Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 61040-61043 [2017-27682]
Download as PDF
61040
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Notices
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Final environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack
D. Parrott, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–6634; email:
Jack.Parrott@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
October 27, 2016 decision on the
petition (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16301A083), found that the
exemptions were ineligible for a
categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
directed the staff to conduct an EA to
examine the environmental impacts, if
any, associated with the exemptions.
Therefore, consistent with Commission
direction and with 10 CFR 51.21, the
NRC prepared a draft EA to document
its environmental review for the
exemption request, and published the
draft EA for comment on March 8, 2017
(82 FR 13015). Comments were received
from the Petitioners on April 7, 2017
(ADAMS Accession No. ML17107A145).
After consideration of those comments,
the staff has prepared this final EA.
Based on the results of this final EA, the
NRC has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare an environmental
impact statement and is therefore
issuing this final FONSI.
I. Introduction
II. Final Environmental Assessment
On June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35992), the
NRC issued exemptions from sections
50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(1)(iv) of
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) to Entergy, for
VY’s Renewed Facility Operating
License No. DPR–28. The VY facility is
located in Windham County, Vermont.
The licensee requested the exemptions
by letter dated January 6, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15013A171). The
exemptions allow the licensee to use
funds from the Trust for irradiated fuel
management activities, in the similar
manner that funds from the Trust are
used under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) for
decommissioning activities. As
explained below, although the
exemptions also exempted VY from the
regulatory requirement for prior
notification to the NRC of
disbursements from the Trust for
irradiated fuel management activities,
the licensee is still required to provide
such prior notification to the NRC
because of a separate requirement in the
VY Renewed Facility Operating License.
At the time of issuance, the NRC’s
approval of the exemptions referenced
the categorical exclusion criteria under
10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). However, on
November 4, 2015, the State of Vermont,
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Corporation, and Green Mountain
Power Corporation (together,
Petitioners) filed a petition (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16137A554) with the
Commission that, in part, challenged the
NRC staff’s use of a categorical
exclusion in granting the exemption
request. The Commission, in their
Description of the Action
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a final
environmental assessment (EA) and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
regarding the issuance of two
exemptions in response to a January 6,
2015 request from Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the
licensee), on behalf of the owners of the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
(VY). The exemptions allow the licensee
to use funds from the VY
decommissioning trust fund (the Trust)
for irradiated fuel management
activities.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in
this documents are available on
December 26, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2015–0157 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0157. 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 publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
If you would like to be added to the
distribution, please contact the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–
415–1969), or email Patricia.Jimenez@
nrc.gov or Jennifer.BorgesRoman@
nrc.gov.
Dated: December 20, 2017.
Denise L. McGovern,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–27844 Filed 12–21–17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–271; NRC–2015–0157]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station
AGENCY:
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:21 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The exemptions requested by Entergy
on January 6, 2015, and granted by the
NRC on June 23, 2015, exempt Entergy
from the requirements set forth in 10
CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(1)(iv).
Specifically, the exemptions allow
Entergy to use funds from the Trust for
irradiated fuel management activities,
not associated with radiological
decommissioning.
Need for the Action
By letter dated January 12, 2015
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15013A426),
Entergy informed the NRC that it had
permanently ceased power operations at
VY and that the VY reactor vessel had
been permanently defueled.
In its January 6, 2015 exemption
request, Entergy stated that it needed
access to the funds in the Trust, in
excess of those funds needed for
radiological decommissioning, to
support irradiated fuel management
activities not associated with
radiological decommissioning. As
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A),
decommissioning trust funds may be
used by a licensee if the withdrawals are
for expenses for legitimate
decommissioning activities consistent
with the definition of decommissioning
in 10 CFR 50.2. This definition
addresses radiological decommissioning
and does not include activities
associated with irradiated fuel
management. Similarly, the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv)
restrict decommissioning trust fund
disbursements (other than for payments
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
of ordinary administrative costs and
incidental expenses of the fund) to
decommissioning expenses until final
decommissioning has been completed.
Therefore, Entergy needed exemptions
from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and
50.75(h)(1)(iv) to allow the use of funds
from the Trust for irradiated fuel
management activities.
Environmental Impacts of the Action
The exemptions are of a financial
nature and allow Entergy to use funds
from the Trust to pay for irradiated fuel
management activities. The exemptions
do not authorize any additional
regulatory or land-disturbing activities,
but do allow Entergy to finance
irradiated fuel management activities,
which support decommissioning.
In granting the exemptions, the NRC
staff performed an independent analysis
of the Trust and confirmed that the
existing funds, planned future
contributions, and projected earnings of
the Trust provide reasonable assurance
of adequate funding to complete all NRC
required decommissioning activities
and to conduct irradiated fuel
management. Consequently, the staff
concluded that application of the
requirements that funds from the Trust
only be used for decommissioning
activities and not for irradiated fuel
management was not necessary to
provide reasonable assurance that
adequate funds will be available for the
radiological decommissioning of VY.
