Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents, 48235-48242 [2015-19843]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48235
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 155
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[Docket Nos. PRM–51–14, et al.; NRC–2011–
0189]
Environmental Impacts of Severe
Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is denying 15
petitions for rulemaking submitted by
the petitioners identified in the table in
Section IV, ‘‘Availability of
Documents.’’ The petitioners requested
that the NRC rescind its regulations that
‘‘reach generic conclusions about the
environmental impacts of severe reactor
and/or spent fuel pool accidents and
therefore prohibit considerations of
those impacts in reactor licensing
proceedings.’’
SUMMARY:
The dockets for petitions for
rulemaking (PRM) PRM–51–14, PRM–
51–15, PRM–51–16, PRM–51–17, PRM–
51–18, PRM–51–19, PRM–51–20, PRM–
51–21, PRM–51–22, PRM–51–23, PRM–
51–24, PRM–51–25, PRM–51–26, PRM–
51–27, and PRM–51–28 are closed on
August 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2011–0189 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for any of these petitions.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this action by any
of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2011–0189. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher, telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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. For the
convenience of the reader, instructions
about obtaining information regarding
the 15 petitions and other materials
referenced in this document are
provided in the ‘‘Availability of
Documents’’ section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Tobin, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
2328; email: Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
INFORMATION CONTACT
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor
Accidents and Spent Fuel Pool
Accidents
III. Determination of Petitions
IV. Availability of Documents
I. Background
The 15 petitions were filed in August
2011 in response to the publication of
the NRC’s Near-Term Task Force
(NTTF) report, ‘‘Recommendations for
Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st
Century, NTTF Review of Insights from
the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,’’
dated July 12, 2011. The NTTF report
provided the NRC staff’s
recommendations to enhance U.S.
nuclear power plant safety following the
March 11, 2011, Fukushima accident in
Japan. Based upon their interpretation
of the NTTF report, the petitioners
requested that the NRC rescind all
regulations in part 51 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
‘‘to the extent that they reach generic
conclusions about the environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impacts of severe reactor and/or spent
fuel pool accidents and therefore
prohibit considerations of those impacts
in reactor licensing proceedings.’’ 1 The
NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR part 51
implement Section 102(2) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA).2 The
petitioners challenged the regulations
that make generic environmental
findings for license renewal proceedings
regarding the environmental impacts of
severe reactor accidents and spent fuel
storage.
The NTTF report, the 15 petitions,
along with their NRC assigned docket
numbers, and other pertinent
documents are listed in Section IV,
‘‘Availability of Documents,’’ of this
document. The NRC published a notice
of receipt of the petitions in the Federal
Register (FR) on November 10, 2011 (76
FR 70067).3 As explained in the
November 10, 2011, notice, the
Commission stated that it was:
reviewing the [NTTF report], including the
issues presented in the 15 petitions for
rulemaking. The petitioners specifically cite
the [NTTF report] as rationale for the PRMs
[petitions for rulemaking]. The NRC will
consider the issues raised by these PRMs
through the process the Commission has
established for addressing the
recommendations from the [NTTF report]
and is not providing a separate opportunity
for public comment on the PRMs at this
time.4
As such, the NRC staff placed the 15
petitions into abeyance pending the
outcome of deliberations regarding the
recommendations from the NTTF
report. Although activities related to the
NTTF report are ongoing, the NRC staff
determined that sufficient information
is now available to address the 15
petitions.
A. Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal
Actions and Table B–1
Under NEPA, the NRC must consider
the environmental impacts of a major
1 See, e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Petition for Rulemaking, PRM–51–15 at 2 (August
11, 2011). All of the petitions have the same, or
essentially the same, request for rulemaking.
2 10 CFR 51.1(a).
3 The petitioners also requested a suspension of
ongoing reactor licensing proceedings. In its notice
of the petitions’ receipt, the Commission referenced
its September 9, 2011, decision, CLI–11–05,
denying the petitioners’ suspension requests. 76 FR
at 70068 citing Union Electric Company d/b/a
Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), et al.,
CLI–11–05, 74 NRC 141, 173–76 (2011).
4 76 FR 70069.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
48236
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Federal action in an Environmental
Impact Statement.5 The Commission has
determined that power plant license
renewal is a major Federal action that
requires an Environmental Impact
Statement.6 On many environmental
issues related to license renewal, the
Commission ‘‘found that it could draw
generic conclusions applicable to all
existing nuclear power plants, or to a
specific subgroup of plants.’’ 7
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR
51.95(c), for nuclear power plant license
renewal actions, the NRC relies upon
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants’’ (GEIS). This
environmental impact statement was
initially published in May 1996 (1996
GEIS) and then revised and updated in
June 2013 (2013 GEIS).8 The GEIS
describes the potential environmental
impacts of renewing the operating
license of a nuclear power plant for an
additional 20 years. The NRC classifies
the environmental impacts of license
renewal as either generic or sitespecific. Generic issues (i.e.,
environmental impacts common to all
nuclear power plants) are addressed in
the GEIS. Site-specific issues are
addressed initially by the license
renewal applicant (i.e., a nuclear power
plant licensee seeking a renewal of its
operating license under the NRC’s
license renewal regulations in 10 CFR
part 54), in its environmental report,
which is required by 10 CFR 51.45, and
then by the NRC in the supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS)
to the GEIS prepared for each license
renewal application. The criteria for a
license renewal applicant’s
environmental report are set forth in 10
CFR 51.53(c).
Under the NRC’s current regulatory
framework in 10 CFR part 51 for
evaluating the potential environmental
impacts of renewing a nuclear power
reactor’s operating license for an
additional 20 years, neither the
applicant’s environmental report nor the
NRC’s SEIS are required to address
5 42
U.S.C. 4332(c).
CFR 51.2(b)(2).
7 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear
Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI–01–17, 54
NRC 3,11 (2001).
8 The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95(c), requires,
for the consideration of potential environmental
impacts of renewing a nuclear power plant’s
operating license under 10 CFR part 54, that the
NRC 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,’’
issued in June 2013. At the time the petitions were
filed in 2011, 10 CFR 51.95(c) referred to the initial
1996 GEIS. The NRC published a notice of issuance
for the updated 2013 GEIS on June 20, 2013 (78 FR
37325).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6 10
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
issues previously determined to be
generic, as addressed in the GEIS,
absent new and significant information.
The findings of the GEIS are codified in
Table B–1 in appendix B to subpart A
of 10 CFR part 51 (Table B–1).9 In Table
B–1, generic issues are designated as
‘‘Category 1’’ issues and site-specific
issues are designated as ‘‘Category 2’’
issues. All of the NRC regulations cited
by the petitioners pertain, either directly
or indirectly, to generic findings in the
GEIS that are, in turn, codified in Table
B–1. The petitioners object to those
Table B–1 findings that make generic
conclusions with respect to the
potential environmental impacts of
severe reactor and spent fuel pool
accidents, namely, the findings for
‘‘Severe accidents’’ and ‘‘Onsite storage
of spent nuclear fuel.’’ 10 The NRC
defines ‘‘severe reactor accidents’’ as
‘‘those that could result in substantial
damage to the reactor core, whether or
not there are serious off-site
consequences.’’ 11
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.335(a),12
NRC rules and regulations, such as
Table B–1, generally cannot be
challenged in NRC adjudicatory
proceedings, including site-specific
license renewal proceedings for a
nuclear power plant before the NRC’s
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Therefore, the petitioners request the
rescission of the generic findings in
Table B–1 so that they can challenge the
NRC environmental impact findings
now included in Table B–1 in future
license renewal proceedings.
In Table B–1, the ‘‘Severe accidents’’
issue has been classified as a Category
2, or site-specific, issue with an impact
level finding of ‘‘small.’’ 13 Although not
classified as a generic issue, the Table
B–1 ‘‘Severe accidents’’ finding states
that:
9 Table B–1 was amended to reflect the June 2013
GEIS update. The NRC rule amending Table B–1
and other 10 CFR part 51 regulations was published
in the Federal Register on June 20, 2013 (78 FR
37282).
10 The petitions were filed in August 2011, before
the June 2013 final rule that revised Table B–1 and
other provisions of 10 CFR part 51 was published.
The 2013 amendments to the Table B–1, ‘‘Severe
accidents’’ finding, however, were of a minor,
editorial nature (consisting of no more than deleting
a regulatory reference). Otherwise, the language of
Table B–1, ‘‘Severe accidents’’ finding is the same
as the language that was in effect when the petitions
were filed in 2011.
11 NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’
Vol.1, Chapter 1 at 1–27 (2013).
12 The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 2.335(a) states, in
pertinent part, that ‘‘no rule or regulation of the
Commission, or any provision thereof, concerning
the licensing of production and utilization facilities,
source material, special nuclear material, or
byproduct material, is subject to attack by way of
discovery, proof, argument, or other means in any
adjudicatory proceeding subject to this [10 CFR part
2].’’ Paragraphs 2.335(b)–(d) provide exceptions to
the provision in 10 CFR 2.335(a).
13 For most Table B–1 NEPA issues, the NRC
determined whether the impacts of license renewal
would have a small, moderate, or large
environmental impact. The statement of
considerations for the June 20, 2013, rulemaking
stated that ‘‘[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’’ (78 FR 37285).
14 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B, Table
B–1, ‘‘Severe accidents’’ finding (emphasis added).
15 Entergy Nuclear Generating Co. and Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station), CLI–12–15, 75 NRC 704, 709 (2012).
16 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, app. B, Table B–1,
‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’ finding.
Spent fuel is initially stored in spent fuel pools.
