This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

38117 

Vol. 74, No. 146 

Friday, July 31, 2009 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

RIN 3150–AI42 

[NRC–2008–0608] 

Revisions to Environmental Review for 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant 

Operating Licenses 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend its environmental protection 

regulations by updating the 

Commission’s 1996 findings on the 

environmental impacts related to the 

renewal of a nuclear power plant’s 

operating license. The Commission 

stated that it intends to review the 

assessment of impacts and update it on 

a 10-year cycle, if necessary. The 

proposed rule redefines the number and 

scope of the environmental impact 

issues which must be addressed by the 

Commission in conjunction with the 

review of applications for license 

renewal. As part of this 10-year update, 

the NRC revised the 1996 Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. 

Concurrent with the amendments 

described in this proposed rule, the 

NRC is publishing for comment the 

revised GEIS, a revised Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Preparation of 

Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plant License Renewal 

Applications, and a revised 

Environmental Standard Review Plan, 

Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear 

Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating 

License Renewal. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule, 

its information collection aspects and its 

draft regulatory analysis should be 

submitted by October 14, 2009. 

Comments on the revised GEIS 

(NUREG–1437, Revision 1); Regulatory 

Guide (RG) 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 

1; and Environmental Standard Review 

Plan (ESRP), Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(NUREG–1555), should be submitted by 

October 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by letter or electronic mail 

and will be made available for public 

inspection. Because comments will not 

be edited to remove any identification 

or contact information, such as name, 

addresses, telephone number, e-mail 

address, etc., the NRC cautions against 

including any personal information in 

your submissions that you do not want 

to be publicly disclosed. The NRC 

requests that any party soliciting or 

aggregating comments received from 

other persons for submission to the NRC 

inform these persons that the NRC will 

not edit their comments to remove any 

identifying or comment information, 

and therefore, they should not include 

any information in their comments that 

they do not want publicly disclosed. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2008–0608]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

(301) 492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at (301) 415–1677. 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this rulemaking may be accessed 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

Publicly available documents may be 

examined at the NRC’s PDR, Public File 

Area O1–F21, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. The PDR reproduction 

contractor will copy documents for a 

fee. 

NRC’s Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this link, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If problems 

are encountered accessing documents in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR 

reference staff at (800) 397–4209, or 

(301) 415–4737, or by e-mail to 

PDR.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jason Lising, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone (301) 415–3220; e-mail: 

Jason.Lising@nrc.gov; or Ms. Jennifer 

Davis, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone (301) 415–3835; e-mail: 

Jennifer.Davis@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Public Comments 

IV. Discussion 

V. Proposed Actions and Basis for Changes 

to Table B–1 

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VII. Specific Request for Comments 

VIII. Guidance Documents 

IX. Agreement State Compatibility 

X. Availability of Documents 

XI. Plain Language 

XII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XIII. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact 

XIV. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

XV. Regulatory Analysis 

XVI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

XVII. Backfit Analysis 

I. Introduction 

The NRC is proposing to amend Title 

10, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 

Related Regulatory Functions,’’ of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

Part 51) by updating Table B–1 in 

Appendix B to Subpart A of ‘‘Summary 

of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,’’ and 

other related provisions in Part 51 (e.g., 

§ 51.53(c)(3)), which describes the 

requirements for the license renewal 

applicant’s environmental report. These 

amendments are based on comments 

received from the public on NUREG– 

1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants’’ (May 1996), referred to 

as the ‘‘1996 GEIS,’’ and its Addendum 

1 (August 1999), a review of plantspecific supplemental environmental 

impact statements (SEISs) completed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38118 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

since the GEIS was issued in 1996, 

lessons learned, and knowledge gained 

from the preparation of these SEISs. The 

NRC staff has prepared a draft revision 

to the 1996 GEIS, referred to as the 

‘‘revised GEIS,’’ which updates the 1996 

GEIS based upon consideration of the 

above described factors. The revised 

GEIS provides the technical basis for 

this proposed rule. 

In the 1996 GEIS and final rule (61 FR 

28467, June 5, 1996), which 

promulgated Table B–1 and related 

provisions in Part 51, the Commission 

determined that certain environmental 

impacts associated with the renewal of 

a nuclear power plant operating license 

were the same or similar for all plants 

and as such, could be treated on a 

generic basis. In this way, repetitive 

reviews of these environmental impacts 

could be avoided. The Commission 

based its generic assessment of certain 

environmental impacts on the following 

factors: 

(1) License renewal will involve 

nuclear power plants for which the 

environmental impacts of operation are 

well understood as a result of lessons 

learned and knowledge gained from 

operating experience and completed 

license renewals. 

(2) Activities associated with license 

renewal are expected to be within this 

range of operating experience; thus, 

environmental impacts can be 

reasonably predicted. 

(3) Changes in the environment 

around nuclear power plants are gradual 

and predictable. 

The 1996 GEIS improved the 

efficiency of the license renewal process 

by (1) providing an evaluation of the 

types of environmental impacts that 

may occur from renewing commercial 

nuclear power plant operating licenses; 

(2) identifying and assessing impacts 

that are expected to be generic (i.e., the 

same or similar) at all nuclear plants or 

plants with specified plant or site 

characteristics; and (3) defining the 

number and scope of environmental 

impacts that need to be addressed in 

plant-specific SEISs. 

As stated in the 1996 final rule that 

incorporated the findings of the GEIS in 

Part 51, the NRC recognized that the 

assessment of the environmental impact 

issues might change over time, and that 

additional issues may be identified for 

consideration. This proposed rule is the 

result of the 10-year review conducted 

by the NRC on the information and 

findings currently presented in Table 

B–1 of Appendix B to Part 51. 

II. Background 

Rulemaking History 

In 1986, the NRC initiated a program 

to develop license renewal regulations 

and associated regulatory guidance in 

anticipation of applications for the 

renewal of nuclear power plant 

operating licenses. A solicitation for 

comments on the development of a 

policy statement was published in the 

Federal Register on November 6, 1986 

(51 FR 40334). However, the 

Commission decided to forgo the 

development of a policy statement and 

to proceed directly to rulemaking. An 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

was published on August 29, 1988 (53 

FR 32919). Subsequently, in addition to 

a decision to proceed with the 

development of license renewal 

regulations focused on the protection of 

health and safety, the NRC decided to 

amend its environmental protection 

regulations in Part 51. 

On October 13, 1989 (54 FR 41980), 

the NRC published a notice of its intent 

to hold a public workshop on license 

renewal on November 13 and 14, 1989. 

One of the workshop sessions was 

devoted to the environmental issues 

associated with license renewal and the 

possible merit of amending 10 CFR Part 

51. The workshop is summarized in 

NUREG/CP–0108, ‘‘Proceedings of the 

Public Workshop on Nuclear Power 

Plant License Renewal’’ (April 1990). 

Responses to the public comments 

submitted after the workshop are 

summarized in NUREG–1411, 

‘‘Response to Public Comments 

Resulting from the Public Workshop on 

Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal’’ 

(July 1990). 

On July 23, 1990, the NRC published 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (55 FR 29964) and a notice 

of intent to prepare a generic 

environmental impact statement (55 FR 

29967). The proposed rule published on 

September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47016), 

described the supporting documents 

that were available and announced a 

public workshop to be held on 

November 4 and 5, 1991. The 

supporting documents for the proposed 

rule included: 

(1) NUREG–1437, ‘‘Draft Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ 

(August 1991); 

(2) NUREG–1440, ‘‘Regulatory 

Analysis of Proposed Amendments to 

Regulations Concerning the 

Environmental Review for Renewal of 

Nuclear Power Plant Operating 

Licenses: Draft Report for Comment’’ 

(August 1991); 

(3) Draft Regulatory Guide DG–4002, 

Proposed Supplement 1 to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, ‘‘Guidance for the 

Preparation of Supplemental 

Environmental Reports in Support of an 

Application To Renew a Nuclear Power 

Station Operating License’’ (August 

1991); and 

(4) NUREG–1429, ‘‘Environmental 

Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

License Renewal Applications for 

Nuclear Power Plants: Draft Report for 

Comment’’ (August 1991). 

After the comment period, the 

Commission directed the NRC staff to 

discuss concerns raised by a number of 

States that certain features of the 

proposed rule conflicted with State 

regulatory authority over the need for 

power and utility economics. To 

facilitate these discussions, the NRC 

developed an options paper entitled, 

‘‘Addressing the Concerns of States and 

Others Regarding the Role of Need for 

Generating Capacity, Alternative Energy 

Sources, Utility Costs, and Cost-Benefit 

Analysis in NRC Environmental 

Reviews for Relicensing Nuclear Power 

Plants: An NRC Staff Discussion Paper.’’ 

A Federal Register document published 

on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2542), 

announced the scheduling of three 

regional workshops in February 1994 

and the availability of the options paper. 

A fourth public meeting was held in 

May 1994 to address proposals that had 

been submitted after the regional 

workshops. After consideration of all 

comments, the NRC issued a 

supplement to the proposed rule on July 

25, 1994 (59 FR 37724), to resolve 

concerns about the need for power and 

utility economics. 

The NRC published the final rule, 

‘‘Environmental Review for Renewal of 

Nuclear Power Plant Operating 

Licenses,’’ on June 5, 1996 (61 FR 

28467). The final rule identified and 

assessed license renewal environmental 

impact issues for which a generic 

analysis had been performed and 

therefore, did not have to be addressed 

by a licensee in its environmental report 

or by the NRC staff in its SEIS. 

Similarly, the final rule identified and 

assessed those environmental impacts 

for which a site-specific analysis was 

required, both by the licensee in its 

environmental report and by the NRC 

staff in its SEIS. The final rule, amongst 

other amendments to Part 51, added 

Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51. 

Appendix B included Table B–1, which 

summarizes the findings of NUREG– 

1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants,’’ May 1996 (1996 GEIS). 

On December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), 

the NRC amended the final rule 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38119 

published in June 1996 to incorporate 

minor clarifying and conforming 

changes and add language omitted from 

Table B–1. This amendment also 

analyzed comments received specific to 

the treatment of low-level waste storage 

and disposal impacts, the cumulative 

radiological effects from the uranium 

fuel cycle, and the effects from the 

disposal of high-level waste and spent 

fuel requested in the June 1996 final 

rule. 

On September 3, 1999 (64 FR 48496), 

the NRC amended the December 1996 

final rule to expand the generic findings 

about the environmental impacts 

resulting from transportation of fuel and 

waste to and from a single nuclear 

power plant. This amendment permitted 

the NRC to make a generic finding 

regarding these environmental impacts 

so that an analysis would not have to be 

repeated for each license renewal 

application. The amendment also 

incorporated rule language consistent 

with the findings in the 1996 GEIS, 

which addressed local traffic impacts 

attributable to continued operations of 

the nuclear power plant during the 

license renewal term. The Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: 

Main Report Section 6.3— 

‘‘Transportation,’’ Table 9.1, ‘‘Summary 

of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,’’ 

Final Report (NUREG–1437, Volume 1, 

Addendum 1), published in August 

1999, provides the analysis supporting 

the amendment. 

The current proposed rulemaking 

began in June 2003 when the NRC 

issued a notice of intent to update the 

1996 GEIS in the Federal Register (68 

FR 33209). The original comment period 

began in June 2003 and ended in 

September 2003. In October 2005 the 

scoping period was reopened until 

December 30, 2005 (70 FR 57628). 

III. Public Comments 

Scoping Process 

On June 3, 2003 (68 FR 33209), the 

NRC solicited public comments which 

provided the public with an opportunity 

to participate in the environmental 

scoping process, as defined in § 51.26. 

In this notice, the NRC announced the 

intent to update the 1996 GEIS. The 

NRC conducted scoping meetings in 

each of the four NRC regions for the 

GEIS update. The scoping meetings 

were held in Atlanta, Georgia (July 8, 

2003), Oak Lawn, Illinois (July 10, 

2003), Anaheim, California (July 15, 

2003), and Boston, Massachusetts (July 

17, 2003). The public comment period 

closed in September 2003 and the 

project was inactive for the next two 

years due to limited staff resources and 

competing demands. On October 3, 

2005 (70 FR 57628), the NRC reopened 

the public comment period and 

extended it until December 30, 2005. All 

comments submitted in response to the 

2003 scoping request have been 

considered in preparing the revised 

GEIS and are publicly available. No 

comments were received during the 

2005 public comment period. 

The official transcripts, written 

comments, and meeting summaries are 

available electronically for public 

inspection in the NRC Public Document 

Room (PDR) or from the Publicly 

Available Records (PARS) component of 

NRC’s document system under ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML032170942, 

ML032260339, ML032260715, and 

ML032170934. All comments and 

suggestions received orally or in writing 

during the scoping process were 

considered. 

The NRC has prepared a scoping 

summary report that is available 

electronically for public inspection in 

the NRC PDR or from the PARS 

component of ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML073450750. Additionally, the 

scoping summary is located in 

Appendix A in the revised GEIS. 

IV. Discussion 

1996 GEIS 

Under the NRC’s environmental 

protection regulations in Part 51, which 

implements Section 102(2) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear 

power plant operating license requires 

the preparation of an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). To help in the 

preparation of individual operating 

license renewal EISs, the NRC prepared 

the 1996 GEIS. 

In 1996 and 1999, the Commission 

amended its environmental protection 

regulations in Part 51, to improve the 

efficiency of the environmental review 

process for applicants seeking to renew 

a nuclear power plant operating license 

for up to an additional 20 years. These 

amendments were based on the analyses 

reported in the 1996 GEIS. 

The 1996 GEIS summarizes the 

findings of a systematic inquiry into the 

environmental impacts of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities 

associated with license renewal. The 

NRC identified 92 environmental 

impact issues. Of the 92 environmental 

issues analyzed, 69 issues were resolved 

generically (i.e., Category 1), 21 would 

require a further plant-specific analysis 

(i.e., Category 2), and 2 would require a 

site-specific assessment by the NRC 

prior to issuance of a renewed license 

(i.e., uncategorized). As part of a license 

renewal application, an applicant 

submits an environmental report to the 

NRC, and the NRC prepares a plantspecific SEIS to the 1996 GEIS. 

The GEIS assigns one of three impact 

levels (small, moderate, or large) to a 

given environmental resource (e.g., air, 

water, or soil). A small impact means 

that the environmental effects are not 

detectable, or are so minor that they will 

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 to destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource. A 

large impact means that the 

environmental effects are clearly 

noticeable, and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the 

resource. 