The staff conclusion is also supported
by the fact that the licensee has a
comprehensive, regulation-based
decommissioning funding oversight
program to provide reasonable
assurance that sufficient funding will be
available for the radiological
decommissioning of VY. After
submitting its site-specific
Decommissioning Cost Estimate as
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii), and
until completing its final radiation
survey and demonstrating that residual
radioactivity has been reduced to a level
that permits termination of its license as
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11), the
licensee is required by 10 CFR
50.82(a)(8)(v) to annually submit to the
NRC a financial assurance status report.
The report must include, among other
things, amounts spent on
decommissioning, the remaining Trust
balance, and estimated costs to
complete radiological decommissioning.
If the remaining Trust balance, plus
earnings on such funds calculated at not
greater than a 2 percent real rate of
return, plus any other financial
assurance methods being relied upon,
does not cover the estimated costs to
complete radiological decommissioning,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:21 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(vi) requires that
additional financial assurance to cover
the estimated costs to complete
radiological decommissioning must be
provided. These annual reports provide
a means for the NRC to monitor the
adequacy of the funding available for
the radiological decommissioning of VY
notwithstanding the exemptions
allowing Entergy to use funds from the
Trust for irradiated fuel management
activities.
Entergy also requested an exemption
from the 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv)
requirement that no disbursements may
be made from the Trust until written
notice of the intention to make the
disbursement has been given to the NRC
at least 30 working days before the date
of the intended disbursement, except
that notification is not required after
decommissioning has begun and
withdrawals are made under 10 CFR
50.82(a)(8). The NRC granted this
exemption. However, the granting of
this exemption did not relieve Entergy
from a requirement for prior notification
of disbursements of funds from the
Trust for irradiated fuel management
activities because of additional language
in the VY Renewed Facility Operating
License and the VY Master
Decommissioning Trust Agreement.
Specifically, in accordance with the VY
Renewed Facility Operating License
(ADAMS Accession No. ML052720265),
Condition 3.J.a.(iii), the
decommissioning trust agreement must
provide that no disbursements or
payments from the Trust, other than for
ordinary administrative expenses, shall
be made by the trustee until the trustee
has first given the NRC 30 days prior
written notice of payment. Article IV,
Section 4.05, of the VY Master
Decommissioning Trust Agreement
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15111A086),
by and between Entergy Nuclear
Vermont Yankee, LLC, and The Bank of
New York Mellon as Trustee, provides
that no disbursements or payments shall
be made by the Trustee, other than
administrative expenses, until the
Trustee has first given the NRC 30 days
prior written notice of payment.
Although Entergy had submitted a
September 4, 2014 license amendment
request to delete License Condition
3.J.(a) and thus remove the prior
notification requirement (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14254A405), Entergy
withdrew this license amendment
request on September 22, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML15267A074 and
ML15265A583). Therefore, License
Condition 3.J.a.(iii) remains in effect
and, despite the granting of the
exemptions, VY remains subject to a
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61041
prior notification requirement. Similar
to the annual financial assurance status
reports, prior notifications provide a
means for the NRC to monitor the
adequacy of the funding available for
the radiological decommissioning of VY
notwithstanding the exemptions
allowing Entergy to use funds from the
Trust for irradiated fuel management
activities.
The environmental impacts of
decommissioning have been generically
evaluated by the NRC and documented
in NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, Generic
Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS]
on Decommissioning of Nuclear
Facilities (Decommissioning GEIS).
Entergy’s Post-Shutdown
Decommissioning Activity Report
(PSDAR) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14357A110) discussed that the
impacts from the planned
decommissioning activities at VY are
less than and bounded by the impacts
considered in the Decommissioning
GEIS and NUREG–1496, Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities. The NRC
staff found that the PSDAR contained
the required information, including a
discussion that provides the reasons for
concluding that the environmental
impacts associated with the
decommissioning activities at VY will
be bounded by previous analyses
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15343A210).