Following a sufficient period of time to allow the
spent fuel to cool, spent fuel may be removed from
the pool and placed in large casks on the licensee
controlled site (‘‘dry’’ storage).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[t]he 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.14
The Commission has clarified that
despite the Category 2 label, the severeaccidents-impact finding in Table B–1
equates to a generic environmental issue
resolved by rule.15
The Table B–1 ‘‘Onsite storage of
spent nuclear fuel’’ issue has been
classified as a Category 1, or generic,
issue also with an impact level finding
of ‘‘small’’ since Table B–1’s inception
in 1996. The ‘‘Onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel’’ finding states that: 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. For the period after the licensed
life for reactor operations, the impacts of
onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel
during the continued storage period are
discussed in NUREG–2157 and as stated
in § 51.23(b), shall be deemed
incorporated into this issue.16
The 2013 amendments to the Table
B–1 ‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear
fuel’’ finding were made to comport
with the U.S. Court of Appeals decision
in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), which vacated the NRC’s
2010 final rule that updated the NRC’s
‘‘waste confidence’’ decision and rule
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(75 FR 81032, 81037; December 23,
2010). On September 19, 2014, the NRC
issued the final ‘‘continued storage’’
rule 17 (formerly known as the waste
confidence rule), which addressed the
New York vs. NRC decision.
B. NTTF Report
Following the March 11, 2011,
Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, the
Commission directed the NRC staff to
establish a task force to conduct a
methodical and systematic review of
NRC processes and regulations to
determine whether the agency should
make additional improvements to its
regulatory system and to make
recommendations to the Commission for
its policy direction.18 The NRC staff
formed the NTTF, which submitted the
NTTF report to the Commission in
SECY–11–0093, ‘‘Near-Term Report and
Recommendations for Agency Actions
Following the Events in Japan,’’ dated
July 12, 2011. The 15 petitions were
filed in August 2011.
The NTTF report provided various
NRC staff recommendations to the
Commission concerning the
enhancement of reactor safety and a
general implementation strategy, which
included several proposals for new
regulatory requirements. Recognizing
that rulemaking and subsequent
implementation would take several
years to accomplish, the NTTF also
recommended interim actions necessary
to enhance reactor protection, severe
reactor accident mitigation, and
emergency preparedness while
rulemaking activities were conducted.19
In addition, the NTTF report concluded
that a sequence of events like the
Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur
in the United States and therefore,
ongoing power reactor operations and
related licensing activities do not pose
an imminent risk to public health and
safety.
The NRC staff further refined the
NTTF recommendations in SECY–11–
0124, ‘‘Recommended Actions to be
Taken Without Delay from the NearTerm Task Force Report,’’ and SECY–
11–0137, ‘‘Prioritization of
Recommended Actions to be Taken in
Response to Fukushima Lessons
Learned,’’ both of which described the
NRC staff’s recommendations for
enhancing reactor safety and the priority
for implementing those
recommendations. Based on those
recommendations, the NRC has issued
17 79
FR 56238.
Memorandum—COMGBJ–11–0002—
NRC Actions Following the Events in Japan, March
21, 2011.
19 https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/opsexperience/japan-dashboard.html.
18 Tasking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
orders and initiated rulemaking
activities to enhance the safety of
reactors as a result of lessons learned
from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.
The petitioners contend that the
recommendations of the NTTF report
provide the justification for their request
that the NRC rescind regulations in 10
CFR part 51 to the extent that they reach
generic conclusions with respect to
potential environmental impacts of
severe reactor and spent fuel pool
accidents and that preclude
consideration of those conclusions in
individual license renewal proceedings.
Specifically, the petitions request that
the NRC amend the following
regulations: 10 CFR 51.45, 10 CFR
51.53, 10 CFR 51.95, and Table B–1.
C. Other NRC Regulations Identified by
the Petitioners
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.45,
sets forth the general requirements for
an environmental report, which the
NRC defines as a document submitted to
the Commission by an applicant for a
permit, license, or other form of
permission, or an amendment to or
renewal of a permit, license or other
form of permission, in order to aid the
Commission in complying with Section
102(2) of NEPA.20 Paragraph 51.45(b)
requires that the environmental report
contain a description of the proposed
action, a statement of its purposes, and
a description of the environment
affected. Section 51.45 also contains a
list of items that the environmental
report should discuss, such as the
impact of the proposed action on the
environment, any adverse effects that
cannot be avoided if the proposed
action were to be implemented, and
alternatives to the proposed action.21
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.53(c),
describes the applicant’s preparation of
an environmental report for the renewal
of a nuclear power plant’s operating
license. Paragraph 51.53(c)(3)(i) states
that the environmental report is not
required to include analyses of the
potential environmental impacts
identified as Category 1 issues in Table
B–1. Paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(A)–(P) of 10
CFR 51.53, describe the requirement to
conduct environmental impact analyses
for those Category 2 issues in Table B–
1 that must be addressed on a sitespecific basis by the license renewal
applicant in its environmental report. In
addition, paragraph 51.53(c)(3)(iv),
requires the environmental report to
include any new and significant
information regarding the
20 10 CFR 51.14(a) (definition of ‘‘environmental
report’’).
21 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1)–(5).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48237
environmental impacts of license
renewal of which the applicant is aware.
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95,
describes the preparation of a postconstruction environmental impact
statement by the NRC, such as at the
license renewal stage. Both 10 CFR
51.53 and 10 CFR 51.95 were among the
regulations amended by the NRC to
reflect the June 2013 update to the
GEIS.22
D. Several Petitions Concern Actions
Outside of License Renewal
Several of the petitions were filed in
relation to new reactor licensing
proceedings, as opposed to proceedings
concerning the renewal of an existing
nuclear power plant’s operating license.
The petitions filed for combined license
(COL) actions are: PRM–51–14, –51–17,
–51–18, –51–21, –51–23, –51–24, –51–
25, –51–27, and –51–28; PRM–51–16
was filed for an operating license (OL)
action. The generic findings to which
the petitioners object concern only
license renewal actions conducted
pursuant to 10 CFR part 54. Specifically,
the NRC’s 10 CFR part 51 regulations
that reach generic conclusions regarding
severe accident or spent fuel storage
issues in Table B–1 do not apply to new
reactor applications made under the
provisions of 10 CFR part 52 for either
an early site permit (ESP) or a COL, or
to a construction permit (CP) or OL
application (e.g., the Watts Bar 2
application) made under the provisions
of 10 CFR part 50. The NRC makes no
generic conclusions about severe reactor
and spent fuel pool accidents when
preparing environmental impacts
statements for ESP, COL, CP, or OL
applications. For these types of
applications, the NRC performs a sitespecific environmental review to
address the potential environmental
impacts.
II. Environmental Impacts of Severe
Reactor Accidents and Spent Fuel Pool
Accidents
A. Overview
The petitioners assert that the lessons
learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
event, as documented in the
recommendations of the NTTF report,
provide ‘‘new and significant’’
information that would affect the NRC’s
analysis of severe reactor and spent fuel
pool accidents when considering
whether to renew a nuclear power
plant’s operating license for an
additional 20 years in accordance with
the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR part 54,
22 The NRC rule amending these regulations was
published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2013
(78 FR 37282).
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
48238
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘Requirements for Renewal of Operating
Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.’’ It is
upon this basis that the petitioners
request that the NRC rescind all
regulations in 10 CFR part 51 that
‘‘reach generic conclusions about the
environmental impacts of severe reactor
and/or spent fuel pool accidents and
therefore prohibit considerations of
those impacts in reactor licensing
proceedings.’’ 23
Under NEPA case law, the standard
for considering whether information is
‘‘new and significant’’ is that it must
present ‘‘a seriously different picture of
the environmental impact of the
proposed project from what was
previously envisioned.’’ 24 If the
information is ‘‘new and significant,’’
and if the agency has not yet taken the
proposed action, then the agency is
required to supplement its
environmental impact statement.25 The
NRC has determined that the NTTF
report recommendations do not
constitute ‘‘new and significant’’
information.
The NTTF report recommendations
do not challenge the generic
determinations in Table B–1. The NTTF
report did not explicitly consider the
complex analysis underlying the
determinations in Table B–1, did not
recommend changing the generic
determinations in Table B–1 regarding
severe reactor and spent fuel pool
accidents, and did not make any
recommendations relating to nuclear
power plant license renewals. Any NRC
regulatory action that has been taken or
could have been taken as a result of the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
23 See,
e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Petition for Rulemaking, PRM–51–15 at 1 (August
11, 2011). All of the petitions have the same, or
essentially the same, request for rulemaking.
24 Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren
Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), et al, CLI–11–05,
74 NRC 141, 167–68 (2011) quoting Hydro
Resources, Inc., CLI–99–22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999)
(‘‘To merit this additional review, information must
be both ‘new’ and ‘significant,’ and it must bear on
the proposed action or its impacts. As we have
explained, ‘[t]he new information must present ‘a
seriously different picture of the environmental
impact of the proposed project from what was
previously envisioned’ ’’) (alteration in the
original.); Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205,
210 (5th Cir. 1987) (‘‘In making its determination
whether to supplement an existing EIS because of
new information, the [United States Army, Corps of
Engineers] should consider ‘the extent to which the
new information presents a picture of the likely
environmental consequences associated with the
proposed action not envisioned by the original
EIS’.’’) (alteration added); Wisconsin v. Weinberger,
745 F.2d 412, 418 (7th Cir.1984) (supplementation
required where new information ‘‘provides a
seriously different picture of the environmental
landscape.’’); and see NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2,
Supplement 1, Revision 1, ‘‘Preparation of
Supplemental Environmental Reports for
Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses,’’ Chapter 5 (June 2013).
25 10 CFR 51.92(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
information presented in the NTTF
report would not have been deferred to
the license renewal stage; any such
action would have been taken as part of
the NRC’s ongoing safety program.