Table B–1 in Appendix B to Part 51, 

summarizes the findings of the analyses 

conducted for the 1996 GEIS. Issues and 

processes common to all nuclear power 

plants having generic (i.e., the same or 

similar) environmental impacts are 

considered Category 1 issues. Category 2 

issues are those issues that cannot be 

generically dispositioned and would 

require a plant-specific analysis to 

determine the level of impact. 

The 1996 GEIS has been effective in 

focusing NRC resources on important 

environmental issues and increased the 

efficiency of the environmental review 

process. Currently, 51 nuclear units at 

29 plant sites have received renewed 

licenses. 

Revised GEIS 

The GEIS revision evaluates the 

environmental issues and findings of 

the 1996 GEIS. Lessons learned and 

knowledge gained during previous 

license renewal reviews provided a 

significant source of new information 

for this assessment. Public comments on 

previous plant-specific license renewal 

reviews were analyzed to assess the 

existing environmental issues and 

identify new ones. The purpose of this 

evaluation was to determine if the 

findings presented in the 1996 GEIS 

remain valid. In doing so, the NRC 

considered the need to modify, add to, 

or delete any of the 92 environmental 

issues in the 1996 GEIS. After this 

evaluation, the staff carried forward 78 

impact issues for detailed consideration 

in this GEIS revision. Fifty-eight of these 

issues were determined to be Category 

1 and would not require additional 

plant-specific analysis. Of the remaining 

twenty issues, nineteen were 

determined to be Category 2 and one 

remained uncategorized. No 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38120 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

environmental issues identified in Table 

B–1 and in the 1996 GEIS were 

eliminated, but several were combined 

or regrouped according to similarities. 

Environmental issues in the revised 

GEIS are arranged by resource area. This 

perspective is a change from the 1996 

GEIS in which environmental issues 

were arranged by power plant systems 

(e.g., cooling systems, transmission 

lines) and activities (e.g., 

refurbishment). The structure of the 

revised GEIS adopts the NRC’s standard 

format for EISs as established in Part 51, 

Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51— 

‘‘Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements.’’ The 

environmental impacts of license 

renewal activities, including plant 

operations and refurbishment along 

with replacement power alternatives, 

are addressed in each resource area. The 

revised GEIS summarizes environmental 

impact issues under the following 

resource areas: (1) Land use and visual 

resources; (2) meteorology, air quality, 

and noise; (3) geology, seismology, and 

soils; (4) hydrology (surface water and 

groundwater); (5) ecology (terrestrial 

ecology, aquatic ecology, threatened, 

endangered, and protected species and 

essential fish habitat); (6) historic and 

cultural resources; (7) socioeconomics; 

(8) human health (radiological and 

nonradiological hazards); (9) 

environmental justice; and (10) waste 

management and pollution prevention. 

The proposed rule revises Table B–1 in 

Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51 to 

follow the organizational format of the 

revised GEIS. 

Environmental impacts of license 

renewal and the resources that could be 

affected were identified in the revised 

GEIS. The general analytical approach 

for identifying environmental impacts 

was to (1) describe the nuclear power 

plant activity that could affect the 

resource, (2) identify the resource that is 

affected, (3) evaluate past license 

renewal reviews and other available 

information, (4) assess the nature and 

magnitude of the environmental impact 

on the affected resource, (5) characterize 

the significance of the effects, (6) 

determine whether the results of the 

analysis apply to all nuclear power 

plants (whether the impact issue is 

Category 1 or Category 2), and (7) 

consider additional mitigation measures 

for adverse impacts. Identification of 

environmental impacts (or issues) was 

conducted in an iterative rather than a 

stepwise manner. For example, after 

information was collected and levels of 

significance were reviewed, impacts 

were reexamined to determine if any 

should be removed, added, recombined, 

or divided. 

The Commission would like to 

emphasize that in complying with the 

NRC’s environmental regulations under 

§ 51.53(c)(3)(iv) applicants are required 

to provide any new and significant 

information regarding the 

environmental impacts of license 

renewal of which the applicant is aware, 

even on Category 1 issues. The proposed 

amendments would not change this 

requirement. 

The revised GEIS retains the 1996 

GEIS definitions of a Category 1 and 

Category 2 issue. The revised GEIS 

discusses four major types of changes: 

(1) New Category 1 Issue: These issues 

would include Category 1 issues not 

previously listed in the 1996 GEIS or 

multiple Category 1 issues from the 

1996 GEIS that have been combined into 

a Category 1 issue in the revised GEIS. 

The applicant does not need to assess 

this issue in its environmental report. 

Under § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), however, the 

applicant is responsible for reporting in 

the environmental report any ‘‘new and 

significant information’’ of which the 

applicant is aware. If the applicant is 

not aware of any new and significant 

information that would change the 

conclusion in the revised GEIS, the 

applicant would be required to state this 

determination in the environmental 

report. The NRC has addressed the 

environmental impacts of these 

Category 1 issues generically for all 

plants in the revised GEIS. 

(2) New Category 2 Issue: These issues 

would include Category 2 issues not 

previously listed in the 1996 GEIS or 

multiple Category 2 issues from the 

1996 GEIS that have been combined into 

a Category 2 issue in the revised GEIS. 

For each new Category 2 issue, the 

applicant would have to conduct an 

assessment of the potential 

environmental impacts related to that 

issue and include it in the 

environmental report. The assessment 

must include a discussion of (i) the 

possible actions to mitigate any adverse 

impacts associated with license renewal 

and (ii) the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to license renewal. 

(3) Existing Issue Category Change 

from Category 2 to Category 1: These 

would include issues that were 

considered as Category 2 in the 1996 

GEIS and would now be considered as 

Category 1 in the revised GEIS. An 

applicant would no longer be required 

to conduct an assessment on the 

environmental impacts associated with 

these issues. Consistent with the 

requirements of § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), an 

applicant would only be required to 

describe in its environmental report any 

‘‘new and significant information’’ of 

which it is aware. 

(4) Existing Issue Category Change 

from Category 1 to Category 2: These 

would include issues that were 

considered as Category 1 in the 1996 

GEIS and would now be considered as 

Category 2 in the revised GEIS. An 

applicant that previously did not have 

to provide an analysis on the 

environmental impacts associated with 

these issues would now be required to 

conduct an assessment of the 

environmental impacts and include it in 

the environmental report. 

V. Proposed Actions and Basis for 

Changes to Table B–1 

The revised GEIS which is 

concurrently issued for public comment 

and publicly available (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML090220654) provides 

a summary change table comparing the 

ninety-two environmental issues in the 

1996 GEIS with the seventy-eight 

environmental issues in the revised 

GEIS. The proposed rule amends Table 

B–1 in Appendix B to Subpart A, 

‘‘Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ to reflect the changes made in 

the revised GEIS. The changes to Table 

B–1 are described below: 

(i) Land Use 

(1) Onsite Land Use—‘‘Onsite land 

use’’ remains a Category 1 issue. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the finding column of Table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(2) Offsite Land Use—The proposed 

rule language combines two Category 2 

issues, ‘‘Offsite land use 

(refurbishment)’’ and ‘‘Offsite land use 

(license renewal term)’’ reclassifies this 

combined issue as a Category 1 issue, 

and names it, ‘‘Offsite land use.’’ The 

finding column of the current Table 

B–1 for ‘‘Offsite land use 

(refurbishment)’’ indicates that impacts 

may be of moderate significance at 

plants in low population areas. The 

finding column of the current Table 

B–1 for ‘‘Offsite land use (license 

renewal term)’’ indicates that significant 

changes in land use may be associated 

with population and tax revenue 

changes resulting from license renewal. 

As described in the 1996 GEIS, 

environmental impacts are considered 

to be small if refurbishment activities 

were to occur at plants located in high 

population areas and if population and 

tax revenues would not change. 

Significant impacts on offsite land use 

are not anticipated. Previous plantspecific license renewal reviews 

conducted by the NRC have shown no 

requirement for a substantial number of 

additional workers during the license 

renewal term and that refurbishment 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38121 

activities, such as steam generator and 

vessel head replacement, have not 

required the large numbers of workers 

and the months of time that was 

conservatively estimated in the 1996 

GEIS. These reviews support a finding 

that offsite land use impacts during the 

license renewal term would be small for 

all nuclear power plants. 

(3) Offsite Land Use in Transmission 

Line Rights-of-Way (ROWs)—The 

proposed rule renames ‘‘Powerline right 

of way’’ as ‘‘Offsite land use in 

transmission line rights-of-way 

(ROWs);’’ it remains a Category 1 issue. 

The proposed rule makes minor 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(ii) Visual Resources 

(4) Aesthetic Impacts—The proposed 

rule language combines three Category 1 

issues, ‘‘Aesthetic impacts 

(refurbishment),’’ ‘‘aesthetic impacts 

(license renewal term),’’ and ‘‘aesthetic 

impacts of transmission lines (license 

renewal term)’’ into one new Category 1 

issue, ‘‘Aesthetic impacts.’’ The 1996 

GEIS concluded that renewal of 

operating licenses and the 

refurbishment activities would have no 

significant aesthetic impact during the 

license renewal term. Impacts are 

considered to be small if the visual 

appearance of plant and transmission 

line structures would not change. 

Previous license renewal reviews 

conducted by the NRC show that the 

appearance of nuclear plants and 

transmission line structures do not 

change significantly over time or 

because of refurbishment activities. 

Therefore, aesthetic impacts are not 

anticipated and the combined issue 

remains a Category 1 issue. 

These three issues are combined into 

one Category 1 issue as they are similar 

and combining them would streamline 

the license renewal process. 

(iii) Air Quality 

(5) Air Quality (Non-Attainment and 

Maintenance Areas)—The proposed 

language renames ‘‘Air quality during 

refurbishment (non-attainment and 

maintenance areas)’’ as ‘‘Air quality 

(non-attainment and maintenance 

areas)’’ and expands it to include 

emissions from testing emergency diesel 

generators, boilers used for facility 

heating, and particulate emissions from 

cooling towers. The issue remains a 

Category 2 issue. 

(6) Air Quality Effects of Transmission 

Lines—‘‘Air quality effects of 

transmission lines’’ remains a Category 

1 issue. There are no changes for this 

issue. 

(iv) Noise 

(7) Noise Impacts—The proposed rule 

renames ‘‘Noise’’ as ‘‘Noise impacts’’; it 

remains a Category 1 issue. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the finding column of Table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(v) Geology and Soils 

(8) Impacts of Nuclear Plants on 

Geology and Soils—The proposed 

language adds a new Category 1 issue, 

‘‘Impacts of nuclear plants on geology 

and soils,’’ to the impacts of continued 

power plant operations and 

refurbishment activities on geology and 

soils (i.e., prime farmland) and to 

determine if there is new or significant 

information in regard to regional or 

local seismology. New seismological 

conditions are limited to the 

identification of previously unknown 

geologic faults and are expected to be 

rare. Geology and soil conditions at all 

nuclear power plants and associated 

transmission lines have been well 

established during the current licensing 

term and are expected to remain 

unchanged during the 20-year license 

renewal term. The impact of continued 

operations and refurbishment activities 

during the license renewal term on 

geologic and soil resources would 

consist of soil disturbance for 

construction or renovation projects. 

Implementing best management 

practices would reduce soil erosion and 

subsequent impacts on surface water 

quality. Best management practices 

include: (1) Minimizing the amount of 

disturbed land, (2) stockpiling topsoil 

before ground disturbance, (3) mulching 

and seeding in disturbed areas, (4) 

covering loose materials with 

geotextiles, (5) using silt fences to 

reduce sediment loading to surface 

water, (6) using check dams to minimize 

the erosive power of drainages, and (7) 

installing proper culvert outlets to direct 

flows in streams or drainages. 

No information in any plant-specific 

SEIS prepared to date, or in the 

referenced documents, has identified 

these impacts as being significant. 

(vi) Surface Water 

(9) Surface-Water Use and Quality— 

The proposed rule combines two 

Category 1 issues, ‘‘Impacts of 

refurbishment on surface water quality’’ 

and ‘‘Impacts of refurbishment on 

surface water use,’’ and names the 

combined issue ‘‘Surface-water use and 

quality.’’ These two issues were 

combined because the impacts of 

refurbishment on both surface water use 

and quality are negligible and the effects 

are closely related. 

The NRC expects licensees to use best 

management practices during the 

license renewal term for both 

continuing operations and 

refurbishment activities. Use of best 

management practices will minimize 

soil erosion. In addition, 

implementation of spill prevention and 

control plans will reduce the likelihood 

of any liquid chemical spills. If 

refurbishment activities take place 

during a reactor shutdown, the overall 

water use by the facility will be 

reduced. Based on this conclusion, the 

impact on surface water use and quality 

during a license renewal term will 

continue to be small for all plants. The 

combined issue remains a Category 1 

issue. The proposed rule makes minor 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(10) Altered Current Patterns at Intake 

and Discharge Structures, (11) Altered 

Salinity Gradients, (12) Altered Thermal 

Stratification of Lakes, and (13) 

Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling 

Water—‘‘Altered current patterns at 

intake and discharge structures,’’ 

‘‘Altered salinity gradients,’’ ‘‘Altered 

thermal stratification of lakes,’’ and 

‘‘Scouring caused by discharged cooling 

water’’ remain Category 1 issues. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the finding column of Table 

B–1 for each of these issues. 

(14) Discharge of Metals in Cooling 

System Effluent—The proposed 

language renames ‘‘Discharge of other 

metals in waste water’’ as ‘‘Discharge of 

metals in cooling system effluent’’; it 

remains a Category 1 issue. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the finding column of Table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(15) Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary 

Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills— 

The proposed rule combines two 

Category 1 issues, ‘‘Discharge of 

chlorine or other biocides’’ and 

‘‘Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor 

chemical spills’’ as ‘‘Discharge of 

biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor 

chemical spills.’’ The combined issue 

remains a Category 1 issue. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the finding column of Table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(16) Water Use Conflicts (plants with 

once-through cooling systems)—‘‘Water 

use conflicts (plants with once-through 

cooling systems)’’ remains a Category 1 

issue. The proposed rule makes a minor 

clarifying change to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(17) Water Use Conflicts (plants with 

cooling ponds or cooling towers using 

make-up water from a river with low 

flow)—‘‘Water use conflicts (plants with 

cooling ponds or cooling towers using 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38122 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

make-up water from a river with low 

flow)’’ remains a Category 2 issue. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the finding column of Table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(18) Effects of Dredging on Water 

Quality—The proposed rule adds a new 

Category 1 issue, ‘‘Effects of dredging on 

water quality,’’ that evaluates the 

impacts of dredging to maintain intake 

and discharge structures at nuclear 

power plant facilities. The impact of 

dredging on surface water quality was 

not considered in the 1996 GEIS and is 

not listed in the current Table B–1. Most 

plants have intake and discharge 

structures that must be maintained by 

periodic dredging of sediment 

accumulated in or on the structures. 