The exemptions do not authorize
Entergy to perform new land-disturbing
activities that could affect land use,
soils and geology, water resources,
ecological resources, or historic and
cultural resources. The exemptions do
not authorize Entergy to conduct
additional regulatory activities, outside
those already licensed by the NRC;
therefore, there are no incremental
effects to air quality, traffic and
transportation, socioeconomics,
environmental justice, or accidents. The
exemptions only change the source of
funds allowed for irradiated fuel
management activities. This will not
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents and, as a result of the
exemptions, there are no changes in the
types or amounts of effluents that are, or
may be, released offsite. Entergy must
continue to comply with all appropriate
NRC regulations related to occupational
and public radiation exposure and thus
the exemptions will not result in an
increase to occupational or public
doses. Finally, Entergy is required to
maintain adequate funding for the
radiological decommissioning of VY
and to provide information regarding
this funding to the NRC. Accordingly,
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
61042
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Notices
the NRC concludes that there are no
potential incremental environmental
impacts as a result of the granted
exemptions.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Action
As an alternative to the action, the
NRC staff could have denied Entergy’s
exemption request. Denial of the
exemption request would have resulted
in Entergy using funds from the Trust
only for radiological decommissioning
and not also for irradiated fuel
management activities. The
environmental impacts of this
alternative would be substantively the
same as the environmental impacts for
granting the exemption request because
there are no potential incremental
environmental impacts as a result of
granting the exemption request.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of
the alternative to the action would be
the same as those already considered by
the previous environmental analyses.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC issued for public comment
a draft of the EA and FONSI in the
Federal Register on March 8, 2017 (82
FR 13015). Comments were received
from the Petitioners on April 7, 2017
(ADAMS Accession No. ML17107A145).
Discussion of Comments
The NRC staff has summarized the
Petitioners’ comments and has
responded to them below.
Petitioners comment 1. NRC staff’s EA
and FONSI fail to address numerous
factors that trigger the need to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). NRC should withdraw the EA and
FONSI, and the approval of the
exemption request granting approval to
use the decommissioning trust fund for
spent fuel management, and proceed to
prepare an EIS that, among other things,
addresses these comments and brings
NRC’s actions into compliance with
NEPA.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees
with this comment. The NRC has
evaluated the environmental impacts of
the exemptions in its EA and concluded
that the exemptions did not, and will
not, have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC has decided not
to prepare an EIS for the action and is
issuing a FONSI. Therefore, the NRC
staff will not withdraw the draft EA and
FONSI to prepare an EIS nor will the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:21 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
NRC staff withdraw the approval of the
exemption request. The staff’s responses
to the Petitioners’ comments that the EA
and FONSI fail to address numerous
factors triggering the need to prepare an
EIS are described below.
Petitioners comment 1.a. The sale of
VY to NorthStar Nuclear
Decommissioning Company, LLC
(NorthStar), and its resulting changes to
the plan, schedule, and cost estimate for
decommissioning, is a reasonably
foreseeable event that must be
considered in the EA. The NRC ignored
the pending sale of VY to NorthStar, and
that sale’s resulting changes to the plan,
schedule, and cost estimate for
decommissioning VY.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees
with this comment. The NRC is aware
of the possible sale of VY to NorthStar,
and that the sale may result in changes
to the plan, schedule, and cost estimate
for decommissioning. However, the
NRC does not consider the sale
reasonably foreseeable for purposes of
this EA. The sale transaction is still
pending regulatory review and approval
by both the Vermont Public Service
Board and the NRC. Pursuant to 10 CFR
50.80, the VY license may not be
transferred, either voluntarily or
involuntarily, directly or indirectly,
through transfer of control of the license
to any person, unless the NRC gives its
consent in writing. The license transfer
request related to the pending sale of VY
to NorthStar is currently under NRC
review. For the NRC to evaluate the
exemption request as if approval of the
license transfer request were
‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ would suggest
that the NRC is inappropriately prejudging the merits of the license transfer
request that is still under the agency’s
review. Thus, the NRC does not
consider it ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ that
the license transfer request will be
approved by the NRC and the Vermont
Public Service Board. Accordingly, the
NRC will not consider the possible sale
of VY to NorthStar for purposes of this
EA. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.33(k), the license transfer request is
required to state information in the form
of a report indicating how reasonable
assurance will be provided that funds
will be available to decommission the
facility.
Petitioners comment 1.b. The EA fails
to consider the reasonably foreseeable
possibility of a shortfall in the Trust
resulting from allowing $225 million or
more from the Trust to be diverted to
non-decommissioning expenses. By
allowing $225 million or more to be
diverted from the Trust for nondecommissioning expenses, the NRC
has greatly increased the chances of a
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
shortfall in the Trust that could leave
the site radiologically contaminated.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees
with this comment. In its evaluation of
the underlying exemption request (80
FR 35992), the NRC staff performed an
independent analysis of the Trust and
confirmed that the existing funds,
planned future contributions, and
projected earnings of the Trust provide
reasonable assurance of adequate
funding to complete all NRC required
decommissioning activities and to
conduct irradiated fuel management in
accordance with the VY Irradiated Fuel
Management Plan and PSDAR.
The NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR
50.82 provide for the oversight of
decommissioning funding until
decommissioning is complete and the
license is terminated. At all times, the
licensee remains responsible to assure
that sufficient funding remains available
for decommissioning. Once a licensee
has permanently ceased operations, it is
required to report its decommissioning
funding status on an annual basis. In
these submittals, the licensee is required
to report any differences between the
estimated costs to decommission the
site, and the amount of
decommissioning funding available or
anticipated at that time, including plans
for making up any identified shortfalls.
Independent of these submittals, the
NRC staff will validate the licensee’s
reporting of this information and review
the Trust status against any new
information regarding radiological
contamination at the site and the ability
to meet the requirements for release of
the site for unrestricted use. Any
unanticipated Trust shortfalls must be
covered by the licensee. Should the
licensee fail to cover a shortfall, the
NRC may pursue enforcement methods
as determined to be appropriate.
Given the NRC’s regulatory
framework for decommissioning
funding assurance and the NRC’s
reasonable assurance findings in its
evaluation of the exemption request, the
NRC does not consider a shortfall in the
Trust resulting from the exemptions to
be reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the
Petitioners’ comments suggesting that
the NRC has greatly increased the
chances of a shortfall in the Trust that
could leave the site radiologically
contaminated are unsupported and
speculative.
Petitioners comment 1.c. The EA fails
to consider cumulative impacts
resulting from all of the nondecommissioning expenses Entergy
withdraws from the Trust. The EA looks
only at one of Entergy’s uses of the Trust
for a non-decommissioning expense
(spent fuel management). NRC staff
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Notices
simply provided conclusory statements
supporting its position.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees
with this comment. The EA
appropriately considered all
withdrawals from the decommissioning
trust that would be permissible under
the NRC’s regulations and under the
exemptions. Specifically, the EA
considered withdrawals for
decommissioning expenses, which are
permitted by the NRC’s regulations, and
withdrawals for spent fuel management
expenses, which are permitted by the
exemptions. The EA did not consider
withdrawals for any nondecommissioning expenses beyond
spent fuel management expenses,
because such withdrawals are
prohibited by the NRC’s regulations and
are not allowed by the exemptions. In
addition, this scope of the EA is
appropriate because the NRC staff
reviews the status of decommissioning
funds annually during decommissioning
to ensure that adequate funds for
decommissioning are available and that
withdrawals from the decommissioning
fund are for approved purposes. Finally,
the cumulative impacts of
decommissioning were considered in
the Decommissioning GEIS. Therefore,
the EA’s consideration of impacts was
appropriate.
Petitioners comment 1.d. The EA fails
to consider reasonable alternatives. The
only alternative that the NRC staff
evaluated was denying Entergy’s
exemption request. The NRC staff failed
to evaluate other alternatives, such as
granting conditional approval.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees
that the EA fails to consider reasonable
alternatives. The exemptions at issue
here allow Entergy to use funds from the
Trust for the non-decommissioning
expense of irradiated fuel management
activities. This EA evaluates denying
the exemption request as a reasonable
alternative to the action of granting the
exemption request. Consistent with the
NRC’s regulations, imposing conditions
on a licensee is typically done through
the license amendment process and not
through the exemption process;
therefore, the NRC disagrees that it
should have also evaluated as a
reasonable alternative granting
conditional approval of the exemption
request.
Petitioners comment 2. The
publication of the EA after the relevant
decision has already been made does
not comply with NEPA’s requirement
that the analysis occur before a decision
is made. The NRC approved the
exemption request on June 23, 2015, but
published the draft EA and FONSI for
comment on March 8, 2017. The NRC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:21 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
staff relies on the Decommissioning
Financial Status Report from March 30,
2015 to support the EA, when it had a
more recent report from March 30, 2016.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees
with this comment. In CLI–16–17, the
Commission directed the NRC staff ‘‘to
conduct an environmental assessment to
examine the environmental impacts, if
any, associated with the exemption.’’
Although the Commission declined to
reverse the staff’s approval of the
exemption request, it specified that if
the staff’s environmental review ‘‘results
in a determination of significant
impacts, the Staff should promptly
notify [the Commission] and, at that
time, [the Commission] may reconsider
whether the exemption should be stayed
or vacated.’’