B. Severe Reactor Accidents
First, the petitioners requested that
the NRC rescind all of its regulations
that reach generic conclusions about the
environmental impacts of severe reactor
accidents. As set forth in both Table B–
1 and 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), ‘‘Severe
accidents’’ is listed as a Category 2 or
site-specific issue, rather than a generic
issue because the Commission
determined the agency should consider
severe accident mitigation measures on
a site-specific basis for those reactors for
which the agency had not previously
performed a similar analysis. However,
as noted above, the Commission has
confirmed that because the agency made
a generic determination regarding severe
accident impacts in the GEIS that is
codified in Table B–1, the impacts
portion of the issue has been resolved
by rule.26
GEIS Severe Accident Analysis
When the NRC promulgated the
license renewal rule and the severe
accidents finding in Table B–1 in 1996,
the NRC conducted a detailed analysis
in the GEIS to determine that the
probability weighted environmental
impacts of severe accidents are small.
The Commission summarized this
analysis in the associated Federal
Register notice.
The GEIS provides an analysis of the
consequences of severe accidents for each
site in the country. The analysis adopts
standard assumptions about each site for
parameters such as evacuation speeds and
distances traveled, and uses site-specific
estimates for parameters such as population
distribution and meteorological conditions.
These latter two factors were used to evaluate
the exposure indices for these analyses. The
methods used result in predictions of risk
that are adequate to illustrate the general
magnitude and types of risks that may occur
from reactor accidents. Regarding siteevacuation risk, the radiological risk to
persons as they evacuate is taken into
account within the individual plant risk
assessments that form the basis for the GEIS.
In addition, 10 CFR part 50 requires that
licensees maintain up-to-date emergency
plans. This requirement will apply in the
license renewal term as well as in the current
licensing term.
As was done in the GEIS analysis, the use
of generic source terms (one set for PWRs and
another for BWRs) is consistent with the past
practice that has been used and accepted by
the NRC for individual plant Final
26 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI–01–
17, 54 NRC 3,11 (2001).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Environmental Impact Statements (FEISs).
The purpose of the source term discussion in
the GEIS is to describe whether or not new
information on source terms developed after
the completion of the most recent FEISs
indicates that the source terms used in the
past under-predict environmental
consequences. The NRC has concluded that
analysis of the new source term information
developed over the past 10 years indicates
that the expected frequency and amounts of
radioactive release under severe accident
conditions are less than that predicted using
the generic source terms. A summary of the
evolution of this research is provided in
NUREG–1150, ‘‘Severe Accident Risks: An
Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power
Plants’’ (December 1990), and its supporting
documentation. Thus, the analyses
performed for the GEIS represent adequate,
plant-specific estimates of the impacts from
severe accidents that would generally overpredict, rather than under-predict,
environmental consequences. Therefore, the
GEIS analysis of the impacts of severe
accidents for license renewal is retained and
is considered applicable to all plants.27
In preparing the 2013 GEIS, the NRC
staff specifically considered and
evaluated severe reactor accidents and
found that the conclusions reached in
the 1996 GEIS remained valid.
Specifically, the NRC staff considered
areas where new information showed
increases in the consequences of severe
accidents and compared them to areas
where the new information showed
decreases in the impacts from severe
accidents.28 The NRC staff found that
information showed that the areas that
reflected an increase in impacts could
potentially account for a 470 percent
increase.29 But, the NRC staff found that
the areas that reflected a decrease in
impacts could account for a 500 percent
to 10,000 percent reduction.30
The petitions for rulemaking and
supporting affidavit do not challenge
with any specificity the analyses
underlying the 1996 GEIS. The NTTF
report, upon which the petitioners’ rely,
largely described the accident sequence
at Fukushima, considered the NRC’s
current regulatory framework, and
recommended areas for improvement.
Indeed, the NTTF report concluded that
a sequence of events like the Fukushima
accident is unlikely to occur in the
United States and, therefore, ongoing
power reactor operations and related
licensing activities do not pose an
imminent risk to public health and
safety. As a result, on their face, the
27 61 FR 28467, 28480. See also NUREG–1437,
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ Vol. 1, Chapter
5 at 5–1 to 5–116 (1996).
28 NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’
Vol. 1, Rev. 1, appendix E at E–46 to E–47 (2013).
29 Id.
30 Id.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
safety conclusions in the NTTF report
do not appear to relate to the
environmental analysis challenged by
the petitioners. Moreover, the
petitioners have not demonstrated that
any information in the NTTF report
undermines the environmental analysis
in the GEIS. For example, the
petitioners have not shown, or even
alleged, that the source terms relied on
by the NRC staff were inadequate, that
the analysis ignored or marginalized an
exposure pathway, or that the NRC’s
consideration of evacuation times was
unreasonable. Moreover, the petitioners
do not suggest that any errors in the
severe accident analysis underlying the
Table B–1 findings were significant
enough to overcome the substantial
margins noted by the Commission in
1996 and confirmed by the NRC staff in
the 2013 update, let alone provide a
‘‘seriously different picture’’ of the
likelihood and consequences of a severe
accident beyond that already
considered. Therefore, the findings of
the NTTF report do not indicate that the
NRC should revise the 2013 GEIS, or
present a seriously different picture of
the environmental consequences of
severe accidents beyond those already
considered by the agency.
Petitioners’ Focus on License Renewal
Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The petitioners largely focus their
arguments on a claim that currently
operating reactors will need to
undertake expensive improvements to
comply with the NRC’s post-Fukushima
requirements and that the agency’s
environmental review must account for
these costs. But these arguments reflect
a misunderstanding of our regulatory
process. As stated in the 2013 GEIS:
As of the publication date of [the 2013]
GEIS, 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 NRC 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 this 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 supplemental EISs (SEISs) to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
GEIS, as it does with all such new and
significant information.31
As that paragraph from the 2013 GEIS
explains, if the NRC finds that an
additional requirement should be
imposed upon a reactor licensee the
NRC will impose that requirement
regardless of its license renewal posture.
The renewal of a nuclear power plant’s
operating license does not, in any way,
prescribe the NRC’s ongoing safety
surveillance of that plant. The
regulations that the petitioners want
rescinded pertain only to license
renewal findings, not the NRC’s ongoing
safety surveillance.
The NRC continues to address severe
accident-related issues in the day to day
regulatory oversight of nuclear power
plant licensees. The NRC’s regulatory
efforts have reduced severe accident
risks beyond what was considered in
the 1996 and 2013 GEIS. In some cases,
such as the NRC’s response to the
accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi, these
regulatory activities are ongoing. The
NRC will continue to evaluate the need
to make improvements to existing
regulatory requirements as more
information is learned.
C. Spent Fuel Pool Accidents
Last, the petitioners contend that the
NTTF report provides new and
significant information that warrants
rescinding the NRC’s regulations
codifying the GEIS’ generic
environmental determinations of the
impacts of onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel during the period of license
renewal. The evaluation of the
environmental impacts of the onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel during the
license renewal term, including
potential spent fuel pool accidents, was
documented in the 1996 GEIS and
reaffirmed in the 2013 GEIS. The NRC
found that the probability of a fuel
cladding fire is low even in the event of
a ‘‘worst probable cause of a loss of
spent-fuel pool coolant (a severe
seismic-generated accident causing a
catastrophic failure of the pool).’’ 32
Based on these evaluations, the ‘‘Onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel’’ NEPA
issue in Table B–1 has been classified as
a Category 1, or generic, issue with an
impact level finding of ‘‘small.’’ As
noted above, the NTTF report primarily
focused on describing the Fukushima
accident, analyzing the agency’s current
31 NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’
Vol. 1, Rev. 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.9. at 1–33 and
1–34 (2013) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
32 See also NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ Vol. 1, Chapter 6 at 6–
72 to 6–75 (1996).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48239
regulatory structure, and making
recommendations for improving the
agency’s regulatory process. The NTTF
report did not specifically address the
agency’s environmental analysis for onsite spent fuel storage or the agency’s
prior studies showing that the risk of an
accident in a spent fuel pool would be
small. Moreover, the petitioners have
not provided any specific explanation of
how information in the NTTF report
would invalidate the findings in the
GEIS and thereby call into question the
regulations in 10 CFR part 51.
Moreover, the NRC has thoroughly
considered the question of spent fuel
pool accidents before and after
promulgating the 1996 GEIS, and these
studies have consistently found that the
probability of a spent fuel pool fire is
low. Spent fuel pools are large, robust
structures that contain thousands of
gallons of water. Spent fuel pools have
thick, reinforced, concrete walls and
floors lined with welded, stainless-steel
plates. After removal from the reactor,
spent fuel assemblies are placed into
these pools and stored under at least 20
feet of water, which provides adequate
shielding from radiation. Redundant
monitoring, cooling, and make-up water
systems are part of the spent fuel pool
system. Spent fuel pools at operating
U.S. nuclear power plants were
designed and licensed to maintain a
large inventory of water to protect and
cool spent fuel under normal and
accident conditions, including
earthquakes. Domestic and international
operational experience and past NRC
studies (e.g., NUREG–1353, NUREG–
1738, and SECY–13–0112) 33 have borne
out that spent fuel pools are effectively
designed to prevent accidents that could
affect the safe storage of spent fuel.
Regarding spent fuel pool accidents, the
petitioners’ primary concern is a
‘‘seismically induced’’ spent fuel pool
fire (i.e., an earthquake damaging the
structure of the spent fuel pool and
thereby causing a complete or partial
drainage of the pool’s water.) 34 With
33 These studies include NUREG–1353,
‘‘Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic
Issue 82, ‘Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent
Fuel Pools’ ’’ (April 1989); NUREG–1738,
‘‘Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk
at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants’’
(February 2001); and SECY–13–0112,
‘‘Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis
Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S.
Mark I Boiling-Water Reactor’’ (October 2013).