This dredging, while temporarily 

increasing turbidity in the source water 

body, has been shown to have little 

effect on water quality. In addition to 

maintaining intake and discharge 

structures, dredging is often done to 

keep barge slips and channels open to 

service the plant. Dredged material is 

most often disposed on property owned 

by the applicant and usually contains 

no hazardous materials. Dredging is 

performed under a permit issued by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

consequently, each dredging action 

would be subject to a site-specific 

environmental review conducted by the 

Corps. 

Temporary impacts of dredging are 

measurable in general water quality 

terms, but the impacts have been shown 

to be small. 

(19) Temperature Effects on Sediment 

Transport Capacity—‘‘Temperature 

effects on sediment transport capacity’’ 

remains a Category 1 issue. There are no 

changes to this issue. 

(vii) Groundwater 

(20) Groundwater Use and Quality— 

The proposed rule renames ‘‘Impacts of 

refurbishment on groundwater use and 

quality’’ as ‘‘Groundwater use and 

quality.’’ The issue remains a Category 

1 issue. The NRC has concluded that 

use of best management practices would 

address any wastes or spills that could 

affect groundwater quality. The 

proposed rule updates the finding 

column of Table B–1 for this issue to 

include a statement identifying best 

management practices and makes other 

minor clarifying changes to the finding 

column. 

(21) Groundwater Use Conflicts 

(Plants that Withdraw Less Than 100 

Gallons per Minute [gpm])—The 

proposed rule renames ‘‘Ground-water 

use conflicts (potable and service water; 

plants that use <100 gpm)’’ as 

‘‘Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 

withdraw less than 100 gallons per 

minute [gpm]).’’ The issue remains a 

Category 1 issue. The proposed rule 

makes minor clarifying changes to the 

finding column of Table B–1 for this 

issue. 

(22) Groundwater use conflicts (plants 

that withdraw more than 100 gpm 

including those using Ranney Wells)— 

The proposed rule combines two 

Category 2 issues, ‘‘Groundwater use 

conflicts (potable and service water, and 

dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm)’’ 

and ‘‘Ground-water use conflicts 

(Ranney wells)’’ and names the 

combined issue ‘‘Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants that withdraw more 

than 100 gpm including those using 

Ranney wells).’’ The combined issue 

remains a Category 2 issue. Because 

Ranney wells produce significantly 

more than 100 gpm, the Ranney wells 

issue was combined with the general 

issue of groundwater use conflicts for 

plants using more than 100 gpm of 

groundwater. The proposed rule makes 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this combined issue. 

(23) Groundwater Use Conflicts 

(Plants With Closed-Cycle Cooling 

Systems that Withdraw Makeup Water 

from a River)—The proposed rule 

renames ‘‘Ground-water use conflicts 

(plants using cooling tower withdrawing 

make-up water from a small river’’ as 

‘‘Groundwater use conflicts (plants with 

closed-cycle cooling systems that 

withdraw makeup water from a river).’’ 

The combined issue remains a Category 

2 issue. The proposed rule makes minor 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(24) Groundwater Quality 

Degradation Resulting from Water 

Withdrawals—The proposed rule 

combines two Category 1 issues, 

‘‘Ground-water quality degradation 

(Ranney wells)’’ and ‘‘Ground-water 

quality degradation (saltwater 

intrusion)’’ and names the combined 

issue ‘‘Groundwater quality degradation 

resulting from water withdrawals.’’ The 

combined issue remains a Category 1 

issue. The two issues were combined as 

they both consider the possibility of 

groundwater quality becoming degraded 

as a result of the plant drawing water of 

potentially lower quality into the 

aquifer. The proposed rule makes 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this combined issue. 

(25) Groundwater Quality 

Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds 

in Salt Marshes) and (26) Groundwater 

Quality Degradation (Plants with 

Cooling Ponds at Inland Sites)— 

‘‘Groundwater quality degradation 

(plants with cooling ponds in salt 

marshes)’’ and ‘‘Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with cooling ponds 

at inland sites)’’ remain, respectively, 

Category 1 and Category 2 issues. The 

proposed rule makes clarifying changes 

to the finding column of Table B–1 for 

each of these issues. 

(27) Groundwater and Soil 

Contamination—The proposed rule 

adds a new Category 2 issue, 

‘‘Groundwater and Soil Contamination,’’ 

to evaluate the impacts of the industrial 

use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy 

metals, or other chemicals on 

groundwater, soil, and subsoil at 

nuclear power plant sites during the 

license renewal term. Review of license 

renewal applications has shown the 

existence of these non-radionuclide 

contaminants at some plants. This 

contamination is usually regulated by 

State environmental regulatory 

authorities or the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, 

this new Category 2 issue has been 

added because each specific site has its 

own program for handling waste and 

hazardous materials, and no generic 

evaluation would apply to all nuclear 

power plants. 

Industrial practices at all plants have 

the potential to contaminate site 

groundwater and soil through the use 

and spillage of solvents, hydrocarbons, 

heavy metals, or other chemicals, 

especially on sites with unlined 

wastewater lagoons and storm water 

lagoons. Any contamination by these 

substances is subject to characterization 

and clean-up by State and EPA 

regulated remediation and monitoring 

programs. 

(28) Radionuclides Released to 

Groundwater—The proposed rule adds 

a new Category 2 issue, ‘‘Radionuclides 

released to groundwater,’’ to evaluate 

the potential impact of discharges of 

radionuclides, such as tritium, from 

plant systems into groundwater. The 

issue is relevant to license renewal 

because virtually all commercial nuclear 

power plants routinely release 

radioactive gaseous and liquid materials 

into the environment. A September 

2006 NRC report, ‘‘Liquid Radioactive 

Release Lessons Learned Task Force 

Report,’’ documented instances of 

inadvertent releases of radionuclides 

into groundwater from nuclear power 

plants (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML062650312). 

NRC regulations in Parts 20 and 50 

limit the amount of radioactivity 

released into the environment to be ‘‘As 

Low As is Reasonably Achievable’’ 

(ALARA) to ensure that the impact on 

public health is very low. Most of the 

inadvertent liquid release events 

involved tritium, which is a radioactive 

isotope of hydrogen. However, other 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38123 

radioactive isotopes have been 

inadvertently released into the 

environment. An example is leakage 

from spent fuel pools, where leakage 

from the stored fuel would allow fission 

products to be released into the pool 

water. 

The most significant conclusion of the 

NRC report regards public health 

impacts. Although there have been a 

number of events where radionuclides 

were released inadvertently into 

groundwater, based on the data 

available, the NRC did not identify any 

instances where the health of the public 

was impacted. The NRC did identify 

that under the existing regulatory 

requirements, the potential exists for 

inadvertent radionuclide releases to 

migrate offsite into groundwater. 

Another factor in adding this new 

Category 2 issue is the level of public 

concern associated with such 

inadvertent releases of radionuclides 

into groundwater. The NRC concludes 

that the impact of radionuclide releases 

to groundwater quality could be small 

or moderate, depending on the 

occurrence and frequency of leaks and 

the ability to respond to leaks in a 

timely fashion. 

(viii) Terrestrial Resources 

(29) Impacts of Continued Plant 

Operations on Terrestrial Ecosystems— 

The proposed rule renames 

‘‘Refurbishment impacts’’ as ‘‘Impacts of 

continued plant operations on terrestrial 

ecosystems;’’ it remains a Category 2 

issue. The analysis in the revised GEIS 

expands the scope of this issue to 

include the environmental impacts 

associated with continued plant 

operations and maintenance activities in 

addition to refurbishment. The 

proposed rule revises the finding 

column of Table B–1 for this issue 

accordingly. 

(30) Exposure of Terrestrial 

Organisms to Radionuclides—The 

proposed rule adds a new Category 1 

issue, ‘‘Exposure of terrestrial organisms 

to radionuclides,’’ to evaluate the issue 

of the potential impact of radionuclides 

on terrestrial organisms resulting from 

normal operations of a nuclear power 

plant during the license renewal term. 

This issue was not evaluated in the 1996 

GEIS. However, the impact of 

radionuclides on terrestrial organisms 

has been raised by members of the 

public as well as Federal and State 

agencies during previous license 

renewal reviews. 

The revised GEIS evaluates the 

potential impact of radionuclides on 

terrestrial biota at nuclear power plants 

from continued operations during the 

license renewal term. Site-specific 

radionuclide concentrations in water, 

sediment, and soils were obtained from 

Radiological Environmental Monitoring 

Operating Reports from 15 nuclear 

power plants. These 15 plants were 

selected to represent sites with a range 

of radionuclide concentrations in the 

media, including plants with high 

annual worker dose exposure values for 

both boiling water reactors and 

pressurized water reactors. The 

calculated radiation dose rates to 

terrestrial biota were compared against 

radiation-acceptable radiation safety 

guidelines issued by the U.S. 

Department of Energy, the International 

Atomic Energy Agency, the National 

Council of Radiation Protection and 

Measurement, and the International 

Commission on Radiological Protection. 

The NRC concludes that the impact of 

radionuclides on terrestrial biota from 

past and current operations would be 

small for all nuclear power plants and 

would not be expected to change 

appreciably during the license renewal 

term. 

(31) Cooling System Impacts on 

Terrestrial Resources (Plants with OnceThrough Cooling Systems or Cooling 

Ponds)—The proposed rule renames 

‘‘Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 

resources’’ as ‘‘Cooling system impacts 

on terrestrial resources (plants with 

once-through cooling systems or cooling 

ponds).’’ This issue remains a Category 

1 issue. The analysis in the revised GEIS 

expands the scope of this issue to 

include plants with once-through 

cooling systems. This analysis 

concludes that the impacts on terrestrial 

resources from once-through cooling 

systems, as well as from cooling ponds, 

is of small significance at all plants. The 

proposed rule revises the finding 

column of Table B–1 for this issue 

accordingly. 

(32) Cooling Tower Impacts on 

Vegetation (Plants with Cooling 

Towers)—The proposed rule combines 

two Category 1 issues, ‘‘Cooling tower 

impacts on crops and ornamental 

vegetation’’ and ‘‘Cooling tower impacts 

on native plants’’ and names the 

combined issue ‘‘Cooling tower impacts 

on vegetation (plants with cooling 

towers).’’ The combined issue remains a 

Category 1 issue. The two issues were 

combined to conform to the resourcebased approach used in the revised 

GEIS and to simplify and streamline the 

analysis. With the recent trend of 

replacing lawns with native vegetation, 

some ornamental plants and crops are 

native plants, and the original 

separation into two issues is 

unnecessary and cumbersome. The 

proposed rule makes clarifying changes 

to the finding column of Table B–1 for 

this combined issue. 

(33) Bird Collisions with Cooling 

Towers and Transmission Lines—The 

proposed rule combines two Category 1 

issues, ‘‘Bird collisions with cooling 

towers’’ and ‘‘Bird collision with power 

lines’’ and names the combined issue 

‘‘Bird collisions with cooling towers and 

transmission lines.’’ The combined 

issue remains a Category 1 issue. The 

two issues were combined to conform to 

the resource-based approach used in the 

revised GEIS and to simplify and 

streamline the analysis. The proposed 

rule makes clarifying changes to the 

finding column of Table B–1 for this 

combined issue. 

(34) Water Use Conflicts with 

Terrestrial Resources (Plants with 

Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using 

Makeup Water from a River with Low 

Flow)—The proposed rule adds a new 

Category 2 issue, ‘‘Water use conflicts 

with terrestrial resources (plants with 

cooling ponds or cooling towers using 

make-up water from a river with low 

flow)’’ to evaluate water use conflict 

impacts with terrestrial resources in 

riparian communities. Such impacts 

could occur when water that supports 

these resources is diminished either 

because of decreased availability due to 

droughts; increased water demand for 

agricultural, municipal, or industrial 

usage; or a combination of these factors. 

The potential range of impact levels at 

plants, subject to license renewal, with 

cooling ponds or cooling towers using 

makeup water from a small river with 

low flow cannot be generically 

determined at this time. 

(35) Transmission Line ROW 

Management Impacts on Terrestrial 

Resources—The proposed rule 

combines two Category 1 issues, ‘‘Power 

line right-of-way management (cutting 

and herbicide application)’’ and 

‘‘Floodplains and wetland on power 

line right-of-way’’ and names the 

combined issue ‘‘Transmission line 

ROW management impacts on terrestrial 

resources.’’ The combined issue remains 

a Category 1 issue. The two issues were 

combined to simplify and streamline the 

analysis. 

The scope of the evaluation of 

transmission lines in the revised GEIS is 

reduced from that of the 1996 GEIS— 

only those transmission lines currently 

needed to connect the nuclear power 

plants to the regional electrical 

distribution grid are considered within 

the scope of license renewal. Thus, the 

number of and length of transmission 

lines being evaluated are greatly 

reduced. The revised GEIS analysis 

indicates that proper management of 

transmission line ROW areas does not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

have significant adverse impacts on 

current wildlife populations, and ROW 

management can provide valuable 

wildlife habitats. The proposed rule 

makes clarifying changes to the finding 

column of Table B–1 for this combined 

issue. 

(36) Electromagnetic Fields on Flora 

and Fauna (Plants, Agricultural Crops, 

Honeybees, Wildlife, Livestock)— 

‘‘Electromagnetic fields on flora and 

fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 

honeybees, wildlife, livestock)’’ remains 

a Category 1 issue. There are no changes 

to this issue. 

(ix) Aquatic Resources 

(37) Impingement and Entrainment of 

Aquatic Organisms (Plants with OnceThrough Cooling Systems or Cooling 

Ponds)—The proposed rule combines 

two Category 2 issues, ‘‘Entrainment of 

fish and shellfish in early life stages (for 

plants with once-through cooling and 

cooling pond heat dissipation systems)’’ 

and ‘‘Impingement of fish and shellfish 

(for plants with once-through cooling 

and cooling pond heat dissipation 

systems)’’ and one Category 1 issue, 

‘‘Entrainment of phytoplankton and 

zooplankton (for all plants)’’ and names 

the combined issue ‘‘Impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic organisms 

(plants with once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds).’’ The 

combined issue is a Category 2 issue. 