The March 30, 2015 Decommissioning
Financial Status Report (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15092A141) was not
needed to support the EA and neither
was the more recent report from March
30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16090A355). The supporting
analysis of the adequacy of the Trust to
provide reasonable assurance of
adequate funding to complete all NRC
required decommissioning activities
and to conduct irradiated fuel
management is described in the June 23,
2015 Federal Register Notice of the
issuance of the exemptions.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Entergy proposed exemptions from 10
CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(1)(iv)
to allow the licensee to use funds from
the Trust for irradiated fuel management
activities. The NRC granted the
exemptions on June 23, 2015.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the
NRC conducted the EA for the
exemptions included in Section II of
this document and incorporated by
reference into this finding. On the basis
of this EA, the NRC concludes that the
exemptions did not, and will not, have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
EIS for the action.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of December 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce Watson,
Chief, Reactor Decommissioning Branch,
Division of Decommissioning, Uranium
Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2017–27682 Filed 12–22–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61043
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2017–0237]
Criteria for Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation for Nuclear Power
Plants
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Draft regulatory guide; request
for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing for public
comment draft regulatory guide (DG),
DG–1335, ‘‘Criteria for Accident
Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear
Power Plants.’’ The DG–1335 is
proposed revision 5 of regulatory guide
(RG) 1.97, (same title), last revised in
June 2006 (Revision 4). This guide
describes an approach that is acceptable
to the staff of the NRC to meet
regulatory requirements for
instrumentation to monitor accidents in
nuclear power plants. It endorses, with
clarifications, the Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
Standard (Std.) 497–2016, ‘‘IEEE
Standard Criteria for Accident
Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear
Power Generating Stations.’’
DATES: Submit comments by February
26, 2018. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
Although a time limit is given,
comments and suggestions in
connection with items for inclusion in
guides currently being developed or
improvements in all published guides
are encouraged at any time.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0237. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office
of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN–
12H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61040-61043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27682]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-271; NRC-2015-0157]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a
final environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant
impact (FONSI) regarding the issuance of two exemptions in response to
a January 6, 2015 request from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Entergy or the licensee), on behalf of the owners of the Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY). The exemptions allow the licensee to
use funds from the VY decommissioning trust fund (the Trust) for
irradiated fuel management activities.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this documents are available on
December 26, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0157 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0157. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack D. Parrott, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6634; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35992), the NRC issued exemptions from
sections 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(1)(iv) of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to Entergy, for VY's Renewed Facility
Operating License No. DPR-28. The VY facility is located in Windham
County, Vermont. The licensee requested the exemptions by letter dated
January 6, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15013A171). The exemptions allow
the licensee to use funds from the Trust for irradiated fuel management
activities, in the similar manner that funds from the Trust are used
under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) for decommissioning activities. As explained
below, although the exemptions also exempted VY from the regulatory
requirement for prior notification to the NRC of disbursements from the
Trust for irradiated fuel management activities, the licensee is still
required to provide such prior notification to the NRC because of a
separate requirement in the VY Renewed Facility Operating License.
At the time of issuance, the NRC's approval of the exemptions
referenced the categorical exclusion criteria under 10 CFR
51.22(c)(25). However, on November 4, 2015, the State of Vermont, the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, and Green Mountain Power
Corporation (together, Petitioners) filed a petition (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16137A554) with the Commission that, in part, challenged the NRC
staff's use of a categorical exclusion in granting the exemption
request. The Commission, in their October 27, 2016 decision on the
petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML16301A083), found that the exemptions
were ineligible for a categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and directed the staff to conduct an
EA to examine the environmental impacts, if any, associated with the
exemptions. Therefore, consistent with Commission direction and with 10
CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared a draft EA to document its environmental
review for the exemption request, and published the draft EA for
comment on March 8, 2017 (82 FR 13015). Comments were received from the
Petitioners on April 7, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17107A145). After
consideration of those comments, the staff has prepared this final EA.
Based on the results of this final EA, the NRC has determined that it
is not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement and is
therefore issuing this final FONSI.
II. Final Environmental Assessment
Description of the Action
The exemptions requested by Entergy on January 6, 2015, and granted
by the NRC on June 23, 2015, exempt Entergy from the requirements set
forth in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(1)(iv). Specifically,
the exemptions allow Entergy to use funds from the Trust for irradiated
fuel management activities, not associated with radiological
decommissioning.
Need for the Action
By letter dated January 12, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15013A426),
Entergy informed the NRC that it had permanently ceased power
operations at VY and that the VY reactor vessel had been permanently
defueled.
In its January 6, 2015 exemption request, Entergy stated that it
needed access to the funds in the Trust, in excess of those funds
needed for radiological decommissioning, to support irradiated fuel
management activities not associated with radiological decommissioning.
As required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), decommissioning trust funds
may be used by a licensee if the withdrawals are for expenses for
legitimate decommissioning activities consistent with the definition of
decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2. This definition addresses radiological
decommissioning and does not include activities associated with
irradiated fuel management. Similarly, the requirements of 10 CFR
50.75(h)(1)(iv) restrict decommissioning trust fund disbursements
(other than for payments
[[Page 61041]]
of ordinary administrative costs and incidental expenses of the fund)
to decommissioning expenses until final decommissioning has been
completed. Therefore, Entergy needed exemptions from 10 CFR
50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(1)(iv) to allow the use of funds from
the Trust for irradiated fuel management activities.