34 Potential spent fuel pool fires caused by a
successful terrorist strike were the subject of
rulemaking petitions filed in 2006 (PRM–51–10)
and 2007 (PRM–51–12). These petitions also
requested the rescission of the generic finding in
Table B–1 concerning onsite spent fuel storage. The
NRC denied these petitions in 2008 (73 FR 46204;
August 8, 2008). In its denial notice, the NRC
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
Continued
12AUR1
48240
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
respect to the March 2011 Fukushima
accident, a Japanese government report,
issued in June 2011, found that the
Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4 spent fuel
pool, the one believed to have sustained
the most serious damage, actually
remained ‘‘nearly undamaged.’’ 35 The
report noted that visual inspections
found no water leaks or serious damage
to the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. On April
25, 2014, the NRC issued a report
entitled, ‘‘NRC Overview of the
Structural Integrity of the Spent Fuel
Pool at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4,’’
which confirmed that the structural
integrity of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool
was not compromised.
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan also led to
additional questions about the safe
storage of spent fuel and whether the
NRC should require the expedited
transfer of spent fuel from spent fuel
pools to dry cask storage at nuclear
power plants in the United States. This
issue was identified by NRC staff
subsequent to the NTTF report along
with the understanding that further
study was needed to determine if
regulatory action was warranted.
Consequently, a regulatory analysis was
conducted on the expedited transfer of
spent fuel from pools to dry cask
storage. The results of this analysis were
provided to the Commission in
COMSECY–13–0030, ‘‘Staff Evaluation
and Recommendation for Japan Lessons
Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited
Transfer of Spent Fuel,’’ dated
November 12, 2013. The Commission
subsequently concluded that regulatory
action need not be pursued in SRM–
COMSECY–13–0030, issued on May 23,
2014. Nothing that the petitioners
provided in these petitions invalidates
this conclusion.
On August 26, 2014, the Commission
approved the ‘‘continued storage’’ final
rule and its associated generic
environmental impact statement
amending 10 CFR part 51 to revise the
generic determination on the
environmental impacts of continued
storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the
licensed life for operation of a reactor.
The continued storage GEIS 36 also
concluded that the environmental
impacts from spent fuel pool fires are
small during the short-term storage
timeframe (the 60 years of continued
storage after the end of a reactor’s
licensed life for operation), which is
consistent with the finding of the
license renewal GEIS. Therefore, the
petitioners have not shown that the
NTTF report contains any new and
significant information that would alter
the analysis of spent fuel pool accidents
in the GEIS. On the contrary, the NRC’s
ongoing studies of this issue have
consistently supported the finding in
Table B–1 that the environmental
impacts of spent fuel pool accidents
would be small.
III. Determination of Petitions
For the reasons described in Section
II of this document, the NRC has
concluded that there is no basis to
rescind the NRC’s generic conclusions
in Table B–1 concerning the
environmental impacts of the ‘‘Severe
accidents’’ and ‘‘Onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel’’ issues nor to amend any
other NRC regulation. Therefore, the
NRC is denying the petitions in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.803.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the
following table are available to
interested persons through one or more
of the following methods, as indicated.
For more information on accessing
ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
ADAMS Accession No./Web link/Federal Register citation
CLI–99–22, Hydro Resources, Inc., July 23, 1999 ..................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Document
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/1999/
1999-022cli.pdf.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2001/
2001-017cli.pdf.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2011/
2011-05cli.pdf.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/orders/2012/
2012-15cli.pdf.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/comm-secy/
2011/2011-0002comgbj.pdf.
ML13329A918.
CLI–01–17, Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), July 19, 2001.
CLI–11–05, Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway
Plant, Unit 2), September 9, 2011.
CLI–12–15, Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), June 7, 2012.
COMGBJ–11–0002, NRC Actions Following the Events in Japan,
March 21, 2011.
COMSECY–13–0030, Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan
Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel,
November 12, 2013.
Federal Register notice—Consideration of Environmental Impacts of
Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, December 23, 2010.
Federal Register notice—Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, June 5, 1996.
Federal Register notice—License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants;
Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Standard Review
Plans for Environmental Reviews, June 20, 2013.
Federal Register notice—Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, June 20, 2013.
Federal Register notice—Taxpayers and Ratepayers United, et al.;
Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents, November 10, 2011.
Federal Register notice—The Attorney General of Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, The Attorney General of California; Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking, August 8, 2008.
described spent fuel pools as ‘‘massive, extremelyrobust structures designed to safely contain the
spent fuel discharged from a nuclear reactor under
a variety of normal, off-normal, and hypothetical
accident conditions (e.g., loss of-electrical power,
floods, earthquakes, or tornadoes).’’ 73 FR at 46206.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
75 FR 81032.
61 FR 28467.
78 FR 37325.
78 FR 37282.
76 FR 70067.
73 FR 46204.
The NRC’s denials of PRM–51–10 and PRM–51–12
were upheld in court. New York v. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 589 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir.
2009).
35 See ‘‘Report of Japanese Government to the
IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety-The
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power
Stations,’’ IV–91. English version available at https://
www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/iaea_
houkokusho_e.html, last visited on April 22, 2013.
36 NUREG–2157, Appendix F, Section F.1.3, Page
F–16, ‘‘Conclusion.’’
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Document
ADAMS Accession No./Web link/Federal Register citation
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,
Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima DaiIchi Accident, July 12, 2011.
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Rev. 1, June 2013 .......................
NRC Overview of the Structural Integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool at
Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, April 25, 2014.
NUREG–1353, Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue
82, Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools, April 1989.
NUREG–1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants, June 20, 2013.
NUREG–1738, Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at
Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, February 2001.
NUREG–2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, September, 2014.
Petition submitted by Commonwealth of Massachusetts (PRM-51-10),
September 19, 2006.
Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to
Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Chapter 5, Revision 1, June 20, 2013.
PRM 51–14 submitted by Gene Stilp, on behalf of Taxpayers and
Ratepayers United (Bell Bend—COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–15 submitted by Diane Curran, on behalf of San Luis Obispo
Mothers for Peace (Diablo Canyon—LR), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–16 submitted by Diane Curran, on behalf of Southern Alliance
for Clean Energy (Watts Bar—OL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–17 submitted by Mindy Goldstein, on behalf of Center for a
Sustainable Coast, Georgia Women’s Action for New Directions f/k/a/
Atlanta Women’s Action for New Directions, and Southern Alliance
for Clean Energy (Vogtle—COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–18 submitted by Mindy Goldstein, on behalf of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, National Parks Conservation Association,
Dan Kipnis, and Mark Oncavage (Turkey Point—COL), August 11,
2011.
PRM 51–19 submitted by Deborah Brancato, on behalf of Riverkeeper,
Inc. & Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (Indian Point—LR), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–20 submitted by Paul Gunter, on behalf of Beyond Nuclear,
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and Sierra Club of New Hampshire
(Seabrook—LR), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–21 submitted by Michael Mariotte, on behalf of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, Public Citizen, and
SOMDCARES (Calvert Cliffs—COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–22 submitted by Raymond Shadis, on behalf of Friends of the
Coast and New England Coalition (Seabrook—LR), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–23 submitted by Robert V. Eye, on behalf of Intervenors in
South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co., Application for Units 3
and 4 Combined Operating License (South Texas—COL), August 11,
2011.
PRM 51–24 submitted by Robert V. Eye, on behalf of Intervenors in
Luminant Generation Company, LCC, Application for Comanche
Peak Nuclear Power Plant Combined License (Comanche Peak—
COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–25 submitted by Mary Olson, on behalf of the Ecology Party
of Florida, Nuclear Information (Levy—COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–26 submitted by Terry Lodge, on behalf of Beyond Nuclear,
Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don’t Waste
Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Davis-Besse—LR), August
11, 2011.
PRM 51–27 submitted by Terry Lodge, on behalf of Beyond Nuclear,
Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Citizens Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don’t Waste Michigan,
Sierra Club, Keith Gunter, Edward McArdle, Henry Newman, Derek
Coronado, Sandra Bihn, Harold L. Stokes, Michael J. Keegan, Richard Coronado, George Steinman, Marilyn R. Timmer, Leonard
Mandeville, Frank Mantei, Marcee Meyers, and Shirley Steinman
(Fermi—COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51–28 submitted by Barry White, on behalf of Citizens Allied for
Safe Energy, Inc (Turkey Point—COL), August 11, 2011.
Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on
Nuclear Safety—The Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear
Power Stations, June 2011.
SECY–11–0093, Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency
Actions Following the Events in Japan, July 12, 2011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
48241
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
ML111861807.
ML13067A354.
ML14111A099.
ML082330232.
ML13107A023.
ML010430066.
ML14196A107.
ML062640409.
ML13106A244.
ML112430559.
ML11236A322.
ML11223A291.
ML11223A043.
ML11223A044.
ML11229A712.
ML11223A371.
ML11223A344.
ML11223A465.
ML11223A472.
ML11223A477.
ML11224A074.
ML112450527.
ML112450528.
ML11224A232.
https://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/iaea_houkokusho_
e.html.
ML11186A959.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
48242
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Document
ADAMS Accession No./Web link/Federal Register citation
SECY-11-0124, Recommended Actions to be Taken Without Delay
from the Near Term Task Force Report, September 9, 2011.
SECY–11–0137, Prioritization of Recommended Actions to be Taken in
Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned, October 3, 2011.
SECY–13–0112, Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling-Water
Reactor, October 9, 2013.
SRM–COMSECY–13–0030, Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for
Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent
Fuel, May 23, 2014.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day
of August, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–19843 Filed 8–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 23
[Docket No. FAA–2015–2903; Special
Conditions No. 23–270–SC]
Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft
Company, Model HA–420, HondaJet;
Ventilation Requirements in High
Altitude Operations
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the Honda Aircraft Company,
Model HA–420 airplane. This airplane
will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with high altitude
operations above 41,000 feet. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for this design feature.