For the revised GEIS, these issues 

were combined to simplify the review 

process in keeping with the resourcebased approach and to allow for a more 

complete analysis of the environmental 

impact. Nuclear power plants typically 

conduct separate sampling programs to 

estimate the numbers of organisms 

entrained and impinged, which explains 

the original separation of these issues. 

However, it is the combined effects of 

entrainment and impingement that 

reflect the total impact of the cooling 

system intake on the resource. 

Environmental conditions are different 

to each nuclear plant site and impacts 

cannot be determined generically. The 

proposed rule revises the finding 

column of Table B–1 for this issue 

accordingly. 

(38) Impingement and Entrainment of 

Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling 

Towers)—The proposed rule combines 

three Category 1 issues, ‘‘Entrainment of 

fish and shellfish in early life stages (for 

plants with cooling tower-based heat 

dissipation systems),’’ ‘‘Impingement of 

fish and shellfish (for plants with 

cooling tower-based heat dissipation 

systems),’’ and ‘‘Entrainment of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton (for all 

plants)’’ and names the combined issue 

‘‘Impingement and entrainment of 

aquatic organisms (plants with cooling 

towers).’’ The combined issue remains a 

Category 1 issue. The three issues are 

combined given their similar nature and 

to simplify and streamline the review 

process. The proposed rule revises the 

finding column of Table B–1 for this 

issue accordingly. 

(39) Thermal Impacts on Aquatic 

Organisms (Plants with Once-Through 

Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)— 

The proposed rule combines four 

Category 1 issues, ‘‘Cold shock (for all 

plants),’’ ‘‘Thermal plume barrier to 

migrating fish (for all plants),’’ 

‘‘Distribution of aquatic organisms (for 

all plants),’’ and ‘‘Premature emergence 

of aquatic insects (for all plants),’’ and 

one Category 2 issue ‘‘Heat shock (for 

plants with once-through and cooling 

pond heat dissipation systems)’’ and 

names the combined issue ‘‘Thermal 

impacts on aquatic organisms (plants 

with once-through cooling systems or 

cooling ponds).’’ The combined issue is 

a Category 2 issue. 

The five issues are combined given 

their similar nature and to simplify and 

streamline the review process. With the 

exception of heat shock, previous 

license renewal reviews conducted by 

the NRC have shown that the thermal 

effects of once-through cooling and 

cooling pond systems have not been a 

problem at operating nuclear power 

plants and would not change during the 

license renewal term, so future impacts 

are not anticipated. However, it is 

difficult to differentiate the various 

thermal effects of once-through cooling 

and cooling pond systems in the field. 

Different populations may react 

differently due to changes in water 

temperature. For example, if a resident 

population avoided a heated effluent, 

the 1996 GEIS would have identified 

this issue as ‘‘distribution of aquatic 

organisms;’’ however, had this 

population been migrating, the issue 

would have been considered under 

‘‘thermal plume barrier to migrating 

fish.’’ If individuals had remained in the 

heated effluent too long, the issue 

would have been considered under 

‘‘heat shock;’’ or, if the individuals then 

left the warm water, the issue would 

have been considered under ‘‘cold 

shock.’’ Using the resource-based 

approach in the revised GEIS, each of 

these issues would be considered a 

thermal impact from once-through and 

cooling pond systems. Environmental 

conditions are different at each nuclear 

plant site and impacts cannot be 

determined generically. The proposed 

rule revises the finding column of Table 

B–1 for this issue accordingly. 

(40) Thermal Impacts on Aquatic 

Organisms (Plants with Cooling 

Towers)—The proposed rule combines 

five Category 1 issues, ‘‘Cold shock (for 

all plants),’’ ‘‘Thermal plume barrier to 

migrating fish (for all plants),’’ 

‘‘Distribution of aquatic organisms (for 

all plants),’’ ‘‘Premature emergence of 

aquatic insects (for all plants),’’ and 

‘‘Heat shock (for plants with coolingtower-based heat dissipation systems)’’ 

and names the combined issue 

‘‘Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 

(plants with cooling towers).’’ The 

combined issue is a Category 1 issue. 

The five issues are combined given 

their similar nature and to simplify and 

streamline the review process. The 

proposed rule revises the finding 

column of Table B–1 for this issue 

accordingly. 

(41) Effects of Cooling Water 

Discharge on Dissolved Oxygen, Gas 

Supersaturation, and Eutrophication— 

The proposed rule combines three 

Category 1 issues, ‘‘Eutrophication,’’ 

‘‘Gas supersaturation (gas bubble 

disease),’’ and ‘‘Low dissolved oxygen 

in the discharge,’’ and names the 

combined issue ‘‘Effects of cooling 

water discharge on dissolved oxygen, 

gas supersaturation, and 

eutrophication.’’ The combined issue is 

a Category 1 issue. 

The three issues are combined given 

their similar nature and to simplify and 

streamline the review process. The 

proposed rule revises the finding 

column of Table B–1 for this issue 

accordingly. 

(42) Effects of Non-Radiological 

Contaminants on Aquatic Organisms— 

The proposed rule renames 

‘‘Accumulation of contaminants in 

sediments or biota’’ as ‘‘Effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic 

organisms;’’ it remains a Category 1 

issue. The proposed rule makes 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(43) Exposure of Aquatic Organisms 

to Radionuclides—The proposed rule 

adds a new Category 1 issue, ‘‘Exposure 

of Aquatic Organisms to 

Radionuclides,’’ to evaluate the 

potential impact of radionuclide 

discharges upon aquatic organisms. This 

issue has been raised by members of the 

public as well as Federal and State 

agencies during the license renewal 

process for various plants. 

The revised GEIS evaluates the 

potential impact of radionuclides on 

aquatic organisms at nuclear power 

plants from continued operations during 

the license renewal term. A radiological 

assessment was performed using 

effluent release data from 15 NRClicensed nuclear power plants chosen 

based on having a range of radionuclide 

concentrations in environmental media. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38125 

Site-specific radionuclide 

concentrations in water and sediments, 

as reported in the plant’s radioactive 

effluent and environmental monitoring 

reports, were used in the calculations. 

The data is representative of boiling 

water reactors and pressurized water 

reactors. The calculated radiation dose 

rates to aquatic biota were compared 

against radiation acceptable radiation 

safety guidelines issued by the U.S. 

Department of Energy, the International 

Atomic Energy Agency, the National 

Council of Radiation Protection and 

Measurement, and the International 

Commission on Radiological Protection. 

The NRC concludes that the impact of 

radionuclides on aquatic biota from past 

and current operations would be small 

for all nuclear power plants, and would 

not be expected to change appreciably 

during the license renewal term. 

(44) Effects of Dredging on Aquatic 

Organisms—The proposed rule adds a 

new Category 1 issue, ‘‘Effects of 

dredging on aquatic organisms,’’ to 

evaluate the impacts of dredging on 

aquatic organisms. Licensees conduct 

dredging to maintain intake and 

discharge structures at nuclear power 

plant facilities and in some cases, to 

maintain barge slips. Dredging may 

disturb or remove benthic communities. 

In general, maintenance dredging for 

nuclear power plant operations would 

occur infrequently, would be of 

relatively short duration, and would 

affect relatively small areas. Dredging is 

performed under a permit issued by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

consequently, each dredging action 

would be subject to a site-specific 

environmental review conducted by the 

Corps. 

(45) Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic 

Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or 

Cooling Towers using Make-Up Water 

from a River with Low Flow)—The 

proposed rule adds a new Category 2 

issue, ‘‘Water use conflicts with aquatic 

resources (plants with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using make-up water 

from a river with low flow)’’ to evaluate 

water use conflict impacts with aquatic 

resources in instream communities. 

Such impacts could occur when water 

that supports these resources is 

diminished either because of decreased 

availability due to droughts; increased 

water demand for agricultural, 

municipal, or industrial usage; or a 

combination of these factors. The 

potential range of impact levels at 

plants, subject to license renewal, with 

cooling ponds or cooling towers using 

makeup water from a small river with 

low flow cannot be generically 

determined at this time. 

(46) Refurbishment Impacts on 

Aquatic Resources—The proposed rule 

language renames ‘‘Refurbishment’’ as 

‘‘Refurbishment impacts on aquatic 

resources;’’ it remains a Category 1 

issue. The proposed rule makes minor 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(47) Impacts of Transmission Line 

ROW Management on Aquatic 

Resources—The proposed rule adds a 

new Category 1 issue, ‘‘Impacts of 

transmission line ROW management on 

aquatic resources,’’ to evaluate the 

impact of transmission line ROW 

management on aquatic resources. 

Impacts on aquatic resources from 

transmission line ROW maintenance 

could occur as a result of the direct 

disturbance of aquatic habitats, soil 

erosion, changes in water quality (from 

sedimentation and thermal effects), or 

inadvertent releases of chemical 

contaminants from herbicide use. As 

described in the revised GEIS, any 

impact on aquatic resources resulting 

from transmission line ROW 

management is expected to be small, 

short term, and localized for all plants. 

(48) Losses from Predation, 

Parasitism, and Disease Among 

Organisms Exposed to Sublethal 

Stresses and (49) Stimulation of Aquatic 

Nuisance Species (e.g., Shipworms)— 

‘‘Losses from predation, parasitism, and 

disease among organisms exposed to 

sublethal stresses’’ and ‘‘Stimulation of 

aquatic nuisance species (e.g., 

shipworms)’’ remain Category 1 issues. 

The proposed rule does not change the 

finding column entries of Table B–1 for 

these issues. 

(x) Threatened, Endangered, and 

Protected Species and Essential Fish 

Habitat 

(50) Threatened, Endangered, and 

Protected Species and Essential Fish 

Habitat—The proposed rule renames 

‘‘Threatened or endangered species’’ as 

‘‘Threatened, endangered, and protected 

species and essential fish habitat’’ and 

expands the scope of the issue to 

include essential fish habitats protected 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. The 

issue remains a Category 2 issue. The 

proposed rule makes clarifying changes 

to the finding column entry of table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(xi) Historic and Cultural Resources 

(51) Historic and Cultural 

Resources—The proposed rule language 

renames ‘‘Historic and archaeological 

resources’’ as ‘‘Historic and cultural 

resources;’’ it remains a Category 2 

issue. The proposed rule language more 

accurately reflects the National Historic 

Preservation Act requirements that 

Federal agencies consult with State 

Historic Preservation Officer and 

appropriate Native American Tribes to 

determine the potential impacts and 

mitigation. 

(xii) Socioeconomics 

(52) Employment and Income, 

Recreation and Tourism—The proposed 

rule adds a new Category 1 issue, 

‘‘Employment and income,’’ and 

combines it with the ‘‘tourism and 

recreation’’ portion of a current Table 

B–1 Category 1 issue, ‘‘Public services: 

public safety, social services, and 

tourism and recreation.’’ These issues 

are combined given the similar nature 

and to streamline the review process. 

The revised GEIS provides an analysis 

of this issue and concludes that the 

impacts are generic to all plants 

undergoing license renewal. 

(53) Tax Revenues—The proposed 

rule adds a new Category 1 issue, ‘‘Tax 

revenues,’’ to evaluate the impacts of 

license renewal on tax revenues. 

Refurbishment activities, such as steam 

generator and vessel head replacement, 

have not had a noticeable effect on the 

value of nuclear plants, thus changes in 

tax revenues are not anticipated from 

future refurbishment activities. 

Refurbishment activities involve the 

one-for-one replacement of existing 

components and are generally not 

considered a taxable improvement. 

Also, new property tax assessments; 

proprietary payments in lieu of tax 

stipulations, settlements, and 

agreements; and State tax laws are 

continually changing the amounts paid 

to taxing jurisdictions by nuclear plant 

owners, and these occur independent of 

license renewal and refurbishment 

activities. 

(54) Community Services and 

Education—The proposed rule language 

reclassifies two Category 2 issues, 

‘‘Public services: Public utilities’’ and 

‘‘Public services, education 

(refurbishment)’’ as Category 1 issues, 

and combines them with the Category 1 

issue, ‘‘Public services, education 

(license renewal term),’’ and the ‘‘Public 

safety and social service’’ portion of the 

Category 1 issue, ‘‘Public services: 

Public safety, social services, and 

tourism and recreation.’’ The combined 

issue, ‘‘Community services and 

education,’’ is a Category 1 issue. 

The four issues are combined as all 

public services are equally affected by 

changes in plant operations and 

refurbishment at nuclear plants. Any 

changes in the number of workers at a 

nuclear plant will affect demand for 

public services from local communities. 

Nevertheless, past environmental 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

reviews conducted by NRC have shown 

that the number of workers at relicensed 

nuclear plants has not changed 

significantly because of license renewal, 

so impacts on community services are 

not anticipated from future license 

renewals. In addition, refurbishment 

activities, such as steam generator and 

vessel head replacement, have not 

required the large numbers of workers 

and the months of time that was 

conservatively analyzed in the 1996 

GEIS, so significant impacts on 

community services are no longer 

anticipated. Combining the four issues 

also simplifies and streamlines the NRC 

review process. The proposed rule 

revises the finding column of Table 

B–1 accordingly. 

(55) Population and Housing—The 

proposed rule language combines a new 

Category 1 issue, ‘‘Population,’’ and a 

Category 2 issue, ‘‘Housing impacts,’’ 

and names the combined issue, 

‘‘Population and housing.’’ The 

combined issue is a Category 1 issue. 

The two issues are combined as the 

availability and value of housing are 

directly affected by changes in 

population and to simplify and 

streamline the NRC review process. 

As described in the revised GEIS, the 

NRC has determined that the impacts of 

continued operations and refurbishment 

activities on population and housing, 

during the license renewal term, would 

be small, are not dependent on the 

socioeconomic setting of the nuclear 

plant, and are generic to all plants. The 

proposed rule revises the finding 

column of Table B–1 accordingly. 

(56) Transportation—The proposed 

rule reclassifies the Category 2 issue, 

‘‘Public services, transportation,’’ as a 

Category 1 issue and renames it 

‘‘Transportation.’’ As described in the 

revised GEIS, the NRC has determined 

that the numbers of workers have not 

changed significantly due to license 

renewal, so transportation impacts are 

no longer anticipated from future 

license renewals. The proposed rule 

revises the finding column entry of table 

B–1 for this issue accordingly. 

(xiii) Human Health 

(57) Radiation Exposures to the 

Public—The proposed rule combines 

two Category 1 issues, ‘‘Radiation 

exposures to the public during 

refurbishment’’ and ‘‘Radiation 

exposure to public (license renewal 

term)’’ and names the combined issue, 

‘‘Radiation exposures to the public.’’ 