Environmental Impacts of the Action
The exemptions are of a financial nature and allow Entergy to use
funds from the Trust to pay for irradiated fuel management activities.
The exemptions do not authorize any additional regulatory or land-
disturbing activities, but do allow Entergy to finance irradiated fuel
management activities, which support decommissioning.
In granting the exemptions, the NRC staff performed an independent
analysis of the Trust and confirmed that the existing funds, planned
future contributions, and projected earnings of the Trust provide
reasonable assurance of adequate funding to complete all NRC required
decommissioning activities and to conduct irradiated fuel management.
Consequently, the staff concluded that application of the requirements
that funds from the Trust only be used for decommissioning activities
and not for irradiated fuel management was not necessary to provide
reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for the
radiological decommissioning of VY.
The staff conclusion is also supported by the fact that the
licensee has a comprehensive, regulation-based decommissioning funding
oversight program to provide reasonable assurance that sufficient
funding will be available for the radiological decommissioning of VY.
After submitting its site-specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate as
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii), and until completing its final
radiation survey and demonstrating that residual radioactivity has been
reduced to a level that permits termination of its license as required
by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11), the licensee is required by 10 CFR
50.82(a)(8)(v) to annually submit to the NRC a financial assurance
status report. The report must include, among other things, amounts
spent on decommissioning, the remaining Trust balance, and estimated
costs to complete radiological decommissioning. If the remaining Trust
balance, plus earnings on such funds calculated at not greater than a 2
percent real rate of return, plus any other financial assurance methods
being relied upon, does not cover the estimated costs to complete
radiological decommissioning, 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(vi) requires that
additional financial assurance to cover the estimated costs to complete
radiological decommissioning must be provided. These annual reports
provide a means for the NRC to monitor the adequacy of the funding
available for the radiological decommissioning of VY notwithstanding
the exemptions allowing Entergy to use funds from the Trust for
irradiated fuel management activities.
Entergy also requested an exemption from the 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv)
requirement that no disbursements may be made from the Trust until
written notice of the intention to make the disbursement has been given
to the NRC at least 30 working days before the date of the intended
disbursement, except that notification is not required after
decommissioning has begun and withdrawals are made under 10 CFR
50.82(a)(8). The NRC granted this exemption. However, the granting of
this exemption did not relieve Entergy from a requirement for prior
notification of disbursements of funds from the Trust for irradiated
fuel management activities because of additional language in the VY
Renewed Facility Operating License and the VY Master Decommissioning
Trust Agreement. Specifically, in accordance with the VY Renewed
Facility Operating License (ADAMS Accession No. ML052720265), Condition
3.J.a.(iii), the decommissioning trust agreement must provide that no
disbursements or payments from the Trust, other than for ordinary
administrative expenses, shall be made by the trustee until the trustee
has first given the NRC 30 days prior written notice of payment.
Article IV, Section 4.05, of the VY Master Decommissioning Trust
Agreement (ADAMS Accession No. ML15111A086), by and between Entergy
Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and The Bank of New York Mellon as
Trustee, provides that no disbursements or payments shall be made by
the Trustee, other than administrative expenses, until the Trustee has
first given the NRC 30 days prior written notice of payment. Although
Entergy had submitted a September 4, 2014 license amendment request to
delete License Condition 3.J.(a) and thus remove the prior notification
requirement (ADAMS Accession No. ML14254A405), Entergy withdrew this
license amendment request on September 22, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML15267A074 and ML15265A583). Therefore, License Condition 3.J.a.(iii)
remains in effect and, despite the granting of the exemptions, VY
remains subject to a prior notification requirement. Similar to the
annual financial assurance status reports, prior notifications provide
a means for the NRC to monitor the adequacy of the funding available
for the radiological decommissioning of VY notwithstanding the
exemptions allowing Entergy to use funds from the Trust for irradiated
fuel management activities.
The environmental impacts of decommissioning have been generically
evaluated by the NRC and documented in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1,
Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS] on Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities (Decommissioning GEIS). Entergy's Post-Shutdown
Decommissioning Activity Report (PSDAR) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14357A110) discussed that the impacts from the planned
decommissioning activities at VY are less than and bounded by the
impacts considered in the Decommissioning GEIS and NUREG-1496, Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.
The NRC staff found that the PSDAR contained the required information,
including a discussion that provides the reasons for concluding that
the environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning
activities at VY will be bounded by previous analyses (ADAMS Accession
No. ML15343A210).