These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to
that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these
special conditions is August 12, 2015.
We must receive your comments by
September 11, 2015
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2015–2903
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Aug 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
ML11245A127.
ML11269A204.
ML13256A334.
ML14143A360.
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery of Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.
Privacy: The FAA will post all
comments it receives, without change,
to https://regulations.gov, including any
personal information the commenter
provides. Using the search function of
the docket Web site, anyone can find
and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA
docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement can be
found in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478),
as well as at https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket
Operations in Room W12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leslie B. Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Small Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 329–
4134; facsimile (816) 329–4090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
has determined, in accordance with 5
U.S. Code 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3),
that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are unnecessary
because the substance of these special
conditions has been subject to the
public comment process in several prior
instances with no substantive comments
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these
special conditions effective upon
issuance.
Special condition
No.
Company/airplane model
23–243–SC .......
23–102–SC .......
25–ANM–108 ....
Embraer Model EMB–505.
Cessna Model 525A.
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Model Gulfstream V.
Comments Invited
We invite interested people to take
part in this rulemaking by sending
written comments, data, or views. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the special
conditions, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. We ask that you send
us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we
receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments
filed late if it is possible to do so
without incurring expense or delay. We
may change these special conditions
based on the comments we receive.
Background
On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft
Company applied for a type certificate
for their new model HA–420. On
October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft
Company requested an extension with
an effective application date of October
1, 2013. This extension changed the
type certification basis to amendment
23–62.
The HA–420 is a four to five
passenger (depending on configuration),
two crew, lightweight business jet with
a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a
maximum takeoff weight of 9963
pounds. The airplane is powered by two
GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF–
120 turbofan engines.
This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature associated with
high altitude operations above 41,000
feet. During the development of the
supersonic transport special conditions,
it was noted that certain pressurization
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48235-48242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19843]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 48235]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[Docket Nos. PRM-51-14, et al.; NRC-2011-0189]
Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool
Accidents
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying 15
petitions for rulemaking submitted by the petitioners identified in the
table in Section IV, ``Availability of Documents.'' The petitioners
requested that the NRC rescind its regulations that ``reach generic
conclusions about the environmental impacts of severe reactor and/or
spent fuel pool accidents and therefore prohibit considerations of
those impacts in reactor licensing proceedings.''
DATES: The dockets for petitions for rulemaking (PRM) PRM-51-14, PRM-
51-15, PRM-51-16, PRM-51-17, PRM-51-18, PRM-51-19, PRM-51-20, PRM-51-
21, PRM-51-22, PRM-51-23, PRM-51-24, PRM-51-25, PRM-51-26, PRM-51-27,
and PRM-51-28 are closed on August 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0189 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for any of these petitions.
You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by
any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0189. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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 obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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. For
the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining information
regarding the 15 petitions and other materials referenced in this
document are provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Tobin, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2328; email: Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor Accidents and Spent Fuel
Pool Accidents
III. Determination of Petitions
IV. Availability of Documents
I. Background
The 15 petitions were filed in August 2011 in response to the
publication of the NRC's Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) report,
``Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,
NTTF Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,'' dated
July 12, 2011. The NTTF report provided the NRC staff's recommendations
to enhance U.S. nuclear power plant safety following the March 11,
2011, Fukushima accident in Japan. Based upon their interpretation of
the NTTF report, the petitioners requested that the NRC rescind all
regulations in part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) ``to the extent that they reach generic conclusions about the
environmental impacts of severe reactor and/or spent fuel pool
accidents and therefore prohibit considerations of those impacts in
reactor licensing proceedings.'' \1\ The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR
part 51 implement Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).\2\ The petitioners challenged the
regulations that make generic environmental findings for license
renewal proceedings regarding the environmental impacts of severe
reactor accidents and spent fuel storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Petition for
Rulemaking, PRM-51-15 at 2 (August 11, 2011). All of the petitions
have the same, or essentially the same, request for rulemaking.
\2\ 10 CFR 51.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTTF report, the 15 petitions, along with their NRC assigned
docket numbers, and other pertinent documents are listed in Section IV,
``Availability of Documents,'' of this document. The NRC published a
notice of receipt of the petitions in the Federal Register (FR) on
November 10, 2011 (76 FR 70067).\3\ As explained in the November 10,
2011, notice, the Commission stated that it was:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The petitioners also requested a suspension of ongoing
reactor licensing proceedings. In its notice of the petitions'
receipt, the Commission referenced its September 9, 2011, decision,
CLI-11-05, denying the petitioners' suspension requests. 76 FR at
70068 citing Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway
Plant, Unit 2), et al., CLI-11-05, 74 NRC 141, 173-76 (2011).
reviewing the [NTTF report], including the issues presented in the
15 petitions for rulemaking. The petitioners specifically cite the
[NTTF report] as rationale for the PRMs [petitions for rulemaking].
The NRC will consider the issues raised by these PRMs through the
process the Commission has established for addressing the
recommendations from the [NTTF report] and is not providing a
separate opportunity for public comment on the PRMs at this time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 76 FR 70069.
As such, the NRC staff placed the 15 petitions into abeyance pending
the outcome of deliberations regarding the recommendations from the
NTTF report. Although activities related to the NTTF report are
ongoing, the NRC staff determined that sufficient information is now
available to address the 15 petitions.
A. Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Actions and Table B-1
Under NEPA, the NRC must consider the environmental impacts of a
major
[[Page 48236]]
Federal action in an Environmental Impact Statement.\5\ The Commission
has determined that power plant license renewal is a major Federal
action that requires an Environmental Impact Statement.\6\ On many
environmental issues related to license renewal, the Commission ``found
that it could draw generic conclusions applicable to all existing
nuclear power plants, or to a specific subgroup of plants.'' \7\
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), for nuclear power plant
license renewal actions, the NRC relies upon NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants''
(GEIS). This environmental impact statement was initially published in
May 1996 (1996 GEIS) and then revised and updated in June 2013 (2013
GEIS).\8\ The GEIS describes the potential environmental impacts of
renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant for an
additional 20 years. The NRC classifies the environmental impacts of
license renewal as either generic or site-specific. Generic issues
(i.e., environmental impacts common to all nuclear power plants) are
addressed in the GEIS. Site-specific issues are addressed initially by
the license renewal applicant (i.e., a nuclear power plant licensee
seeking a renewal of its operating license under the NRC's license
renewal regulations in 10 CFR part 54), in its environmental report,
which is required by 10 CFR 51.45, and then by the NRC in the
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to the GEIS prepared
for each license renewal application. The criteria for a license
renewal applicant's environmental report are set forth in 10 CFR
51.53(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 4332(c).
\6\ 10 CFR 51.2(b)(2).
\7\ Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3,11 (2001).
\8\ The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95(c), requires, for the
consideration of potential environmental impacts of renewing a
nuclear power plant's operating license under 10 CFR part 54, that
the NRC 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,'' issued in
June 2013. At the time the petitions were filed in 2011, 10 CFR
51.95(c) referred to the initial 1996 GEIS. The NRC published a
notice of issuance for the updated 2013 GEIS on June 20, 2013 (78 FR
37325).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the NRC's current regulatory framework in 10 CFR part 51 for
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of renewing a nuclear
power reactor's operating license for an additional 20 years, neither
the applicant's environmental report nor the NRC's SEIS are required to
address issues previously determined to be generic, as addressed in the
GEIS, absent new and significant information. The findings of the GEIS
are codified in Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51
(Table B-1).\9\ In Table B-1, generic issues are designated as
``Category 1'' issues and site-specific issues are designated as
``Category 2'' issues. All of the NRC regulations cited by the
petitioners pertain, either directly or indirectly, to generic findings
in the GEIS that are, in turn, codified in Table B-1. The petitioners
object to those Table B-1 findings that make generic conclusions with
respect to the potential environmental impacts of severe reactor and
spent fuel pool accidents, namely, the findings for ``Severe
accidents'' and ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel.'' \10\ The NRC
defines ``severe reactor accidents'' as ``those that could result in
substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are
serious off-site consequences.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Table B-1 was amended to reflect the June 2013 GEIS update.
The NRC rule amending Table B-1 and other 10 CFR part 51 regulations
was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2013 (78 FR
37282).
\10\ The petitions were filed in August 2011, before the June
2013 final rule that revised Table B-1 and other provisions of 10
CFR part 51 was published. The 2013 amendments to the Table B-1,
``Severe accidents'' finding, however, were of a minor, editorial
nature (consisting of no more than deleting a regulatory reference).
Otherwise, the language of Table B-1, ``Severe accidents'' finding
is the same as the language that was in effect when the petitions
were filed in 2011.
\11\ NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' Vol.1, Chapter 1 at 1-27
(2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.335(a),\12\ NRC rules and regulations,
such as Table B-1, generally cannot be challenged in NRC adjudicatory
proceedings, including site-specific license renewal proceedings for a
nuclear power plant before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Therefore, the petitioners request the rescission of the generic
findings in Table B-1 so that they can challenge the NRC environmental
impact findings now included in Table B-1 in future license renewal
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 2.335(a) states, in pertinent
part, that ``no rule or regulation of the Commission, or any
provision thereof, concerning the licensing of production and
utilization facilities, source material, special nuclear material,
or byproduct material, is subject to attack by way of discovery,
proof, argument, or other means in any adjudicatory proceeding
subject to this [10 CFR part 2].'' Paragraphs 2.335(b)-(d) provide
exceptions to the provision in 10 CFR 2.335(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table B-1, the ``Severe accidents'' issue has been classified as
a Category 2, or site-specific, issue with an impact level finding of
``small.'' \13\ Although not classified as a generic issue, the Table
B-1 ``Severe accidents'' finding states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For most Table B-1 NEPA issues, the NRC determined whether
the impacts of license renewal would have a small, moderate, or
large environmental impact. The statement of considerations for the
June 20, 2013, rulemaking stated that ``[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'' (78 FR 37285).