The combined issue is a Category 1 

issue. These issues are combined given 

the similar nature and to streamline the 

review process. The proposed rule 

revises the finding column of Table B– 

1 accordingly. 

(58) Radiation Exposures to 

Occupational Workers—The proposed 

rule combines two Category 1 issues, 

‘‘Occupational radiation exposures 

during refurbishment’’ and 

‘‘Occupational radiation exposures 

(license renewal term)’’ and names the 

combined issue, ‘‘Radiation exposures 

to occupational workers.’’ The 

combined issue is a Category 1 issue. 

These issues are combined given their 

similar nature and to streamline the 

review process. The proposed rule 

revises the finding column of Table 

B–1 accordingly. 

(59) Human Health Impact from 

Chemicals—The proposed rule adds a 

new Category 1 issue, ‘‘Human health 

impact from chemicals,’’ to evaluate the 

potential impacts of chemical hazards to 

workers and chemical releases to the 

environment. 

The evaluation addresses the 

potential impact of chemicals on human 

health resulting from normal operations 

of a nuclear power plant during the 

license renewal term. Impacts of 

chemical discharges to human health 

are considered to be small if the 

discharges of chemicals to water bodies 

are within effluent limitations designed 

to ensure protection of water quality 

and if ongoing discharges have not 

resulted in adverse effects on aquatic 

biota. 

The disposal of essentially all of the 

hazardous chemicals used at nuclear 

power plants is regulated by Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act or 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits, 

thereby minimizing adverse impacts to 

the environment and on workers and 

the public. It is anticipated that all 

plants would continue to operate in 

compliance with all applicable permits 

and that no mitigation measures beyond 

those implemented during the current 

license term would be warranted as a 

result of license renewal. 

A review of the documents, as 

referenced in the GEIS; operating 

monitoring reports; and consultations 

with utilities and regulatory agencies 

that were performed for the 1996 GEIS, 

indicated that the effects of the 

discharge of chlorine and other biocides 

on water quality would be of small 

significance for all power plants. Small 

quantities of biocides are readily 

dissipated and/or chemically altered in 

the body of water receiving them, so 

significant cumulative impacts to water 

quality would not be expected. Major 

changes in the operation of the cooling 

system are not expected during the 

license renewal term, so no change in 

the effects of biocide discharges on the 

quality of the receiving water is 

anticipated. Discharges of sanitary 

wastes and heavy metals are regulated 

by NPDES. Discharges that do not 

violate the permit limits are considered 

to be of small significance. The effects 

of minor chemical discharges and spills 

on water quality would be of small 

significance and mitigated as needed. 

(60) Microbiological Hazards to the 

Public (Plants with Cooling Ponds or 

Canals or Cooling Towers that Discharge 

to a River)—The proposed rule renames 

‘‘Microbiological organisms (public 

health) (plants using lakes or canals, or 

cooling towers or cooling ponds that 

discharge to a small river)’’ as 

‘‘Microbiological hazards to the public 

(plants with cooling ponds or canals or 

cooling towers that discharge to a 

river);’’ it remains a Category 2 issue. 

The proposed rule makes minor 

clarifying changes to the Table B–1 

finding column entry for this issue. 

(61) Microbiological Hazards to Plant 

Workers—The proposed rule renames 

‘‘Microbiological organisms 

(occupational health)’’ as 

‘‘Microbiological hazards to plant 

workers;’’ it remains a Category 1 issue. 

There are no changes to the Table B–1 

finding column entry for this issue. 

(62) Chronic Effects of 

Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)—The 

proposed rule renames 

‘‘Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects’’ 

as ‘‘Chronic effects of electromagnetic 

fields (EMFs);’’ it remains an 

uncategorized issue. The proposed rule 

revises the Table B–1 finding column 

entry for this issue. 

(63) Physical Occupational Hazards— 

The proposed rule adds a new Category 

1 issue, ‘‘Physical occupational 

hazards,’’ to evaluate the potential 

impact of physical occupational hazards 

on human health resulting from normal 

nuclear power plant operations during 

the license renewal term. The impact of 

physical occupational hazards on 

human health has been raised by 

members of the public as well as 

Federal and State agencies during the 

license renewal process. Occupational 

hazards can be minimized when 

workers adhere to safety standards and 

use appropriate protective equipment; 

however, fatalities and injuries from 

accidents can still occur. Data for 

occupational injuries in 2005 obtained 

from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

indicate that the rate of fatal injuries in 

the utility sector is less than the rate for 

many sectors (e.g., construction, 

transportation and warehousing, 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and 

hunting, wholesale trade, and mining) 

and that the incidence rate for nonfatal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38127 

occupational injuries and illnesses is 

the least for electric power generation, 

followed by electric power transmission 

control and distribution. It is expected 

that over the license renewal term, 

workers would continue to adhere to 

safety standards and use protective 

equipment, so adverse occupational 

impacts would be of small significance 

at all sites. No mitigation measures 

beyond those implemented during the 

current license term would be 

warranted. 

(64) Electric Shock Hazards—The 

proposed rule renames 

‘‘Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 

(electric shock)’’ as ‘‘Electric shock 

hazards;’’ it remains a Category 2 issue. 

The proposed rule revises the Table 

B–1 finding column entry for this issue 

by more accurately summarizing the 

discussion in the GEIS which focuses 

attention on the potential of electrical 

shock from transmission lines. 

(xiv) Postulated Accidents 

(65) Design-Basis Accidents and (66) 

Severe Accidents—‘‘Design-basis 

accidents’’ and ‘‘Severe accidents’’ 

remain Category 1 and 2 issues, 

respectively. The proposed rule makes 

minor clarifying changes to the Table 

B–1 finding column entries for these 

issues. 

(xv) Environmental Justice 

(67) Minority and Low-Income 

Populations—The proposed rule adds a 

new Category 2 issue, ‘‘Minority and 

low-income populations,’’ to evaluate 

the impacts of nuclear plant operations 

and refurbishment during the license 

renewal term on minority and lowincome populations living in the 

vicinity of the plant. This issue is listed 

in the current Table B–1, but it was not 

evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. The current 

Table B–1 finding column entry states 

that ‘‘[t]he need for and the content of 

an analysis of environmental justice will 

be addressed in plant-specific reviews.’’ 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

February 16, 1994) initiated the Federal 

government’s environmental justice 

program. The NRC’s ‘‘Policy Statement 

on the Treatment of Environmental 

Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and 

Licensing Actions’’ (69 FR 52040, 

August 24, 2004) states ‘‘the NRC is 

committed to the general goals of E.O. 

12898, it will strive to meet those goals 

through its normal and traditional 

NEPA review process.’’ Guidance for 

implementing Executive Order 12898 

was not available prior to the 

completion of the 1996 GEIS. To 

accomplish these goals, NRC requires 

the assistance of applicants in 

identifying minority and low-income 

populations and communities residing 

in the vicinity of the nuclear power 

plant and determining whether there 

would be any disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and 

environmental impacts on these 

populations from continued power 

plant operations and refurbishment 

activities during the license renewal 

term. 

(xvi) Solid Waste Management 

(68) Low-Level Waste Storage and 

Disposal—‘‘Low-level waste storage and 

disposal’’ remains a Category 1 issue. 

The proposed rule makes clarifying 

changes to the Table B–1 finding 

column entry for this issue. 

(69) Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel—The proposed rule renames ‘‘Onsite spent fuel’’ as ‘‘Onsite storage of 

spent nuclear fuel;’’ it remains a 

Category 1 issue. The proposed rule 

does not change the finding column 

entry of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(70) Offsite Radiological Impacts of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 

Waste Disposal—The proposed rule 

renames ‘‘Offsite radiological impacts 

(spent fuel and high level waste 

disposal)’’ as ‘‘Offsite radiological 

impacts of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal.’’ It remains a 

Category 1 issue. The proposed rule 

summarizes the lengthy discussion in 

the finding column of Table B–1 for this 

issue, and incorporates specific dose 

limits obtained from the recent 

docketing by the NRC of the application 

for the proposed repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada. 

(71) Mixed-Waste Storage and 

Disposal—‘‘Mixed-waste storage and 

disposal’’ remains a Category 1 issue. 

The proposed rule revises the Table 

B–1 finding column entry for this issue 

by more accurately summarizing the 

discussion in the GEIS. 

(72) Nonradioactive Waste Storage 

and Disposal—The proposed language 

renames ‘‘Nonradiological waste’’ as 

‘‘Nonradiological waste storage and 

disposal;’’ it remains a Category 1 issue. 

The proposed rule makes minor 

clarifying changes to the finding column 

of Table B–1 for this issue. 

(xvii) Cumulative Impacts 

(73) Cumulative Impacts—The 

proposed rule adds a new Category 2 

issue, ‘‘Cumulative impacts,’’ to 

evaluate the potential cumulative 

impacts of license renewal. The term 

‘‘cumulative impacts’’ is defined in 

§ 51.14(b) by reference to the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, 40 CFR 1508.7, as ‘‘the 

impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions.’’ 

For the purposes of analysis, past 

actions are considered to be when the 

nuclear power plant was licensed and 

constructed, present actions are related 

to current plant operations, and future 

actions are those that are reasonably 

foreseeable through the end of plant 

operations including the license 

renewal term. The geographic area over 

which past, present, and future actions 

are assessed depends on the affected 

resource. 

The NRC requires the assistance of 

applicants in identifying other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, such as the construction 

and operation of other power plants and 

other industrial and commercial 

facilities in the vicinity of the nuclear 

power plant. Therefore, this 

environmental impact is considered a 

Category 2 issue. 

(xviii) Uranium Fuel Cycle 

(74) Offsite Radiological Impacts— 

Individual Impacts from Other than the 

Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level 

Waste—‘‘Offsite radiological impacts— 

individual impacts from other than the 

disposal of spent fuel and high-level 

waste’’ remains a Category 1 issue. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the findings column of Table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(75) Offsite Radiological Impacts— 

Collective Impacts from Other than the 

Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level 

Waste—The proposed rule renames 

‘‘Offsite radiological impacts (collective 

effects)’’ as ‘‘Offsite radiological 

impacts—collective impacts from other 

than the disposal of spent fuel and highlevel waste’’; it remains a Category 1 

issue. The proposed rule summarizes 

the discussion in the Table B–1 finding 

column entry for this issue. 

(76) Nonradiological Impacts of the 

Uranium Fuel Cycle—Nonradiological 

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle’’ 

remains a Category 1 issue. The 

proposed rule makes minor clarifying 

changes to the finding column of Table 

B–1 for this issue. 

(77) Transportation— 

‘‘Transportation’’ remains a Category 1 

issue. The proposed rule revises the 

Table B–1 finding column entry for this 

issue by retaining the significance level 

assigned to this environmental issue as 

applicable to the uranium fuel cycle. 

The specific technical discussion 

supporting these findings is retained in 

the GEIS. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(xiv) Termination of Nuclear Power 

Plant Operations and Decommissioning 

(78) Termination of Nuclear Power 

Plant Operations and 

Decommissioning—The proposed rule 

combines one new Category 1 issue, 

‘‘Termination of nuclear power plant 

operations’’ with six other Category 1 

issues, ‘‘Radiation doses,’’ ‘‘Waste 

management,’’ ‘‘Air quality,’’ ‘‘Water 

quality,’’ ‘‘Ecological resources,’’ and 

‘‘Socioeconomic impacts,’’ listed in the 

1996 GEIS under the resource area, 

‘‘Decommissioning’’ and names the 

combined issue, ‘‘Termination of plant 

operations and decommissioning.’’ This 

combined issue is a Category 1 issue. 

The 1996 GEIS analysis indicates that 

the six decommissioning issues are 

expected to be small at all nuclear 

power plant sites. The new issue 

addresses the impacts from terminating 

nuclear power plant operations prior to 

plant decommissioning. Termination of 

nuclear power plant operations results 

in the cessation of activities necessary to 

maintain the reactor, as well as a 

significant reduction in plant workforce. 

It is assumed that termination of plant 

operations would not lead to the 

immediate decommissioning and 

dismantlement of the reactor or other 

power plant infrastructure. 

These environmental issues and the 

termination of nuclear power plant 

operations issue would be combined 

into one Category 1 issue to simplify 

and streamline the NRC review process. 

These issues are also addressed in the 

‘‘2002 Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power 

Reactors,’’ NUREG–0586, which is 

incorporated by reference in the revised 

GEIS. The proposed rule revises the 

findings column of Table B–1 

accordingly. 

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following section-by-section 

analysis discusses the proposed 

modifications to the Part 51 provisions. 

Proposed § 51.14(a) 

The proposed rule adds to § 51.14(a) 

a definition for the term ‘‘historic 

properties.’’ The term is intended to be 

an overarching term that includes those 

historic, archaeological, and Native 

American traditional religious and 

cultural properties (districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, objects, artifacts) 

that are covered by the various Federal 

preservation laws, including the 

National Historic Preservation Act, and 

where applicable, the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act and the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(2) 

The NRC proposes to clarify the 

required contents of the license renewal 

environmental report which applicants 

must submit in accordance with § 54.21 

by revising the second sentence in this 

subparagraph to read, ‘‘This report must 

describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the 

modifications directly affecting the 

environment or any plant effluents, and 

any planned refurbishment activities.’’ 

Proposed §§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A), (B), and 

(E) 

For those applicants seeking an initial 

license renewal and holding either an 

operating license, construction permit, 

or combined license as of June 30, 1995, 

the environmental report shall include 

the information required in 

§ 51.53(c)(2), but is not required to 

contain analyses of the environmental 

impacts of certain license renewal 

issues identified as Category 1 

(generically analyzed) issues in 

Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51. The 

environmental report must contain 

analyses of the environmental impacts 

of the proposed action, including the 

impacts of refurbishment activities, if 

any, associated with license renewal 

and the impacts of operation during the 

renewal term, for those issues identified 

as Category 2 (plant specific analysis 

required) issues in Appendix B to 

Subpart A of Part 51 and must include 

consideration of alternatives for 

reducing adverse impacts of Category 2 

issues. In addition, the environmental 

report must contain any new and 

significant information regarding the 

environmental impacts of license 

renewal of which the applicant is aware. 

The required analyses are listed in 

§§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)–(P). 

The proposed language for 

§§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A), (B), and (E) consists 

of changes to conform to the proposed 

changes in Table B–1, which in turn, 

reflects the revised GEIS. The NRC 

proposes to modify these paragraphs to 

more accurately reflect the specific 

information needed in the 

environmental report that will help the 

NRC conduct the environmental review 

of the proposed action. 