The exemptions do not authorize Entergy to perform new land-
disturbing activities that could affect land use, soils and geology,
water resources, ecological resources, or historic and cultural
resources. The exemptions do not authorize Entergy to conduct
additional regulatory activities, outside those already licensed by the
NRC; therefore, there are no incremental effects to air quality,
traffic and transportation, socioeconomics, environmental justice, or
accidents. The exemptions only change the source of funds allowed for
irradiated fuel management activities. This will not increase the
probability or consequences of accidents and, as a result of the
exemptions, there are no changes in the types or amounts of effluents
that are, or may be, released offsite. Entergy must continue to comply
with all appropriate NRC regulations related to occupational and public
radiation exposure and thus the exemptions will not result in an
increase to occupational or public doses. Finally, Entergy is required
to maintain adequate funding for the radiological decommissioning of VY
and to provide information regarding this funding to the NRC.
Accordingly,
[[Page 61042]]
the NRC concludes that there are no potential incremental environmental
impacts as a result of the granted exemptions.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Action
As an alternative to the action, the NRC staff could have denied
Entergy's exemption request. Denial of the exemption request would have
resulted in Entergy using funds from the Trust only for radiological
decommissioning and not also for irradiated fuel management activities.
The environmental impacts of this alternative would be substantively
the same as the environmental impacts for granting the exemption
request because there are no potential incremental environmental
impacts as a result of granting the exemption request. Therefore, the
environmental impacts of the alternative to the action would be the
same as those already considered by the previous environmental
analyses.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC issued for public comment a draft of the EA and FONSI in
the Federal Register on March 8, 2017 (82 FR 13015). Comments were
received from the Petitioners on April 7, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17107A145).
Discussion of Comments
The NRC staff has summarized the Petitioners' comments and has
responded to them below.
Petitioners comment 1. NRC staff's EA and FONSI fail to address
numerous factors that trigger the need to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). NRC should withdraw the EA and FONSI, and the
approval of the exemption request granting approval to use the
decommissioning trust fund for spent fuel management, and proceed to
prepare an EIS that, among other things, addresses these comments and
brings NRC's actions into compliance with NEPA.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC has
evaluated the environmental impacts of the exemptions in its EA and
concluded that the exemptions did not, and will not, have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC
has decided not to prepare an EIS for the action and is issuing a
FONSI. Therefore, the NRC staff will not withdraw the draft EA and
FONSI to prepare an EIS nor will the NRC staff withdraw the approval of
the exemption request. The staff's responses to the Petitioners'
comments that the EA and FONSI fail to address numerous factors
triggering the need to prepare an EIS are described below.
Petitioners comment 1.a. The sale of VY to NorthStar Nuclear
Decommissioning Company, LLC (NorthStar), and its resulting changes to
the plan, schedule, and cost estimate for decommissioning, is a
reasonably foreseeable event that must be considered in the EA. The NRC
ignored the pending sale of VY to NorthStar, and that sale's resulting
changes to the plan, schedule, and cost estimate for decommissioning
VY.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC is aware
of the possible sale of VY to NorthStar, and that the sale may result
in changes to the plan, schedule, and cost estimate for
decommissioning. However, the NRC does not consider the sale reasonably
foreseeable for purposes of this EA. The sale transaction is still
pending regulatory review and approval by both the Vermont Public
Service Board and the NRC. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, the VY license may
not be transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or
indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person,
unless the NRC gives its consent in writing. The license transfer
request related to the pending sale of VY to NorthStar is currently
under NRC review. For the NRC to evaluate the exemption request as if
approval of the license transfer request were ``reasonably
foreseeable'' would suggest that the NRC is inappropriately pre-judging
the merits of the license transfer request that is still under the
agency's review. Thus, the NRC does not consider it ``reasonably
foreseeable'' that the license transfer request will be approved by the
NRC and the Vermont Public Service Board. Accordingly, the NRC will not
consider the possible sale of VY to NorthStar for purposes of this EA.
Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.33(k), the license transfer request
is required to state information in the form of a report indicating how
reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to
decommission the facility.
Petitioners comment 1.b. The EA fails to consider the reasonably
foreseeable possibility of a shortfall in the Trust resulting from
allowing $225 million or more from the Trust to be diverted to non-
decommissioning expenses. By allowing $225 million or more to be
diverted from the Trust for non-decommissioning expenses, the NRC has
greatly increased the chances of a shortfall in the Trust that could
leave the site radiologically contaminated.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees with this comment. In its
evaluation of the underlying exemption request (80 FR 35992), the NRC
staff performed an independent analysis of the Trust and confirmed that
the existing funds, planned future contributions, and projected
earnings of the Trust provide reasonable assurance of adequate funding
to complete all NRC required decommissioning activities and to conduct
irradiated fuel management in accordance with the VY Irradiated Fuel
Management Plan and PSDAR.
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.82 provide for the oversight of
decommissioning funding until decommissioning is complete and the
license is terminated. At all times, the licensee remains responsible
to assure that sufficient funding remains available for
decommissioning. Once a licensee has permanently ceased operations, it
is required to report its decommissioning funding status on an annual
basis. In these submittals, the licensee is required to report any
differences between the estimated costs to decommission the site, and
the amount of decommissioning funding available or anticipated at that
time, including plans for making up any identified shortfalls.
