.
Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all 1 SMALL. Continued operations during the license renewal
plants). term are expected to have small thermal impacts with
respect to the following:
Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at
operating nuclear plants with once-through cooling
systems, has not endangered fish populations or been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is
not expected to be a problem.
Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected
to be a problem.
Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is
not expected to affect the larger geographical
distribution of aquatic organisms.
Premature emergence has been found to be a localized
effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has
not been a problem and is not expected to be a
problem.
Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been
satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power
plant with a once-through cooling system where
previously it was a problem. It has not been found to
be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with
cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected
to be a problem.
Effects of cooling water discharge on 1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small
dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and number of operating nuclear power plants with once-
eutrophication. through cooling systems but has been mitigated. Low
dissolved oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power
plant with a once-through cooling system but has been
mitigated. Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and
resulting effects on chemical and biological oxygen
demands have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants.
Effects of non-radiological contaminants on 1 SMALL. Best management practices and discharge
aquatic organisms. limitations of NPDES permits are expected to minimize
the potential for impacts to aquatic resources during
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal. Accumulation of metal
contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear
power plants but has been satisfactorily mitigated by
replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of
another metal.
Exposure of aquatic organisms to 1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be
radionuclides. well below exposure guidelines developed to protect
these aquatic organisms.
[[Page 37321]]
Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms... 1 SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to
occur infrequently, would be of relatively short
duration, and would affect relatively small areas.
Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or
local agencies.
Water use conflicts with aquatic resources 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on aquatic resources in
(plants with cooling ponds or cooling stream communities affected by water use conflicts
towers using makeup water from a river). could be of moderate significance in some situations.
Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling 1 SMALL. Licensee application of appropriate mitigation
system impacts). measures is expected to result in no more than small
changes to aquatic communities from their current
condition.
Impacts of transmission line right-of-way 1 SMALL. Licensee application of best management
(ROW) management on aquatic resources \4\. practices to ROW maintenance is expected to result in
no more than small impacts to aquatic resources.
Losses from predation, parasitism, and 1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be
disease among organisms exposed to a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are
sublethal stresses. not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Status Species and Habitats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threatened, endangered, and protected 2 The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered,
species and essential fish habitat. and protected species, critical habitat, and
essential fish habitat would depend on the occurrence
of listed species and habitats and the effects of
power plant systems on them. Consultation with
appropriate agencies would be needed to determine
whether special status species or habitats are
present and whether they would be adversely affected
by continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic and Cultural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic and cultural resources \4\........ 2 Continued operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal are expected to have no more than
small impacts on historic and cultural resources
located onsite and in the transmission line ROW
because most impacts could be mitigated by avoiding
those resources. The National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) requires the Federal agency to consult
with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
and appropriate Native American Tribes to determine
the potential effects on historic properties and
mitigation, if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socioeconomics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment and income, recreation and 1 SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers
tourism. of employees with higher than average wages and
salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism
impacts from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be
small.
Tax revenues............................... 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments,
payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on
energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid
during the license renewal term as a result of
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal is not expected to change.
Community services and education........... 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to
local community and educational services would be
small. With little or no change in employment at the
licensee's plant, value of the power plant, payments
on energy production, and PILOT payments expected
during the license renewal term, community and
educational services would not be affected by
continued power plant operations.
Population and housing..................... 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to
regional population and housing availability and
value would be small. With little or no change in
employment at the licensee's plant expected during
the license renewal term, population and housing
availability and values would not be affected by
continued power plant operations.
Transportation............................. 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to
traffic volumes would be small.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation exposures to the public.......... 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal are expected to continue at current levels,
and would be well below regulatory limits.
Radiation exposures to plant workers....... 1 SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal are
expected to be within the range of doses experienced
during the current license term, and would continue
to be well below regulatory limits.
[[Page 37322]]
Human health impact from chemicals......... 1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting
from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be
minimized by the licensee implementing good
industrial hygiene practices as required by permits
and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases
to the environment and the potential for impacts to
the public are expected to be minimized by adherence
to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits.
Microbiological hazards to the public 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not
(plants with cooling ponds or canals or expected to be a problem at most operating plants
cooling towers that discharge to a river). except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes,
or canals, or that discharge into rivers. Impacts
would depend on site-specific characteristics.
Microbiological hazards to plant workers... 1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be
controlled by continued application of accepted
industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker
exposures as required by permits and Federal and
State regulations.
Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields N/A \5\ Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not
(EMFs) \4,6\. uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects
with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents
that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and
ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects
cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real,
are subtle. Because the state of the science is
currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human
health impacts is possible.
Physical occupational hazards.............. 1 SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are
generic to all types of electrical generating
stations, including nuclear power plants, and are of
small significance if the workers adhere to safety
standards and use protective equipment as required by
Federal and State regulations.
Electric shock hazards \4\................. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential
is of small significance for transmission lines that
are operated in adherence with the National
Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of
conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear power
plant's in-scope transmission lines, it is not
possible to determine the significance of the
electrical shock potential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postulated Accidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design-basis accidents..................... 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the
environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are
of small significance for all plants.
Severe accidents........................... 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of
atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of
water, releases to groundwater, and societal and
economic impacts from severe accidents are small for
all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe
accidents must be considered for all plants that have
not considered such alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority and low-income populations........ 2 Impacts to minority and low-income populations and
subsistence consumption resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal will be addressed in plant-specific reviews.
See NRC Policy Statement on the Treatment of
Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and
Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-level waste storage and disposal....... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are
in place and the low public doses being achieved at
reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the
environment would remain small during the license
renewal term.
Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel....... 1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent
fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be
safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal
term with small environmental effects through dry or
pool storage at all plants.
Offsite radiological impacts of spent N/A \5\ Uncertain impact. The generic conclusion on offsite
nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal. radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste is not being finalized pending the
completion of a generic environmental impact
statement on waste confidence.\7\
Mixed-waste storage and disposal........... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the
facilities and procedures that are in place ensure
proper handling and storage, as well as negligible
doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public
and the environment at all plants. License renewal
would not increase the small, continuing risk to
human health and the environment posed by mixed waste
at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological
environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed
waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are
small.
Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal.. 1 SMALL. No changes to systems that generate
nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the
license renewal term. Facilities and procedures are
in place to ensure continued proper handling,
storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure
to toxic materials for the public and the environment
at all plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37323]]
Cumulative Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative impacts......................... 2 Cumulative impacts of continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal must be
considered on a plant-specific basis. Impacts would
depend on regional resource characteristics, the
resource-specific impacts of license renewal, and the
cumulative significance of other factors affecting
the resource.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Fuel Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offsite radiological impacts--individual 1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological
impacts from other than the disposal of exposures have been considered by the Commission in
spent fuel and high-level waste. Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the
GEIS, impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous
and liquid releases, including radon-222 and
technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC's
regulatory limits.
Offsite radiological impacts--collective 1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to
impacts from other than the disposal of collective doses to the general public from fuel-
spent fuel and high-level waste. cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health
effects on the basis of collective doses may not be
meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed
and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits
and standards. The Commission concludes that the
collective impacts are acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion,
for any plant, that the option of extended operation
under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated.
Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a
single level of significance for the collective
impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is
considered Category 1.
Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel 1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel
cycle. cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating
license for any plant would be small.
Transportation............................. 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and
from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the
public, and the environment are expected to be small.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of plant operations and 1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a
decommissioning. negligible effect on the impacts of terminating
operations and decommissioning on all resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, Revision 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (June 2013).
\2\ The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:
Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or,
for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site
characteristic;
(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for
Offsite radiological impacts--collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level
waste); and
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been
determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to
warrant implementation.
The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.
Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that
one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is
required.
\3\ The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the
significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ``small,'' may be
negligible. The definitions of significance follow:
SMALL--For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing
radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in
the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table.
MODERATE--For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
LARGE--For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important
attributes of the resource.
For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in
determining significance.
\4\ This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as
transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the
regional power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the
grid.
\5\ NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.
\6\ If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached
by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the
Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their
license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit
information on this issue.
\7\ As a result of the decision of United States Court of Appeals in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (DC Cir.
2012), the NRC cannot rely upon its Waste Confidence Decision and Rule until it has taken those actions that
will address the deficiencies identified by the D.C. Circuit. Although the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule
did not assess the impacts associated with disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a
repository, it did reflect the Commission's confidence, at the time, in the technical feasibility of a
repository and when that repository could have been expected to become available. Without the analysis in the
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule regarding the technical feasibility and availability of a repository, the
NRC cannot assess how long the spent fuel will need to be stored onsite.
[[Page 37324]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of June 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-14310 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P