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) is revised to 

incorporate the findings of the revised 

GEIS and to require applicants to 

provide information in their 

environmental reports regarding water 

availability and competing water 

demands and related impacts on 

instream (aquatic) and riparian 

(terrestrial) communities. 

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) is revised to 

replace ‘‘heat shock’’ with ‘‘thermal 

changes’’ to reflect the proposed 

changes made in the revised Table B–1 

as described earlier in this document 

under ‘‘(ix) Aquatic Resources,’’ 

environmental impact issue, ‘‘(39) 

Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms 

(Plants with Once-Through Cooling 

Systems or Cooling Ponds).’’ 

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) is revised to 

expressly include power plant 

continued operations within the scope 

of the impacts to be assessed by license 

renewal applicants. The paragraph is 

further revised to expand the scope of 

the provision to include all Federal 

wildlife protection laws and essential 

fish habitat under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) 

The NRC proposes to remove the 

language in § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) to 

conform with the proposed changes 

made in the revised Table B–1 and to 

reserve the paragraph. These Category 2 

issues were changed to Category 1 

because significant changes in housing 

availability, land-use, and increased 

population demand attributable to the 

proposed project on the public water 

supply have not occurred at relicensed 

nuclear plants. Therefore, impacts to 

these resources are no longer 

anticipated from future license 

renewals. In addition, refurbishment 

activities, such as steam generator and 

vessel head replacement, have not 

required the large numbers of workers 

and the months of time that was 

conservatively analyzed in the 1996 

GEIS. As such, significant impacts on 

public schools are no longer anticipated 

from future refurbishment activities. 

Applicants would no longer need to 

assess the impacts of the proposed 

action on housing availability, land-use, 

and public schools (impacts from 

refurbishment activities only) within the 

vicinity of the plant. Additionally, 

applicants would no longer need to 

assess the impact of population 

increases attributable to the proposed 

action on the public water supply. 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) 

The NRC proposes to remove the 

language in § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) to 

conform with the proposed changes 

made in the revised Table B–1 and to 

reserve the paragraph. This Category 2 

issue, ‘‘Public service, Transportation’’ 

was changed to Category 1, 

‘‘Transportation,’’ and remains under 

resource area, ‘‘Socioeconomic’’ because 

refurbishment activities, such as steam 

generator and vessel head replacement, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38129 

have not required the large numbers of 

workers and the months of time that 

was conservatively analyzed in the 1996 

GEIS; therefore significant 

transportation impacts are not 

anticipated from future refurbishment 

activities. Applicants would no longer 

need to assess the impact of the 

proposed action on local transportation 

during periods of license renewal 

refurbishment activities. 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) 

The proposed language for 

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) deletes the phrase, 

‘‘or archaeological.’’ This term is 

encompassed by the use of the term 

‘‘historical,’’ as defined in the proposed 

rule language under § 51.14, 

‘‘Definitions.’’ 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N) 

The NRC proposes to add a new 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(N) in § 51.53 to 

conform with the proposed changes 

made in the revised Table B–1. A new 

Category 2 issue, ‘‘Minority and lowincome populations’’ under resource 

area, ‘‘Environmental Justice’’ addresses 

the issue of determining the effects of 

nuclear plant operations and 

refurbishment on minority and lowincome populations living in the 

vicinity of the plant. This issue is listed 

in the current Table B–1, but was not 

evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. The finding 

stated that: ‘‘The need for and the 

content of an analysis of environmental 

justice will be addressed in plantspecific reviews.’’ Guidance for 

implementing E.O. No. 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,’’ (Section 1– 

101) (59 FR 7629) and dated February 

16, 1994 was not available before the 

completion of the 1996 GEIS. 

In August 2004, the Commission 

issued a policy statement on 

implementation of E.O. 12898: NRC’s 

Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC 

Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 

FR 52040). As stated therein, ‘‘the NRC 

is committed to the general goals of E.O. 

12898, it will strive to meet those goals 

through its normal and traditional 

NEPA review process.’’ To accomplish 

these goals, NRC requires the assistance 

of applicants in identifying minority 

and low-income populations and 

communities residing in the vicinity of 

the nuclear power plant and 

determining if there would be any 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health and environmental impacts on 

these populations. The NRC will then 

assess the information provided by the 

applicant. 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) 

The NRC proposes to add a new 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(O) in § 51.53 to 

conform with the proposed changes 

made in the revised Table B–1. A new 

Category 2 issue has been added to the 

GEIS to evaluate the potential 

contamination of soil and groundwater 

from industrial practices at nuclear 

plants. Industrial practices at all plants 

have the potential to contaminate site 

groundwater and soil through the use 

and spillage of solvents, hydrocarbons, 

heavy metals, or other chemicals, 

especially on sites with unlined 

wastewater lagoons and storm water 

lagoons. Any contamination by these 

substances is subject to characterization 

and clean-up by EPA and State 

remediation and monitoring programs. 

NRC requires the assistance of 

applicants to assess the impact of the 

industrial practices involving the use of 

solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or 

other chemicals where there is a 

potential for contamination of site 

groundwater, soil, and subsoil. 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P) 

The NRC proposes to add a new 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(P) in § 51.53 to 

conform with the proposed changes 

made in the revised Table B–1. A new 

Category 2 issue has been added to the 

GEIS to evaluate the potential 

cumulative effects of license renewal 

and refurbishment at nuclear plants. 

Cumulative impacts was not addressed 

in the 1996 GEIS, but is currently being 

evaluated by the NRC in plant-specific 

supplements to the GEIS. The Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in 40 

CFR 1508.7, defines cumulative effects 

as ‘‘the impact on the environment 

which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions.’’ 

The NRC considers potential cumulative 

impacts on the environment resulting 

from the incremental impact of license 

renewal when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. 

The NRC requires the assistance of 

applicants in identifying other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, such as the construction 

and operation of other power plants and 

other industrial and commercial 

facilities in the vicinity of the nuclear 

power plant. 

Proposed § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q) 

The NRC proposes to add a new 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(Q) in § 51.53 to 

conform with the proposed changes 

made in the revised Table B–1. A new 

Category 2 issue has been added to the 

GEIS to evaluate the potential impact of 

discharges of radionuclides, such as 

tritium, from plant systems into 

groundwater. The issue is relevant to 

license renewal because virtually all 

commercial nuclear power plants have 

spent fuel pools, liquid storage tanks, 

and buried piping that contain liquids 

with radioactive material that have a 

potential over time to degrade and 

release radioactive liquid into the 

groundwater. The NRC has investigated 

several cases where radioactive liquids 

have been inadvertently released into 

the groundwater in an uncontrolled 

manner. Any residual activity from 

these inadvertent releases of radioactive 

material is subject to characterization 

and possible remediation by the 

licensee in order to comply with NRC 

requirements. NRC requires the 

assistance of applicants in assessing the 

impact of any inadvertent releases of 

radioactive liquids into the 

groundwater. 

Proposed § 51.71(c) 

The proposed language for § 51.71(c) 

deletes the term ‘‘entitlement’’ and 

‘‘entitlements.’’ These terms are not 

applicable in a license renewal context. 

Proposed § 51.71(d) 

The proposed language for § 51.71(d) 

consists of minor conforming word 

changes to clarify the readability and to 

include the analysis of cumulative 

effects. Cumulative impacts were not 

addressed in the 1996 GEIS, but are 

currently being evaluated by the NRC in 

plant-specific supplements to the GEIS. 

The NRC proposes to modify this 

paragraph to more accurately reflect the 

cumulative impacts analysis conducted 

for environmental reviews of the 

proposed action. 

Proposed § 51.95(c) 

The proposed language changes for 

§ 51.95(c) is administrative in nature, 

and replaces the reference to the 1996 

GEIS for license renewal of nuclear 

plants with a reference to the revised 

GEIS. 

Proposed § 51.95(c)(4) 

The proposed language for 

§ 51.95(c)(4) consists of minor 

grammatical word changes to enhance 

the readability of the regulation. 

VII. Specific Request for Comments 

The NRC seeks comments on the 

proposed Part 51 provisions described 

in this document and on the regulatory 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

analysis and the information collection 

aspects of this proposed rule. 

The NRC also seeks voluntary 

information from industry about 

refurbishment activities and 

employment trends at nuclear power 

plants. Information on refurbishment 

would be used to evaluate the 

significance of impacts from this type of 

activity. Information on employment 

trends would be used to assess the 

significance of socioeconomic effects of 

ongoing plant operations on local 

economies. 

Refurbishment 

Table B.2 in the 1996 GEIS lists major 

refurbishment or replacement activities 

that the NRC used to estimate 

environmental impacts. The NRC 

recognizes that the refurbishment 

impact analysis in the 1996 GEIS may 

not accurately reflect industry 

experience performing the activities 

identified in Table B.2. Please provide 

(1) the estimated frequency for each 

activity (e.g., annually, once in the 

lifetime of a power reactor, as-needed 

based on inspections, etc.), (2) the 

duration (in weeks), (3) the peak 

number of project workers in full-time 

equivalents (FTEs), (4) the timing of 

these activities (e.g., during planned 

refueling or maintenance outages), and 

(5) whether the period of extended 

operation (i.e., license renewal term) has 

triggered a need for these activities. 

Employment Trends 

Please provide data on the annual 

average number of permanent 

operations workers (in FTEs by year) 

after commencement of nuclear plant 

operations. If possible, the information 

should include a short non-proprietary 

discussion about general employment 

trends and include reasons for any 

significant changes in employment. 

VIII. Guidance Documents 

In addition to issuing the revised 

GEIS for public comment, the NRC is 

also issuing a revised RG 4.2, 

Supplement 1, Revision 1 and a revised 

ESRP, Supplement 1, Revision 1. Both 

documents are being published 

concurrently with these proposed 

amendments. Revised RG 4.2, 

Supplement 1, Revision 1, provides 

general procedures for the preparation 

of environmental reports, which are 

submitted as part of an application for 

the renewal of a nuclear power plant 

operating license in accordance with 

Title 10, Part 54, ‘‘Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 54). 

More specifically, this revised 

regulatory guide explains the criteria on 

how Category 2 issues are to be 

addressed in the environmental report, 

as specified in the proposed 

amendments to Part 51. 

The revised ESRP, Supplement 1, 

Revision 1 provides guidance for NRC 

staff on how to conduct a license 

renewal environmental review. The 

ESRP parallels the format in RG 4.2, 

Supplement 1, Revision 1. The primary 

purpose of the ESRP is to ensure that 

these reviews focus on those 

environmental concerns associated with 

license renewal as described in Part 51. 

Additionally, in order to enhance public 

openness, the NRC committed to issuing 

for public comment with the proposed 

rule, the RG 4.2, Supplement 1, 

Revision 1 and ESRP, Supplement 1, 

Revision 1. 

IX. Agreement State Compatibility 

Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement States Programs,’’ approved 

by the Commission on June 20, 1997, 

and published in the Federal Register 

(62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this 

rule is classified as compatibility 

category ‘‘NRC.’’ Agreement State 

Compatibility is not required for 

Category ‘‘NRC’’ regulations. The NRC 

program elements in this category are 

those that relate directly to areas of 

regulation reserved to the NRC by the 

Atomic Energy Act or the provisions of 

10 CFR. Although an Agreement State 

may not adopt program elements 

reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform 

its licensees of certain requirements via 

a mechanism that is consistent with the 

particular State’s administrative 

procedure laws, but does not confer 

regulatory authority on the State. 

X. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents 

identified below available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following methods, as indicated. 

Public Document Room (PDR). The 

NRC Public Document Room is located 

at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. 

Regulations.gov (Web). These 

documents may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov Docket number 

NRC–2008–0608. 

NRC’s Electronic Reading Room 

(ERR). The NRC’s public electronic 

reading room is located at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Document PDR Regs.gov Web ERR (ADAMS) NRC staff 

Draft NUREG–1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1—‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ X X X ML090220654 X 

Draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2 Supplement 1, Revision 1—‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License 

Renewal Applications’’ ..................................................................... X X X ML091620409 X 

Draft NUREG–1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1—‘‘Standard Review 

Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal’’ ......................................... X X X ML090230497 X 

Draft Regulatory Analysis for RIN 3150–AI42 Proposed Rulemaking 

Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power 

Plant Operating Licenses ................................................................. X X X ML083460087 X 

Draft OMB Supporting Statement for RIN 3150–AI42 Proposed 

Rulemaking Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of 

Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses ........................................ X X X ML090260568 X 

Summary of Public Scoping Meeting to Discuss Update to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Atlanta, GA .................................................................. X X X ML032170942 X 

Summary of Public Scoping Meeting to Discuss Update to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG–1437), Oak Lawn, IL .................................... X X X ML032260339 X 

Summary of Public Scoping Meeting To Discuss Update to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG–1437), Anaheim, CA .................................... X X X ML032260715 X 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38131 

Document PDR Regs.gov Web ERR (ADAMS) NRC staff 

Summary of Public Scoping Meeting to Discuss Update to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG–1437), Boston, MA ....................................... X X X ML032170934 X 

Liquid Radiation Release Lessons Learned Task ............................... X X X ML062650312 X 

NUREG/CP–0108, ‘‘Proceedings of the Public Workshop on Nuclear 

Power Plant License Renewal’’ (April 1990) .................................... X .................... .................... ........................ X 

NUREG–1411, ‘‘Response to Public Comments Resulting from the 

Public Workshop on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal’’ (July 

1990) ................................................................................................ X .................... .................... ........................ X 

‘‘Addressing the Concerns of States and Others Regarding the Role 

of Need for Generating Capacity, Alternate Energy Sources, Utility 

Costs, and Cost-Benefit Analysis in NRC Environmental Reviews 

for Relicensing Nuclear Power Plants: An NRC Staff Discussion 

Paper’’ .............................................................................................. X .................... .................... ........................ X 

NUREG–0586, ‘‘2002 Generic Environmental Impact Statement on 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors’’ ................................................ X .................... .................... ........................ X 

XI. Plain Language 

The Presidential memorandum dated 

June 1, 1998, entitled ‘‘Plain Language 

in Government Writing’’ directed that 

the Government’s writing be in clear 

and accessible language. This 

memorandum was published on June 

10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC 

requests comments on the proposed rule 

specifically with respect to the clarity 

and effectiveness of the language used. 

Comments should be sent to the NRC as 

explained in the ADDRESSES heading of 

this document. 