[t]he 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B, Table B-1, ``Severe
accidents'' finding (emphasis added).
The Commission has clarified that despite the Category 2 label, the
severe-accidents-impact finding in Table B-1 equates to a generic
environmental issue resolved by rule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Entergy Nuclear Generating Co. and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC
704, 709 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Table B-1 ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' issue has
been classified as a Category 1, or generic, issue also with an impact
level finding of ``small'' since Table B-1's inception in 1996. The
``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' finding states that: 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. For the period after the licensed life for
reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel
during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and as
stated in Sec. 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this
issue.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, app. B, Table B-1, ``Onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel'' finding. Spent fuel is initially
stored in spent fuel pools. Following a sufficient period of time to
allow the spent fuel to cool, spent fuel may be removed from the
pool and placed in large casks on the licensee controlled site
(``dry'' storage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2013 amendments to the Table B-1 ``Onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel'' finding were made to comport with the U.S. Court of
Appeals decision in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
which vacated the NRC's 2010 final rule that updated the NRC's ``waste
confidence'' decision and rule
[[Page 48237]]
(75 FR 81032, 81037; December 23, 2010). On September 19, 2014, the NRC
issued the final ``continued storage'' rule \17\ (formerly known as the
waste confidence rule), which addressed the New York vs. NRC decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 79 FR 56238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NTTF Report
Following the March 11, 2011, Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, the
Commission directed the NRC staff to establish a task force to conduct
a methodical and systematic review of NRC processes and regulations to
determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to its
regulatory system and to make recommendations to the Commission for its
policy direction.\18\ The NRC staff formed the NTTF, which submitted
the NTTF report to the Commission in SECY-11-0093, ``Near-Term Report
and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan,''
dated July 12, 2011. The 15 petitions were filed in August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Tasking Memorandum--COMGBJ-11-0002--NRC Actions Following
the Events in Japan, March 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTTF report provided various NRC staff recommendations to the
Commission concerning the enhancement of reactor safety and a general
implementation strategy, which included several proposals for new
regulatory requirements. Recognizing that rulemaking and subsequent
implementation would take several years to accomplish, the NTTF also
recommended interim actions necessary to enhance reactor protection,
severe reactor accident mitigation, and emergency preparedness while
rulemaking activities were conducted.\19\ In addition, the NTTF report
concluded that a sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is
unlikely to occur in the United States and therefore, ongoing power
reactor operations and related licensing activities do not pose an
imminent risk to public health and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC staff further refined the NTTF recommendations in SECY-11-
0124, ``Recommended Actions to be Taken Without Delay from the Near-
Term Task Force Report,'' and SECY-11-0137, ``Prioritization of
Recommended Actions to be Taken in Response to Fukushima Lessons
Learned,'' both of which described the NRC staff's recommendations for
enhancing reactor safety and the priority for implementing those
recommendations. Based on those recommendations, the NRC has issued
orders and initiated rulemaking activities to enhance the safety of
reactors as a result of lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
accident. The petitioners contend that the recommendations of the NTTF
report provide the justification for their request that the NRC rescind
regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to the extent that they reach generic
conclusions with respect to potential environmental impacts of severe
reactor and spent fuel pool accidents and that preclude consideration
of those conclusions in individual license renewal proceedings.
Specifically, the petitions request that the NRC amend the following
regulations: 10 CFR 51.45, 10 CFR 51.53, 10 CFR 51.95, and Table B-1.
C. Other NRC Regulations Identified by the Petitioners
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.45, sets forth the general
requirements for an environmental report, which the NRC defines as a
document submitted to the Commission by an applicant for a permit,
license, or other form of permission, or an amendment to or renewal of
a permit, license or other form of permission, in order to aid the
Commission in complying with Section 102(2) of NEPA.\20\ Paragraph
51.45(b) requires that the environmental report contain a description
of the proposed action, a statement of its purposes, and a description
of the environment affected. Section 51.45 also contains a list of
items that the environmental report should discuss, such as the impact
of the proposed action on the environment, any adverse effects that
cannot be avoided if the proposed action were to be implemented, and
alternatives to the proposed action.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 10 CFR 51.14(a) (definition of ``environmental report'').
\21\ 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1)-(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.53(c), describes the applicant's
preparation of an environmental report for the renewal of a nuclear
power plant's operating license. Paragraph 51.53(c)(3)(i) states that
the environmental report is not required to include analyses of the
potential environmental impacts identified as Category 1 issues in
Table B-1. Paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(A)-(P) of 10 CFR 51.53, describe the
requirement to conduct environmental impact analyses for those Category
2 issues in Table B-1 that must be addressed on a site-specific basis
by the license renewal applicant in its environmental report. In
addition, paragraph 51.53(c)(3)(iv), requires the environmental report
to include any new and significant information regarding the
environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is
aware.
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95, describes the preparation of a
post-construction environmental impact statement by the NRC, such as at
the license renewal stage. Both 10 CFR 51.53 and 10 CFR 51.95 were
among the regulations amended by the NRC to reflect the June 2013
update to the GEIS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The NRC rule amending these regulations was published in
the Federal Register on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37282).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Several Petitions Concern Actions Outside of License Renewal
Several of the petitions were filed in relation to new reactor
licensing proceedings, as opposed to proceedings concerning the renewal
of an existing nuclear power plant's operating license. The petitions
filed for combined license (COL) actions are: PRM-51-14, -51-17, -51-
18, -51-21, -51-23, -51-24, -51-25, -51-27, and -51-28; PRM-51-16 was
filed for an operating license (OL) action. The generic findings to
which the petitioners object concern only license renewal actions
conducted pursuant to 10 CFR part 54. Specifically, the NRC's 10 CFR
part 51 regulations that reach generic conclusions regarding severe
accident or spent fuel storage issues in Table B-1 do not apply to new
reactor applications made under the provisions of 10 CFR part 52 for
either an early site permit (ESP) or a COL, or to a construction permit
(CP) or OL application (e.g., the Watts Bar 2 application) made under
the provisions of 10 CFR part 50. The NRC makes no generic conclusions
about severe reactor and spent fuel pool accidents when preparing
environmental impacts statements for ESP, COL, CP, or OL applications.
For these types of applications, the NRC performs a site-specific
environmental review to address the potential environmental impacts.
II. Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor Accidents and Spent Fuel
Pool Accidents
A. Overview
The petitioners assert that the lessons learned from the Fukushima
Dai-ichi event, as documented in the recommendations of the NTTF
report, provide ``new and significant'' information that would affect
the NRC's analysis of severe reactor and spent fuel pool accidents when
considering whether to renew a nuclear power plant's operating license
for an additional 20 years in accordance with the NRC's regulations in
10 CFR part 54,
[[Page 48238]]
``Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power
Plants.'' It is upon this basis that the petitioners request that the
NRC rescind all regulations in 10 CFR part 51 that ``reach generic
conclusions about the environmental impacts of severe reactor and/or
spent fuel pool accidents and therefore prohibit considerations of
those impacts in reactor licensing proceedings.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Petition for
Rulemaking, PRM-51-15 at 1 (August 11, 2011). All of the petitions
have the same, or essentially the same, request for rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under NEPA case law, the standard for considering whether
information is ``new and significant'' is that it must present ``a
seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed
project from what was previously envisioned.'' \24\ If the information
is ``new and significant,'' and if the agency has not yet taken the
proposed action, then the agency is required to supplement its
environmental impact statement.\25\ The NRC has determined that the
NTTF report recommendations do not constitute ``new and significant''
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway
Plant, Unit 2), et al, CLI-11-05, 74 NRC 141, 167-68 (2011) quoting
Hydro Resources, Inc., CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (``To merit
this additional review, information must be both `new' and
`significant,' and it must bear on the proposed action or its
impacts. As we have explained, `[t]he new information must present
`a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the
proposed project from what was previously envisioned' '')
(alteration in the original.); Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d
205, 210 (5th Cir. 1987) (``In making its determination whether to
supplement an existing EIS because of new information, the [United
States Army, Corps of Engineers] should consider `the extent to
which the new information presents a picture of the likely
environmental consequences associated with the proposed action not
envisioned by the original EIS'.'') (alteration added); Wisconsin v.
Weinberger, 745 F.2d 412, 418 (7th Cir.1984) (supplementation
required where new information ``provides a seriously different
picture of the environmental landscape.''); and see NRC Regulatory
Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, ``Preparation of Supplemental
Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses,'' Chapter 5 (June 2013).
\25\ 10 CFR 51.92(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTTF report recommendations do not challenge the generic
determinations in Table B-1. The NTTF report did not explicitly
consider the complex analysis underlying the determinations in Table B-
1, did not recommend changing the generic determinations in Table B-1
regarding severe reactor and spent fuel pool accidents, and did not
make any recommendations relating to nuclear power plant license
renewals. Any NRC regulatory action that has been taken or could have
been taken as a result of the information presented in the NTTF report
would not have been deferred to the license renewal stage; any such
action would have been taken as part of the NRC's ongoing safety
program.
B. Severe Reactor Accidents
First, the petitioners requested that the NRC rescind all of its
regulations that reach generic conclusions about the environmental
impacts of severe reactor accidents. As set forth in both Table B-1 and
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), ``Severe accidents'' is listed as a Category
2 or site-specific issue, rather than a generic issue because the
Commission determined the agency should consider severe accident
mitigation measures on a site-specific basis for those reactors for
which the agency had not previously performed a similar analysis.