Independent of these submittals, the NRC staff will validate the
licensee's reporting of this information and review the Trust status
against any new information regarding radiological contamination at the
site and the ability to meet the requirements for release of the site
for unrestricted use. Any unanticipated Trust shortfalls must be
covered by the licensee. Should the licensee fail to cover a shortfall,
the NRC may pursue enforcement methods as determined to be appropriate.
Given the NRC's regulatory framework for decommissioning funding
assurance and the NRC's reasonable assurance findings in its evaluation
of the exemption request, the NRC does not consider a shortfall in the
Trust resulting from the exemptions to be reasonably foreseeable.
Therefore, the Petitioners' comments suggesting that the NRC has
greatly increased the chances of a shortfall in the Trust that could
leave the site radiologically contaminated are unsupported and
speculative.
Petitioners comment 1.c. The EA fails to consider cumulative
impacts resulting from all of the non-decommissioning expenses Entergy
withdraws from the Trust. The EA looks only at one of Entergy's uses of
the Trust for a non-decommissioning expense (spent fuel management).
NRC staff
[[Page 61043]]
simply provided conclusory statements supporting its position.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees with this comment. The EA
appropriately considered all withdrawals from the decommissioning trust
that would be permissible under the NRC's regulations and under the
exemptions. Specifically, the EA considered withdrawals for
decommissioning expenses, which are permitted by the NRC's regulations,
and withdrawals for spent fuel management expenses, which are permitted
by the exemptions. The EA did not consider withdrawals for any non-
decommissioning expenses beyond spent fuel management expenses, because
such withdrawals are prohibited by the NRC's regulations and are not
allowed by the exemptions. In addition, this scope of the EA is
appropriate because the NRC staff reviews the status of decommissioning
funds annually during decommissioning to ensure that adequate funds for
decommissioning are available and that withdrawals from the
decommissioning fund are for approved purposes. Finally, the cumulative
impacts of decommissioning were considered in the Decommissioning GEIS.
Therefore, the EA's consideration of impacts was appropriate.
Petitioners comment 1.d. The EA fails to consider reasonable
alternatives. The only alternative that the NRC staff evaluated was
denying Entergy's exemption request. The NRC staff failed to evaluate
other alternatives, such as granting conditional approval.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees that the EA fails to consider
reasonable alternatives. The exemptions at issue here allow Entergy to
use funds from the Trust for the non-decommissioning expense of
irradiated fuel management activities. This EA evaluates denying the
exemption request as a reasonable alternative to the action of granting
the exemption request. Consistent with the NRC's regulations, imposing
conditions on a licensee is typically done through the license
amendment process and not through the exemption process; therefore, the
NRC disagrees that it should have also evaluated as a reasonable
alternative granting conditional approval of the exemption request.
Petitioners comment 2. The publication of the EA after the relevant
decision has already been made does not comply with NEPA's requirement
that the analysis occur before a decision is made. The NRC approved the
exemption request on June 23, 2015, but published the draft EA and
FONSI for comment on March 8, 2017. The NRC staff relies on the
Decommissioning Financial Status Report from March 30, 2015 to support
the EA, when it had a more recent report from March 30, 2016.
NRC response. The NRC disagrees with this comment. In CLI-16-17,
the Commission directed the NRC staff ``to conduct an environmental
assessment to examine the environmental impacts, if any, associated
with the exemption.'' Although the Commission declined to reverse the
staff's approval of the exemption request, it specified that if the
staff's environmental review ``results in a determination of
significant impacts, the Staff should promptly notify [the Commission]
and, at that time, [the Commission] may reconsider whether the
exemption should be stayed or vacated.''
The March 30, 2015 Decommissioning Financial Status Report (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15092A141) was not needed to support the EA and neither
was the more recent report from March 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16090A355). The supporting analysis of the adequacy of the Trust to
provide reasonable assurance of adequate funding to complete all NRC
required decommissioning activities and to conduct irradiated fuel
management is described in the June 23, 2015 Federal Register Notice of
the issuance of the exemptions.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Entergy proposed exemptions from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and
50.75(h)(1)(iv) to allow the licensee to use funds from the Trust for
irradiated fuel management activities. The NRC granted the exemptions
on June 23, 2015.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the
exemptions included in Section II of this document and incorporated by
reference into this finding. On the basis of this EA, the NRC concludes
that the exemptions did not, and will not, have a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has
determined not to prepare an EIS for the action.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce Watson,
Chief, Reactor Decommissioning Branch, Division of Decommissioning,
Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2017-27682 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P