XII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Public 

Law 104–113, requires that Federal 

agencies use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless 

using such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. The NRC is not aware of 

any voluntary consensus standard that 

could be used instead of the proposed 

Government standards. The NRC will 

consider using a voluntary consensus 

standard if an appropriate standard is 

identified. 

XIII. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact 

The NRC has determined that this 

proposed regulation is the type of action 

described in categorical exclusion 

§ 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an 

environmental impact statement nor an 

environmental assessment has been 

prepared for this proposed regulation. 

This action is procedural in nature in 

that it pertains to the type of 

environmental information to be 

reviewed. 

XIV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This proposed rule would contain 

new or amended information collection 

requirements that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq). This proposed rule 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval of the information 

collection requirements. 

Type of submission, new or revision: 

Revision. 

The title of the information collection: 

10 CFR Part 51 Environmental Review 

for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant 

Operating Licenses, Proposed Rule. 

The form number if applicable: Not 

applicable. 

How often the collection is required: 

Once per license renewal. 

Who will be required or asked to 

report: Applicants for license renewal. 

An estimate of the number of annual 

responses: Six. 

The estimated number of annual 

respondents: Six. 

An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request (net one-time 

reporting): 1,944.00 hours 

Abstract: 10 CFR Part 51 specifies 

information to be provided by 

applicants and licensees so that the NRC 

can make determinations necessary to 

adhere to the policies, regulations, and 

public laws of the United States, which 

are to be interpreted and administered 

in accordance with the policies set forth 

in the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended. 

The NRC is seeking public comment 

on the potential impact of the 

information collections contained in 

this proposed rule and on the following 

issues: 

1. Is the proposed information 

collection necessary for the NRC to 

properly perform its functions? Does the 

information have practical utility? 

2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection be minimized, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology? 

A copy of the OMB clearance package 

may be viewed free of charge at the NRC 

Public Document Room, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 

O–1F21, Rockville, MD 20852. The 

OMB clearance package and rule are 

available at the NRC worldwide Web 

site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

doc-comment/omb/index.htm for 60 

days after the signature date of this 

notice. 

Send comments on any aspect of 

these proposed information collections, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden and on the above issues, by 

October 14, 2009. Comments received 

after this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but assurance of 

consideration cannot be given to 

comments received after this date. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. Comments submitted should 

reference Docket No. NRC–2008–0608. 

Comments can be submitted in 

electronic form via the Federal 

e-Rulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by search for 

Docket No. NRC–2008–0608. Comments 

can be mailed to NRC Clearance Officer, 

Tremaine Donnell (T–5F52), U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Questions 

about the information collection 

requirements may be directed to the 

NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine 

Donnell (T–5 F52), U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, by telephone at (301) 

415–5258, or by e-mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Comments can be mailed to the Desk 

Officer, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202, 

(3150–0021), Office of Management and 

Budget, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to Christine_J._Kyma@omb.eop.gov 

or by telephone at (202) 395–4638. 

XV. Regulatory Analysis 

The Commission has prepared a 

regulatory analysis on this proposed 

regulation. The analysis examines the 

costs and benefits of the alternatives 

considered by the NRC. The two 

alternatives considered (a) No Action— 

no change to applicable license renewal 

portions of Part 51 regulations, 

including Table B–1, which would 

require applicants seeking license 

renewal to comply with the existing 

provisions; or (b) review and update the 

environmental impact issues and 

findings and amend applicable license 

renewal portions of Part 51 and Table 

B–1. The conclusions of the regulatory 

analysis show substantial cost savings of 

alternative (b) over alternative (a). 

The NRC requests public comments 

on this regulatory analysis. Information 

on availability of the regulatory analysis 

is provided in Section X of this 

document. Comments on the regulatory 

analysis may be submitted to the NRC 

as indicated under the ADDRESSES

heading of this document. 

XVI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission 

certifies that this rule would not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule would only affect nuclear power 

plant licensees filing license renewal 

applications. The companies that own 

these plants do not fall within the scope 

of the definition of ‘‘small entities’’ set 

forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or 

the size standards established by the 

NRC (§ 2.810). 

XVII. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC has determined that the 

requirements in this proposed rule do 

not constitute backfitting as defined in 

§ 50.109(a)(1). Therefore, a backfit 

analysis has not been prepared for this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC 

is proposing to adopt the following 

amendments to 10 CFR Part 51. 

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED 

REGULTORY FUNCTIONS 

1. The authority citation for Part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as 

amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 

2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as 

amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 

1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); sec. 1704, 112 

Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A 

also issued under National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 

Stat. 853–854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 

4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95–604, Title II, 92 

Stat. 3033–3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101– 

575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 

51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also 

issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 

96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. 

100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–223 (42 U.S.C. 

10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also 

issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as 

amended by 92 Stat. 3036–3038 (42 U.S.C. 

2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 

10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 

also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)). 

2. Section 51.14(a) is amended by 

adding the term Historic properties in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 51.14 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

Historic properties means any 

prehistoric or historic districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, or objects 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, 

the National Register of Historic Places 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Interior. This term includes properties 

of traditional religious and cultural 

importance to an Indian Tribe or Native 

Hawaiian organization and that meet the 

National Register criteria. The term also 

includes archaeological resources, such 

as artifacts, records, and remains, that 

are related to and located within such 

prehistoric or historic districts, sites, 

buildings, or structures. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 51.53 to revise the second 

sentence of paragraph (c)(2), revise the 

first sentence of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A), 

revise the second sentence of paragraph 

(c)(3)(ii)(B), revise paragraph 

(c)(3)(ii)(E), to remove and reserve 

paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(I) and (J), to revise 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(K) and to add 

paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(N), (O), (P), and (Q) 

to read as follows: 

§ 51.53 Postconstruction environmental 

reports. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * This report must describe in 

detail the affected environment around 

the plant, the modifications directly 

affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned 

refurbishment activities. * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) If the applicant’s plant utilizes 

cooling towers or cooling ponds and 

withdraws make-up water from a river 

whose annual flow rate is less than 

3.15×1012 ft3/year (9×1010m3/year), an 

assessment of the impact of the 

proposed action on water availability 

and competing water demands, the flow 

of the river, and related impacts on 

instream (aquatic) and riparian 

(terrestrial) ecological communities 

must be provided. * * * 

(B) * * * If the applicant can not 

provide these documents, it shall assess 

the impact of the proposed action on 

fish and shellfish resources resulting 

from thermal changes and impingement 

and entrainment. 

* * * * * 

(E) All license renewal applicants 

shall assess the impact of refurbishment, 

continued operations, and other licenserenewal-related construction activities 

on important plant and animal habitats. 

Additionally, the applicant shall assess 

the impact of the proposed action on 

threatened or endangered species in 

accordance with Federal laws protecting 

wildlife, including but not limited to the 

Endangered Species Act, and essential 

fish habitat in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

* * * * * 

(I) [Reserved] 

(J) [Reserved] 

(K) All applicants shall assess 

whether any historic properties will be 

affected by the proposed project. 

* * * * * 

(N) Applicants shall provide 

information on the general demographic 

composition of minority- and lowincome populations and communities 

(by race and ethnicity) residing in the 

immediate vicinity of the plant that 

could be affected by the renewal of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38133 

3Compliance with the environmental quality 

standards and requirements of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (imposed by EPA or 

designated permitting states) is not a substitute for, 

and does not negate the requirement for NRC to 

weigh all environmental effects of the proposed 

action, including the degradation, if any, of water 

quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed 

action that are available for reducing adverse 

effects. Where an environmental assessment of 

aquatic impact from plant discharges is available 

from the permitting authority, the NRC will 

consider the assessment in its determination of the 

magnitude of environmental impacts for striking an 

overall cost-benefit balance at the construction 

permit and operating license and early site permit 

and combined license stages, and in its 

determination of whether the adverse 

environmental impacts of license renewal are so 

great that preserving the option of license renewal 

for energy planning decision-makers would be 

unreasonable at the license renewal stage. When no 

such assessment of aquatic impacts is available 

from the permitting authority, NRC will establish 

on its own, or in conjunction with the permitting 

authority and other agencies having relevant 

expertise, the magnitude of potential impacts for 

striking an overall cost-benefit balance for the 

facility at the construction permit and operating 

license and early site permit and combined license 

stages, and in its determination of whether the 

adverse environmental impacts of license renewal 

are so great that preserving the option of license 

renewal for energy planning decision-makers would 

be unreasonable at the license renewal stage. 

plant’s operating license, including any 

planned refurbishment activities, and 

ongoing and future plant operations. 

(O) If the applicant’s plant conducts 

industrial practices involving the use of 

solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or 

other chemicals and has unlined 

wastewater lagoons, the applicant shall 

assess the potential for contamination of 

site groundwater, soil, and subsoil. The 

applicant shall provide an assessment of 

dissolved chemical and suspended 

sediment discharge to the plant’s 

wastewater lagoons in addition to 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

compliance data collected for submittal 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) or designated State 

agency. A summary of existing reports 

describing site groundwater and soil 

contamination should also be included. 

(P) Applicants shall provide 

information about past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

occurring in the vicinity of the nuclear 

plant that may result in a cumulative 

effect. For example, the applicant 

should include information about the 

construction and operation of other 

power plants and other industrial and 

commercial facilities in the vicinity of 

the nuclear plant. 

(Q) An applicant shall assess the 

impact of any inadvertent releases of 

radionuclides into groundwater. The 

applicant shall include in its assessment 

a description of any groundwater 

protection program for the site, 

including a description of any 

monitoring wells, leak detection 

equipment, or procedures for the 

surveillance of accessible piping and 

components containing radioactive 

materials. The assessment shall also 

include a description of any past 

inadvertent releases, including 

information on the source of the release, 

the location of the release within the 

plant site, the types of radionuclides 

involved, including the quantities, 

forms, and concentrations of such 

radionuclides, and the projected impact 

to the environment during the license 

renewal term, including the projected 

transport pathways, concentrations of 

the radionuclides, and potential 

receptors (e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, 

ponds, ocean). 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 51.71 to revise paragraphs 

(c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 51.71 Draft environmental impact 

statement—contents. 

* * * * * 

(c) Status of compliance. The draft 

environmental impact statement will 

list all Federal permits, licenses, and 

approvals which must be obtained in 

implementing the proposed action and 

will describe the status of compliance 

with those requirements. If it is 

uncertain whether a Federal permit, 

license, or approval is necessary, the 

draft environmental impact statement 

will so indicate. 

(d) Analysis. Unless excepted in this 

paragraph or § 51.75, the draft 

environmental impact statement will 

include a preliminary analysis that 

considers and weighs the environmental 

effects, including any cumulative 

effects, of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to 

the proposed action; and alternatives 

available for reducing or avoiding 

adverse environmental effects. 

Additionally, the draft environmental 

impact statement will include a 

consideration of the economic, 

technical, and other benefits and costs 

of the proposed action and alternatives. 

The draft environmental impact 

statement will indicate what other 

interests and considerations of Federal 

policy, including factors not related to 

environmental quality, if applicable, are 

relevant to the consideration of 

environmental effects of the proposed 

action identified under paragraph (a) of 

this section. The draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement 

prepared at the license renewal stage 

under § 51.95(c) need not discuss the 

economic or technical benefits and costs 

of either the proposed action or 

alternatives except if benefits and costs 

are either essential for a determination 

regarding the inclusion of an alternative 

in the range of alternatives considered 

or relevant to mitigation. In addition, 

the supplemental environmental impact 

statement prepared at the license 

renewal stage need not discuss other 

issues not related to the environmental 

effects of the proposed action and 

associated alternatives. The draft 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement for license renewal prepared 

under § 51.95(c) will rely on 

conclusions as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS for 

issues designated as Category 1 in 

appendix B to subpart A of this part. 

The draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement must contain an 

analysis of those issues identified as 

Category 2 in appendix B to subpart A 

of this part that are open for the 

proposed action. The analysis for all 

draft environmental impact statements 

will, to the fullest extent practicable, 

quantify the various factors considered. 

To the extent that there are important 

qualitative considerations or factors that 

cannot be quantified, these 

considerations or factors will be 

discussed in qualitative terms. 

Consideration will be given to 

compliance with environmental quality 

standards and requirements that have 

been imposed by Federal, State, 

regional, and local agencies having 

responsibility for environmental 

protection, including applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations and water 

pollution limitations or requirements 

issued or imposed under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. The 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action will be considered in the analysis 

with respect to matters covered by 

environmental quality standards and 

requirements irrespective of whether a 

certification or license from the 

appropriate authority has been 

obtained.3 While satisfaction of 

Commission standards and criteria 

pertaining to radiological effects will be 

necessary to meet the licensing 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, 

the analysis will, for the purposes of 

NEPA, consider the radiological effects 

of the proposed action and alternatives. 

* * * * * 

5. Amend § 51.95 to revise the 

introductory text of paragraph (c), and 

the second sentence of paragraph (c)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 51.95 Postconstruction environmental 

impact statements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Operating license renewal stage. In 

connection with the renewal of an 

operating license or combined license 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

for a nuclear power plant under parts 52 

or 54 of this chapter, the Commission 

shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the 

Commission’s NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ 

[(Month 20XX)], which is available in 

the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * In order to make 

recommendations and reach a final 

decision on the proposed action, the 

NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and 

Commission shall integrate the 

conclusions in the generic 

environmental impact statement for 

issues designated Category 1 (with the 

exception of offsite radiological impacts 

for collective effects and the disposal of 

spent fuel and high level waste) with 

information developed for those open 

Category 2 issues applicable to the plant 

under § 51.53(c)(3)(ii), and any new and 

significant information. * * * 

* * * * * 

6. In Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 

51, Table B–1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart A— 

Environmental Effect of Renewing the 

Operating License of a Nuclear Power 

Plant 

* * * * * 

TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1

Issue Category 2 Finding 3

Land Use 

Onsite land use .......................................... 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with the license renewal term would be a small fraction of any nuclear 

power plant site and would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee. 

Offsite land use .......................................... 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected from continued operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. 

Offsite land use in transmission line rightsof-way (ROWs).1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term would continue with no change in 

land use restrictions. 

Visual Resources 

Aesthetic impacts ....................................... 1 SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant structures or transmission lines are expected from continued operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. 

Air Quality 

Air quality (non-attainment and maintenance areas).2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Air quality impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with the license renewal term are expected to be 

small. However, emissions during these activities could be a cause for concern at 

locations in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas. The significance of the impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance status of each site and the activities that could occur. These impacts would be shortlived and cease after projects were completed. 