However, as noted above, the Commission has confirmed that because the
agency made a generic determination regarding severe accident impacts
in the GEIS that is codified in Table B-1, the impacts portion of the
issue has been resolved by rule.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3,11 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEIS Severe Accident Analysis
When the NRC promulgated the license renewal rule and the severe
accidents finding in Table B-1 in 1996, the NRC conducted a detailed
analysis in the GEIS to determine that the probability weighted
environmental impacts of severe accidents are small. The Commission
summarized this analysis in the associated Federal Register notice.
The GEIS provides an analysis of the consequences of severe
accidents for each site in the country. The analysis adopts standard
assumptions about each site for parameters such as evacuation speeds
and distances traveled, and uses site-specific estimates for
parameters such as population distribution and meteorological
conditions. These latter two factors were used to evaluate the
exposure indices for these analyses. The methods used result in
predictions of risk that are adequate to illustrate the general
magnitude and types of risks that may occur from reactor accidents.
Regarding site-evacuation risk, the radiological risk to persons as
they evacuate is taken into account within the individual plant risk
assessments that form the basis for the GEIS. In addition, 10 CFR
part 50 requires that licensees maintain up-to-date emergency plans.
This requirement will apply in the license renewal term as well as
in the current licensing term.
As was done in the GEIS analysis, the use of generic source
terms (one set for PWRs and another for BWRs) is consistent with the
past practice that has been used and accepted by the NRC for
individual plant Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEISs). The
purpose of the source term discussion in the GEIS is to describe
whether or not new information on source terms developed after the
completion of the most recent FEISs indicates that the source terms
used in the past under-predict environmental consequences. The NRC
has concluded that analysis of the new source term information
developed over the past 10 years indicates that the expected
frequency and amounts of radioactive release under severe accident
conditions are less than that predicted using the generic source
terms. A summary of the evolution of this research is provided in
NUREG-1150, ``Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S.
Nuclear Power Plants'' (December 1990), and its supporting
documentation. Thus, the analyses performed for the GEIS represent
adequate, plant-specific estimates of the impacts from severe
accidents that would generally over-predict, rather than under-
predict, environmental consequences. Therefore, the GEIS analysis of
the impacts of severe accidents for license renewal is retained and
is considered applicable to all plants.\27\
\27\ 61 FR 28467, 28480. See also NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants,'' Vol. 1, Chapter 5 at 5-1 to 5-116 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In preparing the 2013 GEIS, the NRC staff specifically considered and
evaluated severe reactor accidents and found that the conclusions
reached in the 1996 GEIS remained valid. Specifically, the NRC staff
considered areas where new information showed increases in the
consequences of severe accidents and compared them to areas where the
new information showed decreases in the impacts from severe
accidents.\28\ The NRC staff found that information showed that the
areas that reflected an increase in impacts could potentially account
for a 470 percent increase.\29\ But, the NRC staff found that the areas
that reflected a decrease in impacts could account for a 500 percent to
10,000 percent reduction.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' Vol. 1, Rev. 1, appendix E at
E-46 to E-47 (2013).
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitions for rulemaking and supporting affidavit do not
challenge with any specificity the analyses underlying the 1996 GEIS.
The NTTF report, upon which the petitioners' rely, largely described
the accident sequence at Fukushima, considered the NRC's current
regulatory framework, and recommended areas for improvement. Indeed,
the NTTF report concluded that a sequence of events like the Fukushima
accident is unlikely to occur in the United States and, therefore,
ongoing power reactor operations and related licensing activities do
not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. As a result, on
their face, the
[[Page 48239]]
safety conclusions in the NTTF report do not appear to relate to the
environmental analysis challenged by the petitioners. Moreover, the
petitioners have not demonstrated that any information in the NTTF
report undermines the environmental analysis in the GEIS. For example,
the petitioners have not shown, or even alleged, that the source terms
relied on by the NRC staff were inadequate, that the analysis ignored
or marginalized an exposure pathway, or that the NRC's consideration of
evacuation times was unreasonable. Moreover, the petitioners do not
suggest that any errors in the severe accident analysis underlying the
Table B-1 findings were significant enough to overcome the substantial
margins noted by the Commission in 1996 and confirmed by the NRC staff
in the 2013 update, let alone provide a ``seriously different picture''
of the likelihood and consequences of a severe accident beyond that
already considered. Therefore, the findings of the NTTF report do not
indicate that the NRC should revise the 2013 GEIS, or present a
seriously different picture of the environmental consequences of severe
accidents beyond those already considered by the agency.
Petitioners' Focus on License Renewal Regulations
The petitioners largely focus their arguments on a claim that
currently operating reactors will need to undertake expensive
improvements to comply with the NRC's post-Fukushima requirements and
that the agency's environmental review must account for these costs.
But these arguments reflect a misunderstanding of our regulatory
process. As stated in the 2013 GEIS:
As of the publication date of [the 2013] GEIS, 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 NRC 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 this 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 supplemental
EISs (SEISs) to the GEIS, as it does with all such new and
significant information.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' Vol. 1, Rev. 1, Chapter 1,
Section 1.9. at 1-33 and 1-34 (2013) (citations omitted) (emphasis
added).
As that paragraph from the 2013 GEIS explains, if the NRC finds that an
additional requirement should be imposed upon a reactor licensee the
NRC will impose that requirement regardless of its license renewal
posture. The renewal of a nuclear power plant's operating license does
not, in any way, prescribe the NRC's ongoing safety surveillance of
that plant. The regulations that the petitioners want rescinded pertain
only to license renewal findings, not the NRC's ongoing safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
surveillance.
The NRC continues to address severe accident-related issues in the
day to day regulatory oversight of nuclear power plant licensees. The
NRC's regulatory efforts have reduced severe accident risks beyond what
was considered in the 1996 and 2013 GEIS. In some cases, such as the
NRC's response to the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi, these regulatory
activities are ongoing. The NRC will continue to evaluate the need to
make improvements to existing regulatory requirements as more
information is learned.
C. Spent Fuel Pool Accidents
Last, the petitioners contend that the NTTF report provides new and
significant information that warrants rescinding the NRC's regulations
codifying the GEIS' generic environmental determinations of the impacts
of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the period of license
renewal. The evaluation of the environmental impacts of the onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel during the license renewal term,
including potential spent fuel pool accidents, was documented in the
1996 GEIS and reaffirmed in the 2013 GEIS. The NRC found that the
probability of a fuel cladding fire is low even in the event of a
``worst probable cause of a loss of spent-fuel pool coolant (a severe
seismic-generated accident causing a catastrophic failure of the
pool).'' \32\ Based on these evaluations, the ``Onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel'' NEPA issue in Table B-1 has been classified as a
Category 1, or generic, issue with an impact level finding of
``small.'' As noted above, the NTTF report primarily focused on
describing the Fukushima accident, analyzing the agency's current
regulatory structure, and making recommendations for improving the
agency's regulatory process. The NTTF report did not specifically
address the agency's environmental analysis for on-site spent fuel
storage or the agency's prior studies showing that the risk of an
accident in a spent fuel pool would be small. Moreover, the petitioners
have not provided any specific explanation of how information in the
NTTF report would invalidate the findings in the GEIS and thereby call
into question the regulations in 10 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See also NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' Vol. 1, Chapter 6
at 6-72 to 6-75 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the NRC has thoroughly considered the question of spent
fuel pool accidents before and after promulgating the 1996 GEIS, and
these studies have consistently found that the probability of a spent
fuel pool fire is low. Spent fuel pools are large, robust structures
that contain thousands of gallons of water. Spent fuel pools have
thick, reinforced, concrete walls and floors lined with welded,
stainless-steel plates. After removal from the reactor, spent fuel
assemblies are placed into these pools and stored under at least 20
feet of water, which provides adequate shielding from radiation.
Redundant monitoring, cooling, and make-up water systems are part of
the spent fuel pool system. Spent fuel pools at operating U.S. nuclear
power plants were designed and licensed to maintain a large inventory
of water to protect and cool spent fuel under normal and accident
conditions, including earthquakes. Domestic and international
operational experience and past NRC studies (e.g., NUREG-1353, NUREG-
1738, and SECY-13-0112) \33\ have borne out that spent fuel pools are
effectively designed to prevent accidents that could affect the safe
storage of spent fuel. Regarding spent fuel pool accidents, the
petitioners' primary concern is a ``seismically induced'' spent fuel
pool fire (i.e., an earthquake damaging the structure of the spent fuel
pool and thereby causing a complete or partial drainage of the pool's
water.) \34\ With
[[Page 48240]]
respect to the March 2011 Fukushima accident, a Japanese government
report, issued in June 2011, found that the Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4
spent fuel pool, the one believed to have sustained the most serious
damage, actually remained ``nearly undamaged.'' \35\ The report noted
that visual inspections found no water leaks or serious damage to the
Unit 4 spent fuel pool. On April 25, 2014, the NRC issued a report
entitled, ``NRC Overview of the Structural Integrity of the Spent Fuel
Pool at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4,'' which confirmed that the
structural integrity of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool was not compromised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ These studies include NUREG-1353, ``Regulatory Analysis for
the Resolution of Generic Issue 82, `Beyond Design Basis Accidents
in Spent Fuel Pools' '' (April 1989); NUREG-1738, ``Technical Study
of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power
Plants'' (February 2001); and SECY-13-0112, ``Consequence Study of a
Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a
U.S. Mark I Boiling-Water Reactor'' (October 2013).
\34\ Potential spent fuel pool fires caused by a successful
terrorist strike were the subject of rulemaking petitions filed in
2006 (PRM-51-10) and 2007 (PRM-51-12). These petitions also
requested the rescission of the generic finding in Table B-1
concerning onsite spent fuel storage. The NRC denied these petitions
in 2008 (73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008). In its denial notice, the NRC
described spent fuel pools as ``massive, extremely-robust structures
designed to safely contain the spent fuel discharged from a nuclear
reactor under a variety of normal, off-normal, and hypothetical
accident conditions (e.g., loss of-electrical power, floods,
earthquakes, or tornadoes).'' 73 FR at 46206. The NRC's denials of
PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12 were upheld in court. New York v. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 589 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir. 2009).
\35\ See ``Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial
Conference on Nuclear Safety-The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima
Nuclear Power Stations,'' IV-91. English version available at https://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/iaea_houkokusho_e.html,
last visited on April 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan
also led to additional questions about the safe storage of spent fuel
and whether the NRC should require the expedited transfer of spent fuel
from spent fuel pools to dry cask storage at nuclear power plants in
the United States. This issue was identified by NRC staff subsequent to
the NTTF report along with the understanding that further study was
needed to determine if regulatory action was warranted. Consequently, a
regulatory analysis was conducted on the expedited transfer of spent
fuel from pools to dry cask storage. The results of this analysis were
provided to the Commission in COMSECY-13-0030, ``Staff Evaluation and
Recommendation for Japan Lessons Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited
Transfer of Spent Fuel,'' dated November 12, 2013. The Commission
subsequently concluded that regulatory action need not be pursued in
SRM-COMSECY-13-0030, issued on May 23, 2014. Nothing that the
petitioners provided in these petitions invalidates this conclusion.
On August 26, 2014, the Commission approved the ``continued
storage'' final rule and its associated generic environmental impact
statement amending 10 CFR part 51 to revise the generic determination
on the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel
beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. The continued
storage GEIS \36\ also concluded that the environmental impacts from
spent fuel pool fires are small during the short-term storage timeframe
(the 60 years of continued storage after the end of a reactor's
licensed life for operation), which is consistent with the finding of
the license renewal GEIS. Therefore, the petitioners have not shown
that the NTTF report contains any new and significant information that
would alter the analysis of spent fuel pool accidents in the GEIS. On
the contrary, the NRC's ongoing studies of this issue have consistently
supported the finding in Table B-1 that the environmental impacts of
spent fuel pool accidents would be small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ NUREG-2157, Appendix F, Section F.1.3, Page F-16,
``Conclusion.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Determination of Petitions
For the reasons described in Section II of this document, the NRC
has concluded that there is no basis to rescind the NRC's generic
conclusions in Table B-1 concerning the environmental impacts of the
``Severe accidents'' and ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel''
issues nor to amend any other NRC regulation. Therefore, the NRC is
denying the petitions in accordance with 10 CFR 2.803.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated. For more information on accessing ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS Accession No./Web link/
Document Federal Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLI-99-22, Hydro Resources, Inc., July https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
23, 1999. doc-collections/commission/
orders/1999/1999-022cli.pdf.
CLI-01-17, Florida Power & Light Co. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating doc-collections/commission/
Plant, Units 3 and 4), July 19, 2001. orders/2001/2001-017cli.pdf.
CLI-11-05, Union Electric Company d/b/a https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit doc-collections/commission/
2), September 9, 2011. orders/2011/2011-05cli.pdf.
CLI-12-15, Entergy Nuclear Generation https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
Company and Entergy Nuclear doc-collections/commission/
Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear orders/2012/2012-15cli.pdf.
Power Station), June 7, 2012.
COMGBJ-11-0002, NRC Actions Following https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
the Events in Japan, March 21, 2011. doc-collections/commission/
comm-secy/2011/2011-
0002comgbj.pdf.
COMSECY-13-0030, Staff Evaluation and ML13329A918.
Recommendation for Japan Lessons-
Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited
Transfer of Spent Fuel, November 12,
2013.
Federal Register notice--Consideration 75 FR 81032.
of Environmental Impacts of Temporary
Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation
of Reactor Operation, December 23,
2010.
Federal Register notice--Environmental 61 FR 28467.
Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses, June 5, 1996.
Federal Register notice--License 78 FR 37325.
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants;
Generic Environmental Impact Statement
and Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews, June 20, 2013.
Federal Register notice--Revisions to 78 FR 37282.
Environmental Review for Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses, June 20, 2013.
Federal Register notice--Taxpayers and 76 FR 70067.
Ratepayers United, et al.;
Environmental Impacts of Severe
Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents,
November 10, 2011.
Federal Register notice--The Attorney 73 FR 46204.
General of Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, The Attorney General of
California; Denial of Petitions for
Rulemaking, August 8, 2008.
[[Page 48241]]
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor ML111861807.
Safety in the 21st Century,
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor
Safety in the 21st Century, Near-Term
Task Force Review of Insights from the
Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, July 12,
2011.
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, ML13067A354.
Rev. 1, June 2013.
NRC Overview of the Structural ML14111A099.
Integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool at
Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, April 25,
2014.
NUREG-1353, Regulatory Analysis for the ML082330232.
Resolution of Generic Issue 82, Beyond
Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel
Pools, April 1989.
NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental ML13107A023.
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants, June 20, 2013.
NUREG-1738, Technical Study of Spent ML010430066.
Fuel Pool Accident Risk at
Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants,
February 2001.
NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental ML14196A107.
Impact Statement for Continued Storage
of Spent Nuclear Fuel, September, 2014.
Petition submitted by Commonwealth of ML062640409.
Massachusetts (PRM[dash]51[dash]10),
September 19, 2006.
Preparation of Supplemental ML13106A244.
Environmental Reports for Applications
to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses, Chapter 5, Revision 1, June
20, 2013.
PRM 51-14 submitted by Gene Stilp, on ML112430559.
behalf of Taxpayers and Ratepayers
United (Bell Bend--COL), August 11,
2011.
PRM 51-15 submitted by Diane Curran, on ML11236A322.
behalf of San Luis Obispo Mothers for
Peace (Diablo Canyon--LR), August 11,
2011.
PRM 51-16 submitted by Diane Curran, on ML11223A291.
behalf of Southern Alliance for Clean
Energy (Watts Bar--OL), August 11,
2011.
PRM 51-17 submitted by Mindy Goldstein, ML11223A043.
on behalf of Center for a Sustainable
Coast, Georgia Women's Action for New
Directions f/k/a/ Atlanta Women's
Action for New Directions, and
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
(Vogtle--COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-18 submitted by Mindy Goldstein, ML11223A044.
on behalf of Southern Alliance for
Clean Energy, National Parks
Conservation Association, Dan Kipnis,
and Mark Oncavage (Turkey Point--COL),
August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-19 submitted by Deborah ML11229A712.
Brancato, on behalf of Riverkeeper,
Inc. & Hudson River Sloop Clearwater,
Inc. (Indian Point--LR), August 11,
2011.
PRM 51-20 submitted by Paul Gunter, on ML11223A371.
behalf of Beyond Nuclear, Seacoast
Anti-Pollution League and Sierra Club
of New Hampshire (Seabrook--LR),
August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-21 submitted by Michael ML11223A344.
Mariotte, on behalf of Nuclear
Information and Resource Service,
Beyond Nuclear, Public Citizen, and
SOMDCARES (Calvert Cliffs--COL),
August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-22 submitted by Raymond Shadis, ML11223A465.
on behalf of Friends of the Coast and
New England Coalition (Seabrook--LR),
August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-23 submitted by Robert V. Eye, ML11223A472.
on behalf of Intervenors in South
Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co.,
Application for Units 3 and 4 Combined
Operating License (South Texas--COL),
August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-24 submitted by Robert V. Eye, ML11223A477.
on behalf of Intervenors in Luminant
Generation Company, LCC, Application
for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant
Combined License (Comanche Peak--COL),
August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-25 submitted by Mary Olson, on ML11224A074.
behalf of the Ecology Party of
Florida, Nuclear Information (Levy--
COL), August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-26 submitted by Terry Lodge, on ML112450527.
behalf of Beyond Nuclear, Citizens
Environment Alliance of Southwestern
Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the
Green Party of Ohio (Davis-Besse--LR),
August 11, 2011.
PRM 51-27 submitted by Terry Lodge, on ML112450528.
behalf of Beyond Nuclear, Citizens for
Alternatives to Chemical
Contamination, Citizens Environmental
Alliance of Southwestern Ontario,
Don't Waste Michigan, Sierra Club,
Keith Gunter, Edward McArdle, Henry
Newman, Derek Coronado, Sandra Bihn,
Harold L. Stokes, Michael J. Keegan,
Richard Coronado, George Steinman,
Marilyn R. Timmer, Leonard Mandeville,
Frank Mantei, Marcee Meyers, and
Shirley Steinman (Fermi--COL), August
11, 2011.
PRM 51-28 submitted by Barry White, on ML11224A232.
behalf of Citizens Allied for Safe
Energy, Inc (Turkey Point--COL),
August 11, 2011.
Report of Japanese Government to the https://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/
IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear kan/topics/201106/
Safety--The Accident at TEPCO's iaea_houkokusho_e.html.
Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations, June
2011.
SECY-11-0093, Near-Term Report and ML11186A959.
Recommendations for Agency Actions
Following the Events in Japan, July
12, 2011.
[[Page 48242]]
SECY[dash]11[dash]0124, Recommended ML11245A127.
Actions to be Taken Without Delay from
the Near Term Task Force Report,
September 9, 2011.
SECY-11-0137, Prioritization of ML11269A204.
Recommended Actions to be Taken in
Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned,
October 3, 2011.
SECY-13-0112, Consequence Study of a ML13256A334.
Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake
Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a
U.S. Mark I Boiling-Water Reactor,
October 9, 2013.
SRM-COMSECY-13-0030, Staff Evaluation ML14143A360.
and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-
Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited
Transfer of Spent Fuel, May 23, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-19843 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