Emissions from testing emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and from routine 

operations of boilers used for space heating would not be a concern, even for 

those plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment areas. Although particulate 

emissions from cooling towers may be a concern for a very limited number of 

plants located in States that regulate such emissions, the impacts in even these 

worst-case situations have been small. 

Air quality effects of transmission lines ..... 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not

contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases. 

Noise 

Noise impacts ............................................. 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors 

during continued operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term. 

Geology and Soils 

Impacts of nuclear plants on geology and 

soils.

1 SMALL. Impacts on geology and soils would be small at all nuclear plants if best 

management practices were employed to reduce erosion associated with continued operations and refurbishment. 

Surface Water 

Surface-water use and quality ................... 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible if best management practices are employed to control soil erosion and spills. Water use associated with continued operation and refurbishment projects for license renewal would not increase significantly or would be reduced if a plant outage is necessary to accomplish the action. 

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures.1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38135 

TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1— 

Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3

Altered salinity gradients ............................ 1 SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the 

intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Altered thermal stratification of lakes ......... 1 SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the area in the vicinity of 

the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating 

nuclear power plants. 

Scouring caused by discharged cooling 

water.

1 SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and 

discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power 

plants. 

Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent.1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have 

been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored as part of 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. 

Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, 

and minor chemical spills.

1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by State and Federal environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored as part of the NPDES permit process. 

These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Water use conflicts (plants with oncethrough cooling systems).1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. 

Water use conflicts (plants with cooling 

ponds or cooling towers using make-up 

water from a river with low flow).

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water demands. 

Effects of dredging on water quality .......... 1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

Temperature effects on sediment transport 

capacity.

1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal 

term. 

Groundwater 

Groundwater use and quality ..................... 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with the license renewal term. The application of 

best management practices for handling any materials produced or used during 

activities would reduce impacts. 

Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 

withdraw less than 100 gallons per 

minute [gpm]).

1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any 

groundwater use conflicts. 

Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 

withdraw more than 100 gpm including 

those using Ranney wells).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm could 

cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users. 

Groundwater use conflicts (plants with 

closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. 

The significance of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water 

availability, and competing water demands. 

Groundwater quality degradation resulting 

from water withdrawals.

1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality degradation. 

Groundwater quality degradation (plants 

with cooling ponds in salt marshes).

1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality; 

however, because groundwater in salt marshes is brackish, this is not a concern 

for plants located in salt marshes. 

Groundwater quality degradation (plants 

with cooling ponds at inland sites).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality. For plants located inland, the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity of the ponds could be affected. The significance of the impact 

would depend on cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and 

pump rate of water wells. 

Groundwater and soil contamination ......... 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals and unlined wastewater lagoons have 

the potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is 

subject to State and Environmental Protection Agency regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. 

Radionuclides released to groundwater .... 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Underground system leaks of process water have been discovered in recent years at several plants. Groundwater protection programs have 

been established at all operating nuclear power plants. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1— 

Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3

Terrestrial Resources 

Impacts of continued plant operations on 

terrestrial ecosystems.

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Continued operations, refurbishment, and maintenance activities are expected to keep terrestrial communities in their current condition. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts. The magnitude of impacts would depend on the nature of the activity, the 

status of the resources that could be affected, and the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides.1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms are expected to be well below exposure 

guidelines developed to protect these organisms. 

Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).1 SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or animals have been reported as a 

result of increased water temperatures, fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to the low concentrations of contaminants in cooling system effluents, uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of wildlife exposed to the 

contaminated water or aquatic food sources are not expected to be significant 

issues. 

Cooling tower impacts on vegetation 

(plants with cooling towers).

1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with 

cooling tower operation have the potential to affect adjacent vegetation, but these 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected 

to change over the license renewal term. 

Bird collisions with cooling towers and 

transmission lines.

1 SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and transmission lines occur at rates that 

are unlikely to affect local or migratory populations. 

Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using make-up water 

from a river with low flow).

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources in riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance in some situations. 

Transmission line ROW management impacts on terrestrial resources.1 SMALL. Continued ROW management during the license renewal term is expected 

to keep terrestrial communities in their current condition. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts. 

Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna 

(plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, 

wildlife, livestock).

1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna 

have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Aquatic Resources 

Impingement and entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with once-through 

cooling systems or cooling ponds).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of impingement and entrainment are 

small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with 

once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling system 

withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the site. 

Impingement and entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with cooling towers).

1 SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at plants that use closed-cycle 

cooling with cooling towers because the rates and volumes of water withdrawal 

needed for makeup are minimized. 

Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 

(plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects associated with thermal discharges are localized and are not expected to affect overall stability of populations 

or resources. The magnitude of impacts, however, would depend on site-specific 

thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic resources in the area. 

Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 

(plants with cooling towers).

1 SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use cooling towers are small because of the reduced amount of heated discharge. 

Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and 

eutrophication.

1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear 

power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. Low dissolved oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power plant with a 

once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. Eutrophication 

(nutrient loading) and resulting effects on chemical and biological oxygen demands 

have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants. 

Effects of non-radiological contaminants 

on aquatic organisms.

1 SMALL. Best management practices and discharge limitations of NPDES permits are 

expected to minimize the potential for impacts to aquatic resources. Accumulation 

of metal contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but has 

been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those 

of another metal. 

Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides.1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic organisms. 

Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms 1 SMALL. Effects of dredging on aquatic resources tend to be of short duration (years 

or less) and localized. Dredging requires permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State environmental agencies, and other regulatory agencies. 

Water use conflicts with aquatic resources 

(plants with cooling ponds or cooling 

towers using make-up water from a river 

with low flow).

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on aquatic resources in instream communities affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance in some situations. 

Refurbishment impacts on aquatic resources.1 SMALL. Refurbishment impacts with appropriate mitigation are not expected to 

change aquatic communities from their current condition. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38137 

TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1— 

Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3

Impacts of transmission line ROW management on aquatic resources.1 SMALL. Application of best management practices to ROW near aquatic systems 

would reduce the potential for impacts. 

Losses from predation, parasitism, and 

disease among organisms exposed to 

sublethal stresses.

1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Stimulation of aquatic nuisance species 

(e.g., shipworms).

1 SMALL. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the 

single nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it 

was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem 

during the license renewal term. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat 

Threatened, endangered, and protected 

species and essential fish habitat.

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat would depend on the occurrence of listed species and habitats and the effects of power plant systems on 

them. Consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed to determine 

whether special status species or habitats are present and whether they would be 

adversely affected by activities associated with license renewal. 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural resources .................. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Continued operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term are expected to have no more than small impacts on historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the transmission line 

ROW because most impacts could be mitigated by avoiding those resources. The 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires the Federal agency to consult 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate Native American tribes to determine the potential impacts and mitigation. See § 51.14(a). 

Socioeconomics 

Employment and income, recreation and 

tourism.

1 SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of employees with higher 

than average wages and salaries, employment and income impacts from continued 

operations and refurbishment are expected to be small. Nuclear plant operations, 

employee spending, power plant expenditures, and tax payments have an effect 

on local economies. Changes in plant operations, employment and expenditures 

would have a greater effect on rural economies than on semi-urban economies. 

Tax revenues ............................................. 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy 

production. The amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term from 

continued operations and refurbishment is not expected to change, since the assessed value of the power plant, payments on energy production and PILOT payments are also not expected to change. 

Community services and education ........... 1 SMALL. Changes to local community and educational services would be small from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. 

With no increase in employment, value of the power plant, payments on energy 

production, and PILOT payments expected during the license renewal term, community and educational services would not be affected by continued power plant 

operations. Changes in employment and tax payments would have a greater effect 

on jurisdictions receiving a large portion of annual revenues from the power plant 

than on jurisdictions receiving the majority of their revenues from other sources. 

Population and housing ............................. 1 SMALL. Changes to regional population and housing availability and value would be 

small from continued operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. With no increase in employment expected during the license renewal 

term, population and housing availability and values would not be affected by continued power plant operations. Changes in housing availability and value would 

have a greater effect on sparsely populated areas than areas with higher density 

populations. 

Transportation ............................................ 1 SMALL. Changes to traffic volumes would be small from continued operations and 

refurbishment activities associated with the license renewal term. Changes in employment would have a greater effect on rural areas, with less developed local and 

regional networks. Impacts would be less noticeable in semi-urban areas depending on the quality and extent of local access roads and the timing of plant shift 

changes when compared to typical local usage. 

Human Health 

Radiation exposures to the public ............. 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with the license renewal term are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below regulatory limits. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1— 

Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3

Radiation exposures to occupational workers.1 SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations and refurbishment associated 

with the license renewal term are expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the current license term, and would continue to be well below regulatory limits. 

Human health impact from chemicals ....... 1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to workers would be minimized by observing good industrial hygiene practices. Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for 

impacts to the public are minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of 

NPDES permits. 

Microbiological hazards to the public 

(plants with cooling ponds or canals or 

cooling towers that discharge to a river).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, 

or canals that discharge to rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. 

Microbiological hazards to plant workers ... 1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures. 

Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields 

(EMFs) 5.

N/A4 Uncertain impact. Studies of 60–Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence 

linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that 

have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic 

acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because 

the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human 

health impacts is possible. 

Physical occupational hazards ................... 1 SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to all types of electrical 

generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and is of small significance if 

the workers adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment. 

Electric shock hazards ............................... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is of small significance 

for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the National Electrical 

Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of each nuclear plant transmission line 

conformance with NESC criteria, it is not possible to determine the significance of 

the electrical shock potential. 

Postulated Accidents 

Design-basis accidents .............................. 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of designbasis accidents are of small significance for all plants. 

Severe accidents ........................................ 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto 

open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts 

from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. 

Environmental Justice 

Minority and low-income populations ......... 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence consumption will be addressed in plant-specific reviews. See NRC Policy 

Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory 

and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040). 

Solid Waste Management 

Low-level waste storage and disposal ....... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public 

doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain small during the term of a renewed license. 

Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel .......... 1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 

years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite with small environmental 

effects through dry or pool storage at all plants, if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not available. 

Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.1 For the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, the 

EPA established a dose limit of 15 millirem (0.15 mSv) per year for the first 10,000 

years and 100 millirem (1.0 mSv) per year between 10,000 years and 1 million 

years for offsite releases of radionuclides at the proposed repository at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require 

the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 

CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level 

waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 38139 

TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1— 

Continued 

Issue Category 2 Finding 3

Mixed-waste storage and disposal ............ 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that 

are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and 

exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and 

the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any 

individual plant at licensed sites are small. 

Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal.1 SMALL. No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive waste are anticipated 

during the license renewal term. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure 

continued proper handling, storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to 

toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts .................................... 2 Cumulative impacts of license renewal must be considered on a plant-specific basis. 

Impacts would depend on regional resource characteristics, the resource-specific 

impacts of license renewal, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the resource. 

Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Offsite radiological impacts—individual impacts from other than the disposal of 

spent fuel and high-level waste.

1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological exposures have been considered 

by the Commission in Table S–3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, 

impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including 

radon-222 and technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory limits. 

Offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of 

spent fuel and high-level waste.

1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public 

from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health effects on the basis of 

collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and 

operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The Commission 

concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require 

the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 

CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective impacts of the uranium fuel 

cycle, this issue is considered Category 1. 

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium 

fuel cycle.

1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant would be small. 

Transportation ............................................ 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the environment are expected to be small. 

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning 

Termination of plant operations and decommissioning.1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect on the impacts of 

terminating operations and decommissioning on all resources. 

1 Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG–1437, Revision 1, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ (XX 20XX). 2The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions: 

Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown: 

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic; 

(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective off site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high level waste and spent fuel disposal); and 

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional 

plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review. 

Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that one or more of the criteria of 

Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is required. 3The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ‘‘small,’’ may be negligible. The definitions of significance follow: 

SMALL—For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do 

not exceed permissible levels in the Commission’s regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table. 

MODERATE—For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE—For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in determining significance. 4 NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues. 

5 If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health 

agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews 

of these health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
38140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–18284 Filed 7–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–0115; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–CE–080–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Reims 

Aviation S.A. Model F406 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); rescission. 

SUMMARY: We propose to rescind an 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. The existing AD 

resulted from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

On several occasions, leaks of the landing 

gear emergency blowdown bottle have been 

reported. Investigations revealed that the 

leakage was located on the nut manometer 

because of a design deficiency in the bottle 

head. 

If left uncorrected, the internal bottle 

pressure could not be maintained to an 

adequate level and could result in a 

malfunction, failing to extend landing gears 

during emergency situations. 

Since issuance of that AD, we have 

determined that the condition is not 

unsafe. This proposed action to rescind 

the AD would allow the public the 

opportunity to comment on the FAA’s 

determination of the condition being 

unsafe before it is officially rescinded. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 14, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD 

rescission, the regulatory evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Office (telephone (800) 647– 

5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 

329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD rescission. Send your 

comments to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2007–0115; Directorate Identifier 

2007–CE–080–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD rescission. 

We will consider all comments received 

by the closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD rescission because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD rescission. 

Discussion 

On December 13, 2007, we issued AD 

2007–26–08, Amendment 39–15310 (72 

FR 73258, December 27, 2007). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

Since we issued AD 2007–26–08, we 

have reconsidered this AD with respect 

to the determination of an unsafe 

condition. 

We issued AD 2007–26–08 in 

consideration of the MCAI from an 

aviation authority of another country to 

identify and correct an unsafe condition 

on an airplane. At that time, we were 

not aware that there were several Cessna 

Aircraft Company (Cessna) model 

airplanes equipped with the same 

blowdown bottle part number (P/N) 

9910154–4. 

Before issuing an AD on domestic 

products, we prepare a risk assessment 

of the unsafe condition. A risk 

assessment was done for the Cessna 

model airplanes. The result of that 

assessment was not high enough to 

support AD action since the system is a 

backup system to the primary landing 

gear extension system. 

Based on this risk assessment, we 

reevaluated the existing AD against 

Reims Aviation Model 406 airplanes 

(AD 2007–28–08) and determined the 

condition identified in the AD is not an 

unsafe condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD Rescission 

We are proposing this AD rescission 

because we evaluated all information 

and determined the condition identified 

in the existing AD is not unsafe and the 

AD is not necessary. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses rescinding the 

determination of an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exst or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

rescission would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD rescission 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS