This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

28467

Vol. 61, No. 109

Wednesday, June 5, 1996

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 51

RIN 3150–AD63

Environmental Review for Renewal of

Nuclear Power Plant Operating

Licenses

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending its

regulations regarding environmental

protection regulations for domestic

licensing and related regulatory

functions to establish new requirements

for the environmental review of

applications to renew the operating

licenses of nuclear power plants. The

amendment defines those

environmental impacts for which a

generic analysis has been performed

that will be adopted in plant-specific

reviews for license renewal and those

environmental impacts for which plantspecific analyses are to be performed.

The amendment improves regulatory

efficiency in environmental reviews for

license renewal by drawing on the

considerable experience of operating

nuclear power reactors to generically

assess many of the environmental

impacts that are likely to be associated

with license renewal. The amendment

also eliminates consideration of the

need for generating capacity and of

utility economics from the

environmental reviews because these

matters are under the regulatory

jurisdiction of the States and are not

necessary for the NRC’s understanding

of the environmental consequences of a

license renewal decision.

The increased regulatory efficiency

will result in lower costs to both the

applicant in preparing a renewal

application and to the NRC for

reviewing plant-specific applications

and better focus of review resources on

significant case specific concerns. The

results should be a more focused and

therefore a more effective NEPA review

for each license renewal. The

amendment will also provide the NRC

with the flexibility to address

unreviewed impacts at the site-specific

stage of review and allow full

consideration of the environmental

impacts of license renewal.

The NRC is soliciting public comment

on this rule for a period of 30 days. In

developing any comment specific

attention should be given 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.

DATES: Absent a determination by the

NRC that the rule should be modified,

based on comments received, the final

rule shall be effective on August 5,

1996. The comment period expires on

July 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: The

Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or hand

deliver comments to the Office of the

Secretary, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on

Federal workdays. Copies of comments

received and all documents cited in the

supplementary information may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC between the hours of

7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal

workdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone: (301) 415–

6263; e-mail DPC@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

II. Rulemaking History

III. Analysis of Public Comments

A. Commenters

B. Procedural Concerns

1. Public Participation and the Periodic

Assessment of the Rule and GEIS

2. Economic Costs and Cost-Benefit

Balancing

3. Need for Generating Capacity and

Alternative Energy Sources

C. Technical Concerns

1. Category and Impact Magnitude

Definitions

2. Surface Water Quality

3. Aquatic Ecology

4. Groundwater Use and Quality

5. Terrestrial Ecology

6. Human Health

7. Socioeconomics

8. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid

Waste Management

9. Accidents

10. Decommissioning

11. Need for Generating Capacity

12. Alternatives to License Renewal

13. License Renewal Scenario

14. Environmental Justice

IV. Discussion of Regulatory Requirements

A. General Requirements

B. The Environmental Report

1. Environmental Impacts of License

Renewal

2. Consideration of Alternatives

C. Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement

1. Public Scoping and Public Comments on

the SEIS

2. Commission’s Analysis and Preliminary

Recommendation

3. Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement

D. NEPA Review for Activities Outside

NRC License Renewal Approved Scope

V. Availability of Documents

VI. Submittal of Comments in an Electronic

Format

VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental

Impact Availability

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

IX. Regulatory Analysis

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

XII. Backfit Analysis

I. Introduction

The Commission has amended its

environmental protection regulations in

10 CFR part 51 to improve the efficiency

of the process of environmental review

for applicants seeking to renew an

operating license for up to an additional

20 years. The amendments are based on

the analyses conducted for and reported

in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’

(May 1996). The Commission’s initial

decision to undertake a generic

assessment of the environmental

impacts associated with the renewal of

a nuclear power plant operating license

was motivated by its beliefs that:

(1) License renewal will involve

nuclear power plants for which the
28468 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

environmental impacts of operation are

well understood as a result of data

evaluated from operating experience to

date;

(2) Activities associated with license

renewal are expected to be within this

range of operating experience, thus

environmental impacts can be

reasonably predicted; and

(3) Changes in the environment

around nuclear power plants are gradual

and predictable with respect to

characteristics important to

environmental impact analyses.

Although this amendment is

consistent with the generic approach

and scope of the proposed amendment

published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR

47016), several significant modifications

have been made in response to the

public comments received. The

proposed amendment would have

codified the findings reached in the

draft generic environmental impact

statement (GEIS) as well as certain

procedural requirements. The draft GEIS

established the bounds and significance

of potential environmental impacts at

118 light-water nuclear power reactors

that, as of 1991, were licensed to operate

or were expected to be licensed in the

future.

All potential environmental impacts

and other matters treated by the NRC in

an environmental review of nuclear

power plants were identified and

combined into 104 discrete issues. For

each issue, the NRC staff established

generic findings encompassing as many

nuclear power plants as possible. These

findings would have been codified by

the proposed amendment. Of the 104

issues reviewed for the proposed rule,

the staff determined that 80 issues could

be adequately addressed generically and

would not have been reviewed in plantspecific license renewal reviews. For 22

of the issues, it was found that the issue

was adequately addressed for some but

not all plants. Therefore, a plant-specific

review would be required to determine

whether the plant is covered by the

generic review or whether the issue

must be assessed for that plant. The

proposed amendment provided

guidance on the application of these

findings at the site-specific license

renewal stage. For the two remaining

issues, it was found that the issue was

not generically addressed for any plant,

and thus a plant-specific review would

have been required for all plants.

Other major features of the proposed

amendment included a conditional

finding of a favorable cost-benefit

balance for license renewal and a

provision for the use of an

environmental assessment that would

address only those issues requiring

plant-specific review. A finding of no

significant impact would have resulted

in a favorable cost-benefit balance for

that plant. If a finding of no significant

impact could not be made for the plant,

there would have to have been a

determination as to whether the impacts

found in the environmental assessment

were sufficient to overturn the

conditional cost-benefit balance found

in the rule.

Although the final amendments to 10

CFR part 51 maintain the same generic

approach used in the proposed rule,

there are several modifications.The final

amendments to 10 CFR part 51 now

contain 92 issues. The reduction of the

number of issues from 104 in the

proposed rule to 92 in the final rule is

due to (1) the elimination from the

review of the consideration of the need

for electric power and associated

generating capacity and of the direct

economic benefits and costs associated

with electric power, (2) removing

alternatives as an issue from Table B–1

and addressing review requirements

only in the text of the rule, (3)

combining the five severe accident

issues used in the proposed rule into

one issue, (4) eliminating several

regional economic issues under

socioeconomics that are not directly

related to environmental impacts, (5)

making minor changes to the grouping

of issues under aquatic ecology and

groundwater, (6) identifying collective

offsite radiological impacts associated

with the fuel cycle and all impacts of

high level waste and spent fuel disposal

as separate issues, and (7) adding

environmental justice as an issue for

consideration.

Of the 92 issues in the final rule, 68

issues were found to be adequately

addressed in the GEIS, and therefore,

additional assessment will not be

required in a plant-specific review.

Twenty-four issues were found to

require additional assessment for at

least some plants at the time of the

license renewal review. In the final rule,

the 2 issues in the proposed rule that

would have required review for all

plants are now included in the set of 24

issues of the final rule.

Public comments on the adequacy of

the analysis for each issue were

considered by the NRC staff. Any

changes to the analyses and findings

that were determined to be warranted

were made in the final GEIS and

incorporated in the rule. Several

changes were made to the procedural

features of the proposed rule in

response to comments by the Council on

Environmental Quality, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and a

number of State agencies. First, the NRC

will prepare a supplemental sitespecific environmental impact

statement (SEIS), rather than an

environmental assessment (as initially

proposed), for each license renewal

application. The SEIS will be issued for

public comment as part of the

individual plant review process. The

NRC will delay any conclusions

regarding the acceptability of the overall

impacts of the license renewal until

completion of the site-specific review.

In addition, the SEIS will be prepared

in accordance with existing public

scoping requirements. The NRC will

also review and consider any new and

significant information presented during

the review of individual license renewal

applications. In addition, any person

may challenge the validity of the

conclusions codified in the rule by

filing a petition for rulemaking pursuant

to 10 CFR 2.802. Finally, the NRC will

review the rule and the GEIS on a

schedule that allows revisions, if

required, every 10 years. This review

will be initiated approximately 7 years

after the completion of the previous

revision cycle.

In addition to the changes involving

public participation, this final rule also

contains several changes regarding the

scope of analysis and conclusions in the

rule and GEIS. The conditional costbenefit balance has been removed from

the GEIS and the rule. In place of the

cost-benefit balancing, the NRC will use

a new standard that will require a

determination of whether or not the

adverse environmental impacts of

license renewal are so great, compared

with the set of alternatives, that

preserving the option of license renewal

for future decisionmakers would be

unreasonable. The final amendment also

eliminates NRC’s consideration of the

need for generating capacity and the

preparation of power demand forecasts

for license renewal applications. The

NRC acknowledges the primacy of State

regulators and utility officials in

defining energy requirements and

determining the energy mix within their

jurisdictions. Therefore, the issue of

need for power and generating capacity

will no longer be considered in NRC’s

license renewal decisions. The final

GEIS has been revised to include an

explicit statement of purpose and need

for license renewal consistent with this

acknowledgment. Lastly, the final rule

has eliminated the consideration of

utility economics from license renewal

reviews under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

except when such benefits and costs are

either essential for a determination

regarding the inclusion of an alternative
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28469

in the range of alternatives considered

or relevant to mitigation. These and

other features of the final rule are

explained in detail below.

The NRC is soliciting public comment

on this rule for a period of 30 days. In

developing any comment specific

attention should be given 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. Absent a determination by the NRC

that the rule should be modified, based

on comments received, the final rule

shall be effective on August 5, 1996.

II. 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, the NRC

determined that, in addition to the

development of license renewal

regulations focused on the protection of

health and safety, an amendment to its

environmental protection regulations in

10 CFR part 51 was warranted.

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 was

published on September 17, 1991 (56 FR

47016). The same Federal Register

notice described the supporting

documents that were available and

announced a public workshop to be

held on November 4–5, 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 NRC

exchanged letters with the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to address their concerns about

procedural aspects of the proposed rule.

The Commission also decided that the

staff should discuss with the States the

concerns raised in comments 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

staff 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

notice published on January 18, 1994

(59 FR 2542) announced the scheduling

of three regional workshops during

February 1994 and the availability of the

options paper. A fourth public meeting

on the State concerns was held in May

1994 in order for the NRC staff to better

understand written proposals that had

been submitted by two industry

organizations after the regional

workshops. After considering the

comments from the workshops and the

written comments, the NRC staff issued

a proposed supplement to the proposed

rule published on July 25, 1994 (59 FR

37724), that it believed would resolve

the States’ concerns regarding the

Commission’s consideration of need for

power and utility economics. Comments

were requested on this proposal. The

discussion below contains an analysis of

these comments and other comments

submitted in response to the proposed

rule.

III. Analysis of Public Comments

The analysis of public comments and

the NRC’s responses to these comments

are documented in NUREG–1529,

‘‘Public Comments on the Proposed 10

CFR part 51 Rule for Renewal of Nuclear

Power Plant Operating Licenses and

Supporting Documents: Review of

Concerns and NRC Staff Response’’

(May 1996). The extent of comments

received during the various stages of the

rulemaking process and the principal

concerns raised by the commenters,

along with the corresponding NRC

responses to these concerns, are

discussed below.

A. Commenters

In response to the Federal Register

notice on the proposed rule published

on September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47016),

68 organizations and 49 private citizens

submitted written comments. The 68

organizations included 5 Federal

agencies; 26 State, regional, and local

agencies; 19 nuclear industry

organizations and engineering firms; 3

law firms; and 15 public interest groups.

Before the close of the initial comment

period, the NRC conducted a 2-day

workshop on November 4–5, 1991, in

Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the

proposed rule. Representatives from

Federal agencies, State agencies,

utilities, engineering firms, law firms,

and public interest groups attended the

workshop. Workshop panelists included

the NRC staff as well as representatives

from the Department of Energy (DOE),

Department of Interior (DOI),

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ), several State agencies,

the nuclear industry, and public interest

groups.

In February 1994, the NRC conducted

three public meetings to solicit views on

the NRC staff’s options for addressing

the need for generating capacity,

alternative energy sources, economic

costs, and cost-benefit analysis in the

proposed rule. The intent to hold public

meetings and the availability of the

options paper was noticed in the

Federal Register on January 12, 1994

(59 FR 2542). Written comments were

also solicited on the options paper. The

public meetings were held in Rockville,

Maryland; Rosemont, Illinois; and

Chicopee, Massachusetts.
28470 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Representatives from several States, the

National Association of Regulatory

Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the

nuclear industry, and public interest

groups actively participated. Nineteen

separate written comments were also

submitted, primarily by the States and

the nuclear industry. In their submittals,

the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),

formerly known as the Nuclear

Management and Resources Council

(NUMARC), and Yankee Atomic Electric

Company (YAEC) each proposed an

approach to handling the issues of need

for generating capacity and alternative

energy sources in the rule. For the NRC

staff to better understand these

proposals, an additional public meeting

was held with NEI and YAEC on May

16, 1994, in Rockville, Maryland.

After considering the public

comments on the NRC staff’s options

paper, the NRC issued a proposed

supplement to the proposed rule; it was

published in the Federal Register on

July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37724). The

proposed supplement set forth the NRC

staff’s approach to the treatment of need

for generating capacity and alternative

energy sources, as well as the staff’s

revision to the purpose of and need for

the proposed action (i.e., license

renewal), which was intended to satisfy

the States’ concerns and to meet NEPA

requirements. Twenty separate written

comments were received in response to

this solicitation from Federal and State

agencies, the nuclear industry, a public

interest group, and two private citizens.

B. Procedural Concerns

The commenters on the proposed rule

raised significant concerns regarding the

following procedural aspects of the rule:

(1) State and public participation in

the license renewal process and the

periodic assessment of the GEIS

findings;

(2) The use of economic costs and

cost-benefit balancing; and

(3) Consideration of the need for

generating capacity and alternative

energy sources in the environmental

review of license renewal applications.

Each of these concerns and the NRC

response is discussed below.

1. Public Participation and the Periodic

Assessment of the Rule and the GEIS

Concern. Many commenters criticized

the draft GEIS finding that 80 of 104

environmental issues could be

generically applied to all plants and,

therefore, would not be subject to plantspecific review at the time of license

renewal. As a consequence, these

commenters believe they are being

denied the opportunity to participate in

the license renewal process. Moreover,

they pointed out that the site-specific

nature of many important

environmental issues does not justify a

generic finding, particularly when the

finding would have been made 20 years

in advance of the decision to renew an

operating license. The commenters

believe that only a site-specific EIS to

support a license renewal decision

would satisfy NEPA requirements.

Federal and State agencies questioned

how new scientific information could be

folded into the GEIS findings because

the GEIS would have been performed so

far in advance of the actual renewal of

an operating license. There were

differing views on exactly how the NRC

should address this question. A group of

commenters, including CEQ and EPA,

noted that the rigidity of the proposed

rule hampers the NRC’s ability to

respond to new information or to

different environmental issues not listed

in the proposed rule. They believe that

incorporation of new information can

only be achieved through the process of

amending the rules. One commenter

recommended that, if the NRC decides

to pursue the approach of making

generic findings based on the GEIS, the

frequency of review and update should

be specifically stated in the rule.

Recommendations on the frequency of

the review ranged from 2 years to 5

years.

Response. In SECY–93–032, February

9, 1993, the NRC staff reported to the

Commission their discussions with CEQ

and EPA regarding the concerns these

agencies raised, which were also raised

by other commenters, about limiting

public comment and the consideration

of significant new information in

individual license renewal

environmental reviews. The focus of the

commenters concerns is the limited

nature of the site-specific reviews

contemplated under the proposed rule.

In response, the NRC has reviewed the

generic conclusions in the draft rule,

expanded the opportunity for sitespecific review, and confirmed that

what remains as generic is so. Also, the

framework for consideration of

significant new information has been

revised and expanded.

The major changes adopted as a result

of these discussions are as follows:

1. The NRC will prepare a

supplemental site-specific EIS, rather

than an environmental assessment (as

initially proposed), for each license

renewal application. This SEIS will be

a supplement to the GEIS. Additionally,

the NRC will review comments on the

draft SEIS and determine whether such

comments introduce new and

significant information not considered

in the GEIS analysis. All comments on

the applicability of the analyses of

impacts codified in the rule and the

analysis contained in the draft

supplemental EIS will be addressed by

NRC in the final supplemental EIS in

accordance with 40 CFR 1503.4,

regardless of whether the comment is

directed to impacts in Category 1 or 2.

Such comments will be addressed in the

following manner:

a. NRC’s response to a comment

regarding the applicability of the

analysis of an impact codified in the

rule to the plant in question may be a

statement and explanation of its view

that the analysis is adequate including,

if applicable, consideration of the

significance of new information. A

commenter dissatisfied with such a

response may file a petition for

rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. If the

commenter is successful in persuading

the Commission that the new

information does indicate that the

analysis of an impact codified in the

rule is incorrect in significant respects

(either in general or with respect to the

particular plant), a rulemaking

proceeding will be initiated.

b. If a commenter provides new

information which is relevant to the

plant and is also relevant to other plants

(i.e., generic information) and that

information demonstrates that the

analysis of an impact codified in the

final rule is incorrect, the NRC staff will

seek Commission approval to either

suspend the application of the rule on

a generic basis with respect to the

analysis or delay granting the renewal

application (and possibly other renewal

applications) until the analysis in the

GEIS is updated and the rule amended.

If the rule is suspended for the analysis,

each supplemental EIS would reflect the

corrected analysis until such time as the

rule is amended.

c. If a commenter provides new, sitespecific information which

demonstrates that the analysis of an

impact codified in the rule is incorrect

with respect to the particular plant, the

NRC staff will seek Commission

approval to waive the application of the

rule with respect to that analysis in that

specific renewal proceeding. The

supplemental EIS would reflect the

corrected analysis as appropriate.

2. The final rule and the GEIS will not

include conditional cost-benefit

conclusions or conclusions about

alternatives. Conclusions relative to the

overall environmental impacts

including cumulative impacts will be

left entirely to each site-specific SEIS.

3. After consideration of the changes

from the proposed rule to the final rule

and further review of the environmental

issues, the NRC has concluded that it is
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28471

adequate to formally review the rule and

the GEIS on a schedule that allows

revisions, if required, every 10 years.

The NRC believes that 10 years is a

suitable period considering the extent of

the review and the limited

environmental impacts observed thus

far, and given that the changes in the

environment around nuclear power

plants are gradual and predictable with

respect to characteristics important to

environmental impact analyses. This

review will be initiated approximately 7

years after completion of the last cycle.

The NRC will conduct this review to

determine what, if anything, in the rule

requires revision.

Concern. As part of their comments

on the July 1994 Federal Register

notice, NEI, several utilities, and the

DOE asked that the NRC reconsider its

understanding with CEQ and EPA

regarding the preparation of a sitespecific supplemental EIS for each

license renewal action. These

commenters supported an approach that

would allow the preparation of an

environmental assessment for reviewing

the environmental impacts of license

renewal.

Response. The NRC does not agree

with this position. The NRC believes

that it is reasonable to expect that an

assessment of the full set of

environmental impacts associated with

an additional 20 years of operation of

any plant would not result in a ‘‘finding

of no significant impact.’’ Therefore, the

review for any plant would involve an

environmental impact statement.

2. Economic Costs and Cost-Benefit

Balancing

Concern. State, Federal, and utility

representatives expressed concern about

the use of economic costs and costbenefit balancing in the proposed rule

and the draft GEIS. Commenters

criticized the NRC’s heavy emphasis on

economic analysis and the use of

economic decision criteria. They argued

that the regulatory authority over utility

economics falls within the States’

jurisdiction and to some extent within

the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission. Commenters

also believe that the cost-benefit

balancing used in the proposed rule and

the draft GEIS went beyond NEPA

requirements and CEQ regulations (40

CFR Parts 1500 to 1508). They noted

that CEQ regulations interpret NEPA to

require only an assessment of the

cumulative effects of a proposed Federal

action on the natural and man-made

environment.

Response. In response to these

concerns, the NRC has eliminated the

use of cost-benefit analysis and

consideration of utility economics in its

NEPA review of a license renewal

application except when such 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. As discussed in more detail

in the following section, the NRC

recognizes that the determination of the

economic viability of continuing the

operation of a nuclear power plant is an

issue that should be left to appropriate

State regulatory and utility officials.

3. Need for Generating Capacity and

Alternative Energy Sources

Concern. In their comments on the

proposed rule and the draft GEIS,

several States expressed concern that

the NRC’s analysis of need for

generating capacity would preempt or

prejudice State energy planning

decisions. They argued that the

determination of need for generating

capacity has always been the States’

responsibility. Recommendations on

how to address this issue ranged from

withdrawing the proposed rule to

changing the categorization of the issue

so that a site-specific review can be

performed, thus allowing for meaningful

State and public participation. Almost

all the concerned States called on the

NRC to modify the rule to state

explicitly that NRC’s analysis does not

preempt a State’s jurisdiction over the

determination of need for generating

capacity.

Regarding the issue of alternative

energy sources, several commenters

contended that the site-specific nature

of the alternatives to license renewal did

not justify the generic finding in the

GEIS. One significant concern about this

finding is the States’ perception that a

generic finding, in effect, preempts the

States’ responsibility to decide on the

appropriate mix of energy alternatives

in their respective jurisdictions.

Three regional public meetings were

held during the February 1994 to

discuss the concerns of the States. At

these meetings, and later in written

comments, the State of New York

proposed an approach to resolve the

problem. The approach was endorsed by

several other States. This approach had

three major conditions:

(1) A statement in the rule that the

NRC’s findings on need and alternatives

are only intended to satisfy the NEPA

requirements and do not preclude the

States from making their own

determination with respect to these

issues;

(2) The designation of the need for

generating capacity and alternative

energy sources as Category 3 (i.e.,

requiring site-specific evaluation); and

(3) A requirement that all site-specific

EISs and relicensing decisions reference

State determinations of need for

generating capacity and alternative

energy sources, and that they defer to

those State determinations to the

maximum extent possible.

Response. After consideration, the

NRC staff did not accept all elements of

the States’ approach because the

approach would have continued to

require the NRC to consider the need for

generating capacity and utility

economics as part of its environmental

analysis. In addition, the approach

would have required the NRC to

develop guidelines for determining the

acceptability of State economic

analyses, which some States may have

viewed as an intrusion on their

planning process.

The NRC staff developed and

recommended another approach, which

was published on July 25, 1994 (59 FR

37724), after consideration of

information gathered at the regional

meetings and from the written

comments. This approach, which

borrows some elements from NEI and

YAEC proposals, has five major features:

(1) Neither the rule nor the GEIS

would contain a consideration of the

need for generating capacity or other

issues involving the economic costs and

benefits of license renewal and of the

associated alternatives;

(2) The purpose and need for the

proposed action (i.e., license renewal)

would be defined as preserving the

continued operation of a nuclear power

plant as a safe option that State

regulators and utility officials may

consider in their future planning

actions;

(3) The only alternative to the

proposed action would be the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative, and the

environmental consequences of this

alternative are the impacts of a range of

energy sources that might be used if a

nuclear power plant operating license

were not renewed;

(4) The environmental review for

license renewal would include a

comparison of the environmental

impacts of license renewal with impacts

of the range of energy sources that may

be chosen in the case of ‘‘no action’’;

and

(5) The NRC’s NEPA decision

standard for license renewal would

require the NRC to determine whether

the environmental impacts of license

renewal are so great that preserving the

option of license renewal for future

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
28472 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

The statement that the use of

economic costs will be eliminated in

this approach refers to the ultimate

NEPA decision regarding the

comparison of alternatives and the

proposed action. This approach does

not preclude a consideration of

economic costs if these costs are

essential to a determination regarding

the inclusion of an alternative in the

range of alternatives considered (i.e., an

alternative’s exorbitant cost could

render it nonviable and unworthy of

further consideration) or relevant to

mitigation of environmental impacts.

Also, the two local tax issues and the

two economic structure issues under

socioeconomics in the table would be

removed from consideration when

applying the decision standard.

Concern. Comments received from

several States on the NRC staff’s July

1994 recommended approach ranged

from rejection to endorsement. Some

States supported the three conditions

proposed by the State of New York.

Several States were still concerned

about whether a meaningful analysis of

need for generating capacity and

alternative energy sources could be

undertaken 20 years ahead of time. One

State asked that the proposed rule be

withdrawn. Another State wanted the

proposed rule to be reissued for public

comment. CEQ supported the approach

proposed by the State of New York. CEQ

believed that the NRC’s recommended

approach was in conflict with the NEPA

process because the proposed statement

of purpose and need for the proposed

action was too narrow and did not

provide for an appropriate range of

alternatives to the underlying need for

the proposed action. CEQ wanted the

NRC to address other energy sources as

separate alternatives, rather than as

consequences of the no-action

alternative. Moreover, CEQ stated that

the proposed decision standard places a

‘‘weighty and improper burden of

proof’’ on consideration of the

alternative. The EPA endorsed CEQ’s

comments. In general, the nuclear

industry was supportive of the

recommended approach. However, NEI

and the utilities strongly expressed the

opinion that, with the redefined

statement of purpose and need,

alternative energy sources would no

longer be alternatives to the proposed

action and, therefore, need not be

considered.

Response. After consideration of the

comments received on the

Commission’s July 1994 proposal, the

Commission has modified and clarified

its approach in order to address the

concerns of CEQ relative to

consideration of appropriate alternatives

and the narrow definition of purpose

and need. These modifications and

clarifications addressed the States’

concerns relative to treatment of need

for generating capacity and alternatives.

Specifically, the Commission has

clarified the purpose and need for

license renewal in the GEIS as follows:

The purpose and need for the proposed

action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power

generation capability beyond the term of a

current nuclear power plant operating license

to meet future system generating needs, as

such needs may be determined by State,

utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other

than NRC) decisionmakers.

Using this definition of the purpose of

and need for the proposed action, which

stresses options for the generation of

power, the environmental review will

include a characterization of alternative

energy sources as being the alternatives

to license renewal and not merely the

consequences of the no-action

alternative and, thus, it addresses CEQ’s

concern that the scope of the

alternatives analysis is unacceptably

restricted.

With respect to the States’ concerns

regarding need for generating capacity

analysis, the NRC will neither perform

analyses of the need for power nor draw

any conclusions about the need for

generating capacity in a license renewal

review. This definition of purpose and

need reflects the Commission’s

recognition that, absent findings in the

safety review required by the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or in

the NEPA environmental analysis that

would lead the NRC to reject a license

renewal application, the NRC has no

role in the energy planning decisions of

State regulators and utility officials.

From the perspective of the licensee and

the State regulatory authority, the

purpose of renewing an operating

license is to maintain the availability of

the nuclear plant to meet system energy

requirements beyond the term of the

plant’s current license. The underlying

need that will be met by the continued

availability of the nuclear plant is

defined by various operational and

investment objectives of the licensee.

Each of these objectives may be dictated

by State regulatory requirements or

strongly influenced by State energy

policy and programs. In cases of

interstate generation or other special

circumstances, Federal agencies such as

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) or the Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA) may be

involved in making these decisions. The

objectives of the various entities

involved may include lower energy cost,

increased efficiency of energy

production and use, reliability in the

generation and distribution of electric

power, improved fuel diversity within

the State, and environmental objectives

such as improved air quality and

minimized land use.

The consideration of alternatives has

been shifted to the site-specific review.

The rule contains no information or

conclusions regarding the

environmental impacts of alternative

energy sources, it only indicates that the

environmental impact of alternatives

will be considered during the individual

plant review. However, the GEIS

contains a discussion of the

environmental impacts of alternative

energy sources based on currently

available information. The information

in the GEIS is available for use by the

NRC and the licensee in performing the

site-specific analysis of alternatives and

will be updated as appropriate. For

individual plant reviews, information

codified in the rule, information

developed in the GEIS, and any

significant new information introduced

during the plant-specific review,

including any information received

from the State, will be considered in

reaching conclusions in the

supplemental EIS. The NRC’s sitespecific comparison of the impacts of

license renewal with impacts of

alternative energy sources will involve

consideration of information provided

by State agencies and other members of

the public. This approach should satisfy

the States’ concerns relative to a

meaningful analysis of alternative

energy sources.

The Commission disagrees with

CEQ’s assertion that the new decision

standard is inappropriate. Under this

decision standard, the NRC must

determine if the adverse environmental

impacts of license renewal are so great

that preserving the option of license

renewal for energy planning

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

The Commission expects that license

renewal would be denied only if the

expected environmental effects of

license renewal significantly exceed all

or almost all alternatives. The

Commission believes that this is a

reasonable approach to addressing the

issue of environmental impacts of

license renewal, given NRC’s limited

role in the area of energy systems

planning. The operation of a nuclear

power plant beyond its initial license

term involves separate regulatory

actions, one taken by the utility and the

NRC, and the other taken by the utility

and the State regulatory authorities. The

decision standard would be used by

NRC to determine whether, from an

environmental perspective, it is
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28473

reasonable to renew the operating

license and allow State and utility

decisionmakers the option of

considering a currently operating

nuclear power plant as an alternative for

meeting future energy needs. The test of

reasonableness focuses on an analysis of

whether the environmental impacts

anticipated for continued operation

during the term of the renewed license

reasonably compare with the impacts

that are expected from the set of

alternatives considered for meeting

generating requirements. The NRC

would reject a license renewal

application if the analysis demonstrated

that the adverse environmental impacts

of the individual license renewal were

so great that preserving the option of

license renewal for energy planning

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

After the NRC makes its decision

based on the safety and environmental

considerations, the final decision on

whether or not to continue operating the

nuclear plant will be made by the

utility, State, and Federal (non-NRC)

decisionmakers. This final decision will

be based on economics, energy

reliability goals, and other objectives

over which the other entities may have

jurisdiction. The NRC has no authority

or regulatory control over the ultimate

selection of future energy alternatives.

Likewise, the NRC has no regulatory

power to ensure that environmentally

superior energy alternatives are used in

the future. Given the absence of the

NRC’s authority in the general area of

energy planning, the NRC’s rejection of

a license renewal application based on

the existence of a single superior

alternative does not guarantee that such

an alternative will be used. In fact, it is

conceivable that the rejection of a

license renewal application by the NRC

in favor of an individual alternative may

lead to the implementation of another

alternative that has even greater

environmental impacts than the

proposed action, license renewal.

Given the uncertainties involved and

the lack of control that the NRC has in

the choice of energy alternatives in the

future, the Commission believes that it

is reasonable to exercise its NEPA

authority to reject license renewal

applications only when it has

determined that the impacts of license

renewal sufficiently exceed the impacts

of all or almost all of the alternatives

that preserving the option of license

renewal for future decision makers

would be unreasonable. Because the

objectives of the utility and State

decisionmakers will ultimately be the

determining factors in whether a

nuclear power plant will continue to

operate, NRC’s proposed decision

standard is appropriate. The decision

standard will not affect the scope or

rigor of NRC’s analyses, including the

consideration of the environmental

impacts relevant to the license renewal

decision and associated alternatives.

The NRC staff believes that, under the

circumstances, the decision standard

does not place ‘‘a weighty and improper

burden of proof’’ on other alternatives as

CEQ claims.

With respect to the industry’s desire

to eliminate consideration of alternative

energy sources, the Commission does

not agree. The Commission does not

support the views of NEI and others that

alternative energy sources need not be

considered in the environmental review

for license renewal. The Commission is

not prepared to state that no nuclear

power plant will fall well outside the

range of other reasonably available

alternatives far in advance of an actual

relicensing decision. Following NEI’s

suggestion would not lead to a

meaningful set of alternatives with

which to compare a proposed action.

The Commission has always held the

view that alternative sources of energy

should be compared with license

renewal and continued operation of a

nuclear power plant.

Lastly, the Commission does not

believe it is necessary to reissue this

rule for public comment as a State

commenter requested. The Commission

has taken many measures to involve the

public concerning the resolution of

public comments on the proposed rule.

The Commission has conducted a

number of public meetings and

published for public comment its

recommended procedural revisions to

the proposed rule. The Commission

believes that modifications made to the

proposed rule reflect the logical

outgrowth of the proposed rule based on

the public comments received by the

Commission.

C. Technical Concerns

1. Category and Impact Magnitude

Definitions

Concerns. Many commenters

expressed concern that the category

definitions and the impact-significance

definitions were ambiguous and

appeared somewhat interconnected. The

EPA expressed concern that mitigation

of adverse impacts was not addressed

adequately.

Commenters expressed a number of

concerns about the use of the

applicability categories and the

magnitude-level categories. With respect

to the applicability categories, concerns

ranged from a general concern that

Category 1 precludes or hinders public

involvement in an issue at the time of

the plant-specific review to specific

concerns about the technical adequacy

of the analysis supporting a Category 1

finding for an issue. Several

commenters believed that the

definitions create confusion, especially

as to whether the finding of small

impact and Category 1 are

interdependent. The GEIS appears to

use Category 1 and ‘‘small’’

interchangeably. Concern was also

expressed that the requirement to

consider mitigative actions was

inadequately addressed in the draft

GEIS and proposed rule.

Response. To reduce potential

confusion over the definitions, the use

of the categories, and the treatment of

mitigation within the context of the

categorization scheme, the NRC has

revised the definitions to eliminate any

ambiguity as to how they are used.

Further, the GEIS has been modified to

clearly state the reasons behind the

category and magnitude findings.

In order to facilitate understanding of

the modifications to the GEIS, the

previous approach is discussed as

follows. In the proposed rule and the

draft GEIS, findings about the

environmental impact associated with

each issue were divided into three

categories of applicability to individual

plant reviews. These categories were:

• Category 1: A generic conclusion on

the impact has been reached for all

affected nuclear power plants.

• Category 2: A generic conclusion on

the impact has been reached for affected

nuclear power plants that fall within

defined bounds.

• Category 3: A generic conclusion on

the impact was not reached for any

affected nuclear power plants.

The significance of the magnitude of

the impact for each issue was expressed

as one of the three following levels.

• Small impacts are so minor that

they warrant neither detailed

investigation nor consideration of

mitigative actions when such impacts

are negative.

• Moderate impacts are likely to be

clearly evident and usually warrant

consideration of mitigation alternatives

when such impacts are negative.

• Large impacts involve either a

severe penalty or a major benefit, and

mitigation alternatives are always

considered when such impacts are

negative.

With respect to the categories of

applicability, under the proposed rule

applicants would have:

(1) Not provided additional analyses

of Category 1 issues;

(2) Not provided additional analyses

if their plant falls within the bounds
28474 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

defined in the rule for a Category 2

issue;

(3) Provided additional plant-specific

analyses if their plant does not fall

within the bounds defined in the rule

for a Category 2 issue; and

(4) Provided plant-specific analyses of

Category 3 issues.

In order to address the comments on

these magnitude and category

definitions, the GEIS has been modified

to clearly state the reasons behind the

category and magnitude findings.

The revised definitions are listed

below.

• 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 plantspecific 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. Issues for which the impact was

found to be favorable were also defined

to be Category 1 issues.

• Category 2: For the issue, the

analysis reported in the GEIS has shown

that one or more of the criteria of

Category 1 cannot be met and, therefore,

additional plant-specific review is

required.

If, for an environmental issue, the

three Category 1 criteria apply to all

plants, that issue is Category 1 and the

generic analysis should be used in a

license renewal review for all plant

applications. If the three Category 1

criteria apply to a subset of plants that

are readily defined by a common plant

characteristic, notably the type of

cooling system, the population of plants

is partitioned into the set of plants with

the characteristic and the set without

the characteristic. For the set of plants

with the characteristic, the issue is

Category 1 and the generic analysis

should be used in the license renewal

review for those plants. For the set of

plants without the characteristic, the

issue is Category 2 and a site-specific

analysis for that issue will be performed

as part of the license renewal review.

The review of a Category 2 issue may

focus on the particular aspect of the

issue that causes the Category 1 criteria

not to be met. For example, severe

accident mitigation under the issue

‘‘severe accidents’’ is the focus for a

plant-specific review because the other

aspects of the issue, specifically the

offsite consequences, have been

adequately addressed in the GEIS. With

the revised definitions, the two issues

previously designated as Category 3 are

now designated Category 2. For an issue

to be a Category 1, current mitigation

practices and the nature of the impact

were considered and a determination

was made that it is unlikely that

additional measures will be sufficiently

beneficial. In the GEIS, in discussing the

impacts for each issue, consideration

was given to what is known about

current mitigation practices.

The definitions of the significance

level of an environmental impact have

been revised to make the consideration

of the potential for mitigating an impact

separate from the analysis leading to a

conclusion about the significance level

of the impact. Further, the significance

level of an impact is now more clearly

tied to sustaining specific attributes of

the affected resource that are important

to its viability, health or usefulness.

General definitions of small, moderate

and large significance levels are given

below. These definitions are adapted to

accommodate the resource attributes of

importance for each of the

environmental issues in the GEIS. The

definition of ‘‘small’’ clarifies the

meaning of the term as it applies to

radiological impacts. The definition of

‘‘small’’ in the proposed rule did not

logically apply to such impacts.

The general definitions of significance

level are:

• 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.

• 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.

The discussion of each environmental

issue in the GEIS includes an

explanation of how the significance

category was determined. For issues in

which probability of occurrence is a key

consideration (i.e., accident

consequences), the probability of

occurrence has been factored into the

determination of significance. The

determination of the significance

category was made independently of the

consideration of the potential benefit of

additional mitigation.

The major concerns (organized by

topical areas) about the environmental

issues examined in the draft GEIS and

the NRC staff’s response to those

concerns are summarized next.

2. Surface Water Quality

Concern. Several commenters

expressed concerns related to the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permitting

process for surface water discharge.

They believe that the NRC may have

overlooked its legal obligation to

comply with Section 401 of the Clean

Water Act (CWA). Their

recommendations included withholding

approval for license renewal until a

facility has complied with Section 401

and treating license renewal as an

opportunity for a new NEPA review. On

the other hand, other commenters

recommended decoupling the NRC

relicensing process from the NPDES

permitting process.

Response. In issuing individual

license renewals, the Commission will

comply, as has been its practice, with

the provisions of Section 401 of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (see

10 CFR 51.45(d) and 51.71(c)). In

addition, pursuant to Section 511(c) of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

of 1972, the Commission cannot

question or reexamine the effluent

limitations or other requirements in

permits issued by the relevant

permitting authorities. Nevertheless,

compliance with the environmental

quality standards and requirements of

these permits does not negate the

requirement for the Commission to

consider all environmental effects of the

proposed action. Accordingly, the

Commission has not only taken existing

permits into account in its analysis of

the water quality impacts of license

renewal but has also considered

information on actual operating impacts

collected from individual plants, State

and Federal regulatory agencies, and

published literature. As a result of this

analysis, the Commission has concluded

that the environmental impacts on

surface water quality are small for those

effluents subject to existing permit or

certification requirements. A total

decoupling of the license renewal

process and the NPDES permitting

process is not appropriate because, for
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28475

issues with incomplete Clean Water Act

determinations, the NRC cannot

complete its weighing and balancing of

impacts without independently

addressing the issues.

Concern. Several commenters raised

concerns that various issues within the

Surface Water Quality topic should be

Category 2 or 3 issues. These included

water use conflicts as experienced in

Arizona and the Midwest, thermal

stratification and salinity gradients

associated with once-through cooling

systems, and the toxicity of biofouling

compounds.

Response. Regarding the water use

conflicts, the NRC has considered the

impacts of water use during the renewal

period and has concluded that these

impacts are small for plants with a oncethrough cooling system and that this is

a Category 1 issue for those plants.

However, this issue is designated

Category 2 for plants with cooling

towers and cooling ponds because, for

those plants, the impacts might be

moderate (they could also be small). In

either case, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(d),

an applicant for license renewal must

identify and indicate in its

environmental report the status of State

and local approvals regarding water use

issues. For those reactor sites where

thermal stratification or salinity gradient

was found to be the most pronounced,

the issues were reviewed during

preparation of the GEIS and found to be

acceptable by the States within the

NPDES process. No change in the

categorization in the GEIS would be

required. Similarly, the NPDES permit

for a facility establishes allowable

discharges, including biocides. The NRC

has no indication that residual

environmental impacts would occur as

a result of license renewal activities at

any nuclear plant site other than

perhaps water use conflicts arising at

plants with cooling ponds or cooling

towers using make-up water from a

small river with low flow. For those

plants, this issue is Category 2.

3. Aquatic Ecology

Concern. A number of comments

regarding the ecological impact of

cooling water withdrawal from aquatic

bodies were received. Specific concerns

included fish kills associated with the

entrainment and impingement of fish

within once-through and cooling pond

cooling systems, the use of chlorine and

molluscicides to control mussel and

clam growth, and the long-term effects

of heavy metal discharges from plants

with copper-nickel condenser tubes.

Another commenter noted that license

extension affords the opportunity to

review the intake and discharge

configuration of plant cooling water

systems, since the best available

technology that is economically

available may be different given the

additional 20 years of plant operating

life.

Response. The Commission has

considered the impacts of license

renewal on aquatic ecology and, in

doing so, has reviewed existing NPDES

permits and other information. Based on

this analysis, the Commission has

concluded that these impacts are small

with the exception that plants with

once-through cooling and cooling ponds

may have larger effects associated with

entrainment of fish and shellfish in

early life stages, impingement, and heat

shock. Agencies responsible for existing

permits are not constrained from

reexamining the permit issues if they

have reason to believe that the basis for

their issuance is no longer valid. The

Commission does not have authority

under NEPA to impose an effluent

limitation other than those established

in permits issued pursuant to the Clean

Water Act. The problem of the long-term

effects of heavy metal discharges from

plants with copper-nickel condenser

tubes has been found at only one plant.

The affected condenser tubes have been

replaced with tubing of a more

corrosion-resistant material.

Concern. A commenter pointed out

that the issue of riparian zones should

be addressed in the GEIS because the

vegetation region along a water course

can be affected by water withdrawal and

is important in maintaining the habitat.

Response. The NRC agrees with the

importance of addressing the impacts of

license renewal on the riparian habitat.

The final GEIS provides a discussion of

the riparian habitat as an important

resource and the potential effects of

consumptive water use on riparian

zones.

4. Groundwater Use and Quality

Concern. Several commenters

indicated that groundwater issues

should be reviewed on a site-specific

basis because of groundwater use

conflicts (in particular, the effect on

aquifer recharge of using surface water

for cooling water), opportunities for

saltwater intrusion, and concerns over

tritium found in wells at one site. On

the other hand, a commenter requested

that the issue of groundwater use for

cooling tower makeup water be changed

from Category 2 to Category 1 because

the issue is based solely on data from

Ranney wells at the Grand Gulf Nuclear

Station, where tests have shown that the

elevation of the water plain around

Grand Gulf is not dropping.

Response. Based on consideration of

comments, the issue of groundwater use

conflicts resulting from surface water

withdrawals for cooling tower makeup

water or cooling ponds is now Category

2 for plants withdrawing surface water

from small water bodies during low

flow conditions. The GEIS has

identified a potential reduction in

aquifer recharge as a result of competing

water use. These conflicts are already a

concern at two closed-cycle nuclear

power plants. The NRC does not agree

that saltwater intrusion should be

considered a Category 2 issue. When

saltwater intrusion has been a problem,

the major cause has been the large

consumption of groundwater by

agricultural and municipal users.

Groundwater consumption by nuclear

power plants is small by comparison

and does not contribute significantly to

the saltwater intrusion problem. With

regard to traces of tritium found in the

groundwater at one nuclear power

plant, the tritium was attributed to a

modification in the plant’s inlet and

discharge canal that did not take into

consideration a unique situation in

topology and groundwater flow. The

releases were minor and the situation

has been corrected.

Regarding the issue of the use of

groundwater for cooling water makeup,

the NRC has designated this issue as

Category 2 even though only the Grand

Gulf Nuclear Station is currently using

Ranney wells to withdraw groundwater.

This water intake does not conflict with

other groundwater uses in the area. It is

not possible to predict whether or not

water use conflicts will occur at the

Grand Gulf facility in the future. It is

also not possible to determine the

significance of the environmental

impacts associated with Ranney well

use at other nuclear plants that may

choose to adopt this method in the

future.

5. Terrestrial Ecology

Concern. Several commenters

recommended that the issue of bird

mortality resulting from collisions with

transmission lines, towers, or cooling

towers be characterized as a Category 2

issue. Such a characterization would

provide for a review of mitigation at

those plants with cooling towers that do

not have illumination and for power

plant transmission lines that transect

major flyways or that cross wetlands

used by large concentrations of birds.

Response. The NRC does not agree

with this recommendation. The GEIS

cites several studies that conclude that

bird mortalities resulting from collision

with transmission lines, towers, or

cooling towers are not significantly
28476 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

reducing bird populations. Mitigation

measures in place, such as safety lights,

were found adequate and additional

measures were not warranted.

Therefore, the issue remains a Category

1 issue because refurbishment will not

involve construction of any additional

transmission lines or natural draft

cooling towers.

Concern. One commenter expressed

concern that the GEIS analysis of land

use did not adequately encompass the

impact of onsite spent fuel storage on

land use and that the Category 1 finding

is questionable. A specific concern was

the potential need for the construction

of additional spent fuel storage facilities

associated with the license renewal

term, along with their associated

impacts on the terrestrial environment.

Response. The NRC does not agree

that there is a need to change the

Category 1 determination for onsite land

use. Waste management operations

could require the construction of

additional storage facilities and thus

adversely affect land use and terrestrial

ecology. However, experience has

shown that the land requirements

would be relatively small (less than 9

acres), impacts to land use and

terrestrial ecology would also be

relatively small, and the land that may

be used is already possessed by the

applicant; thus, its basic use would not

be altered. Onsite land use is Category

1. Terrestrial ecology with disturbance

of sensitive habitat is treated as a

separate issue and is Category 2.

6. Human Health

Concern. In the human health section

of the GEIS, the radiological impacts of

plant refurbishment and continued

operations during the license renewal

term to workers and the general public

were examined. Several commenters

indicated that it was inappropriate to

compare the radiation exposures

associated with license renewal to

natural background levels. These

commenters believed that the

appropriate argument should be that the

risks associated with the additional

exposures are so small that no

additional mitigative measures are

required.

Response. The NRC agrees that the

assessment of radiation exposure should

not be simply a comparison with

background radiation. In response to

comments on the draft generic

environmental impact statement and the

proposed rule, the standard defining a

small radiological impact has changed

from a comparison with background

radiation to sustained compliance with

the dose and release limits applicable to

the various stages of the fuel cycle. This

change is appropriate and strengthens

the criterion used to define a small

environmental impact for the reasons

that follow. The Atomic Energy Act

requires the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission to promulgate, inspect and

enforce standards that provide an

adequate level of protection of the

public health and safety and the

environment. The implementation of

these regulatory programs provides a

margin of safety. A review of the

regulatory requirements and the

performance of facilities provides the

bases to project continuation of

performance within regulatory

standards. For the purposes of assessing

radiological impacts, the Commission

has concluded that impacts are of small

significance if doses to individuals and

releases do not exceed the permissible

levels in the Commission’s regulations.

With respect to whether additional

mitigative measures are required, it

should be noted that in 10 CFR parts 20

and 50 there are provisions that

radiological impacts associated with

plant operation be reduced to levels as

low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

Concern. Several commenters

indicated that the GEIS needs a broader

treatment of uncertainty as it relates to

human health issues.

Response. The NRC agrees that there

is considerable uncertainty associated

with health effects, especially at low

occupational and public dose levels,

and particularly with respect to

electromagnetic fields. Health effect

estimates from radiation exposures are

based on the best scientific evidence

available and are considered to be

conservative estimates. Several sections

of the GEIS have been expanded to more

thoroughly explain how predicted

impacts could be affected by changes in

scientific information or standards.

Concern. One commenter indicated

that, in the GEIS and the proposed rule,

risk coefficients should have been used

for chemicals and radiation to obtain

upper bound risk estimates of cancer

incidence.

Response. The NRC does not agree

with this comment. In making

comparisons of alternatives,

comparisons of the central or best

estimates of impacts are consistent with

NEPA requirements because they

provide the fairest determination. The

GEIS is written using current,

Commission-approved risk estimators.

Concern. Two commenters expressed

concern regarding the GEIS conclusion

that the impact of radiation exposure to

the public is small, citing a study done

by the Massachusetts Department of

Public Health (MDPH). This study

concluded that adults who live within

10 miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power

Plant have a risk of contracting

leukemia four times greater than other

individuals.

Response. The NRC staff reviewed the

MDHP study and compared it with

various other studies. The results of the

study have been contradicted by a

National Cancer Institute (NCI) study

entitled ‘‘Cancer in Populations Living

Near Nuclear Facilities’’ (July 1990).

The NCI study, which included the

Pilgrim plant in its analysis, found no

reason to suggest that nuclear facilities

may be linked causally with excess

deaths from leukemia or from other

cancers. The findings of the NCI study

are consistent with the findings of

several similar epidemiological studies

in foreign countries and with the latest

conclusions of expert bodies such as the

National Research Council’s Committee

on the Biological Effects of Ionizing

Radiation. The NRC continues to base

its assessment of the health effects of

ionizing radiation on the overall body of

scientific knowledge and on the

recommendations of expert groups.

7. Socioeconomics

Concern. A commenter concerned

with historic preservation pointed out

that this issue must be addressed

through compliance with the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and

cannot be resolved generically.

Response. The NRC agrees with this

comment. Historical and archaeological

impacts have been changed from a

Category 1 to a Category 2 issue (that is,

it must be evaluated site-specifically).

Consultation with State historical

preservation offices and other

Government agencies, as required by

NHPA, must be undertaken to

determine whether protected historical

or archaeological resources are in areas

that might be disturbed during

refurbishment activities and operation

during the renewal period.

Concern. Several commenters

indicated that transportation issues

associated with refurbishment activities

should be changed from Category 3 to

Category 2 because the impacts will be

insignificant in the majority of cases.

One recommendation was to use a level

of service (LOS) determination for

specific plants as the bounding

criterion. The analysis would require

that LOS be determined for that part of

the refurbishment period during which

traffic not related to the plant is

expected to be the heaviest. Another

recommendation was to establish

bounding criteria based on past major

routine outages.

Response. The NRC agrees that use of

the LOS approach may prove to be
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28477

acceptable. Transportation still must be

reviewed on a plant-specific basis, that

is, it is a Category 2 issue (based on the

revised definition).

Concern. There were

recommendations to make the housing

impacts during refurbishment a

Category 1 issue instead of Category 2.

One commenter noted that the

construction period data used in the

analysis appears to overestimate the

impact on housing.

Response. The NRC does not agree

that this should be a Category 1 issue.

Although negligible housing impacts are

anticipated for most license renewals,

significant housing impacts have

occurred during a periodic plant outage

at one of the case plants studied for the

analysis. This issue is now a Category 2

issue because moderate and large

impacts on housing are possible

depending on local conditions (e.g.,

areas with extremely slow population

growth or areas with growth control

measures that limit housing

development).

8. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid

Waste Management

Concern. Wide-ranging concerns were

expressed in the comments on the

proposed rule and the draft GEIS about

the treatment of storage and disposal of

low-level waste (LLW), mixed waste,

spent fuel, nonradiological waste, and

the transportation of fuel and waste to

and from nuclear power plants as a

consequence of license renewal.

Concern was expressed about the

uncertain availability of disposal

facilities for LLW, mixed waste, and

spent fuel; the prospect of generation

and onsite storage of an additional 20

years output of waste; and the resulting

pressure that would be put on the States

to provide LLW disposal facilities.

Various commenters expressed concern

about the adequacy of the treatment of

the cost of waste management and the

implications for the economic viability

of license renewal. Numerous comments

were provided on updating and

clarifying data on waste management

presented in the draft GEIS. Finally,

various questions were raised about the

applicability of Table S–3 (10 CFR 51.51

Uranium fuel cycle environmental

data—Table S–3, Table of Uranium Fuel

Cycle Environmental Data) to the

management of waste generated as a

result of license renewal.

With regard to spent fuel, several

commenters expressed concern that dry

cask storage is not a proven technology

and that onsite storage of spent fuel

from an additional 20 years of plant

operation will present environmental

and safety problems. Therefore, onsite

storage of spent fuel should be

considered on a site-specific basis

within a plant license renewal review.

Response. The Commission

acknowledges that there is uncertainty

in the schedule of availability of

disposal facilities for LLW, mixed

waste, and spent fuel. However, the

Commission believes that there is

sufficient understanding of and

experience with the storage of LLW,

mixed waste, and spent fuel to conclude

that the waste generated at any plant as

a result of license renewal can be stored

safely and without significant

environmental impacts before

permanent disposal. In addition, the

Commission concluded that the

classification of storage and ultimate

disposal as a Category 1 issue is

appropriate because States are

proceeding, albeit slowly, with the

development of new disposal facilities;

LLW and mixed waste have been and

can be safely stored at reactor sites until

new disposal capacity becomes

available. Analyses to support this

conclusion are presented in Chapter 6 of

the final GEIS (NUREG–1437). The

following summary of the responses to

comments emphasizes the main features

of these analyses.

In the draft GEIS, the environmental

data in Table S–3 were discussed with

respect to applicability during the

license renewal period and

supplemented with an analysis of the

radiological release and dose

commitment data for radon-222 and

technetium-99. The proposed rule

would have had this discussion apply to

each plant at the time of its review for

license renewal.

Further, in the draft GEIS, Chapter 6,

‘‘Solid Waste Management,’’ covered the

generation of LLW, mixed waste, spent

fuel, and nonradiological waste as a

result of license renewal; the

transportation of the radiological waste;

and the environmental impacts of waste

management, including storage and

disposal. The findings that were to have

been codified in the rule were that, for

nonradiological waste, mixed waste,

spent fuel, and transportation, the

environmental impacts are of small

significance and that the analysis in the

GEIS applies to each plant (Category 1).

For LLW, the finding that would have

been codified in the rule was that, if an

applicant does not have access to a lowlevel radioactive waste disposal facility

through a low-level waste compact or an

unaffiliated State, the applicant must

present plans for interim waste storage

with an assessment of potential

ecological habitat destruction caused by

construction activities (Category 2).

In response to the questions about the

applicability of Table S–3 to the

management of waste associated with

license renewal and to the various

comments challenging the treatment of

the several forms of waste in the draft

GEIS and in the proposed rule, the

discussion of Table S–3 has been moved

from Section 4.8 of the draft GEIS to

Chapter 6 of the final GEIS in order to

provide a more integrated assessment of

the environmental impacts associated

with waste management as a

consequence of license renewal. Also in

response to various comments, the

discussion of Table S–3 and of each of

the types of waste has been expanded.

Supplemental data are presented in

Chapter 6 of the final GEIS in order to

extend the coverage of the

environmental impacts of the uranium

fuel cycle presented in the current Table

S–3 and of transportation of radioactive

waste presented in the current Table S–

4 to radon-222, technetium-99, higher

fuel enrichment, and higher fuel

burnup. In part, the current Table S–3

and the data supplementing it cover

environmental impacts of:

(1) Onsite storage of spent fuel

assemblies in pools for 10 years,

packaging and transportation to a

Federal repository, and permanent

disposal; and

(2) Short-term storage onsite of LLW,

packaging and transportation to a landburial facility, and permanent disposal.

The following conclusions have been

drawn with regard to the environmental

impacts associated with the uranium

fuel cycle.

The radiological and nonradiological

environmental impacts of the uranium

fuel cycle have been reviewed. The

review included a discussion of the

values presented in Table S–3, an

assessment of the release and impact of

222Rn and of 99Tc, and a review of the

regulatory standards and experience of

fuel cycle facilities. For the purpose of

assessing the radiological impacts of

license renewal the Commission uses

the standard that the impacts are of

small significance if doses and releases

do not exceed permissible levels in the

Commission’s regulations. Given the

available information regarding the

compliance of fuel cycle facilities with

applicable regulatory requirements, the

Commission has concluded that, other

than for the disposal of spent fuel and

high-level waste, these impacts on

individuals from radioactive gaseous

and liquid releases will remain at or

below the Commission’s regulatory

limits. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that offsite radiological

impacts of the fuel cycle (individual

effects from other than the disposal of
28478 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

spent fuel and high-level waste) are

small. ALARA efforts will continue to

apply to fuel cycle activities. This is a

Category 1 issue.

The radiological impacts of the

uranium fuel cycle on human

populations over time (collective

effects) have been considered within the

framework of Table S–3. The 100 year

environmental dose commitment to the

U.S. population from the fuel cycle,

high level waste and spent fuel disposal

excepted, is calculated to be about

14,800 man-rem, or 12 cancer fatalities,

for each additional 20 year power

reactor operating term. Much of this,

especially the contribution of radon

releases from mines and tailing piles,

consists of tiny doses summed over

large populations. This same dose

calculation can theoretically be

extended to include many tiny doses

over additional thousands of years as

well as doses outside the U.S. The result

of such a calculation would be

thousands of cancer fatalities from the

fuel cycle, but this result assumes that

even tiny doses have some statistical

adverse health effect which will not

ever be mitigated (for example no cancer

cure in the next thousand years), and

that these dose projections over

thousands of years are meaningful.

However these assumptions are

questionable. In particular, science

cannot rule out the possibility that there

will be no cancer fatalities from these

tiny doses. For perspective, the doses

are very small fractions of regulatory

limits, and even smaller fractions of

natural background exposure to the

same populations. No standards exist

that can be used to reach a conclusion

as to the significance of the magnitude

of the collective radiological effects.

Nevertheless, some judgement as to the

regulatory NEPA implication of this

issue should be made and it makes no

sense to repeat the same judgement in

every case. The Commission concludes

that these impacts are acceptable in that

these impacts would not be sufficiently

large to require the NEPA conclusion,

for any plant, that the option of

extended operation under 10 CFR part

54 should be eliminated. Accordingly,

while the Commission has not assigned

a single level of significance for the

collective effects of the fuel cycle, this

issue is considered Category 1. For other

Category 1 issues, the impacts will be

considered at the individual renewal

stage as a means of judging the total

impact of an individual license renewal

decision. However, the Commission has

already judged the impact of collective

effects of the fuel cycle as part of this

rule.

There are no current regulatory limits

for off-site releases of radionuclides for

the current candidate repository site.

However if we assume that limits are

developed along the lines of the 1995

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

report, and that in accordance with the

Commission’s Waste Confidence

Decision, a repository can and likely

will be developed at some site which

will comply with such limits, peak

doses to virtually all individuals will be

100 millirem per year or less. However,

while the Commission has reasonable

confidence that these assumptions will

prove correct there is considerable

uncertainty since the limits are yet to be

developed, no repository application

has been completed or reviewed, and

uncertainty is inherent in the models

used to evaluate possible pathways to

the human environment. The National

Academy report indicated that 100

millirem per year should be considered

as a starting point for limits for

individual doses, but notes that some

measure of consensus exists among

national and international bodies that

the limits should be a fraction of the 100

millirem per year. The lifetime

individual risk from 100 millirem per

year dose limit is about 3×10¥3. Doses

to populations from disposal cannot

now (or possibly ever) be estimated

without very great uncertainty.

Estimating cumulative doses to

populations over thousands of years is

more problematic. The likelihood and

consequences of events that could

seriously compromise the integrity of a

deep geologic repository were evaluated

by the Department of Energy in the

‘‘Final Environmental Impact Statement:

Management of Commercially

Generated Radioactive Waste,’’ October

1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-

year whole-body dose commitment to

the maximum individual and to the

regional population resulting from

several modes of breaching a reference

repository in the year of closure, after

1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and

after 100,000,000 years. The release

scenarios covered a wide range of

consequences from the limited

consequences of humans accidentally

drilling into a waste package in the

repository to the catastrophic release of

the repository inventory by a direct

meteor strike. Subsequently, the NRC

and other Federal agencies have

expended considerable effort to develop

models for the design and for the

licensing of a high level waste

repository, especially for the candidate

repository at Yucca Mountain. More

meaningful estimates of doses to

population may be possible in the future

as more is understood about the

performance of the proposed Yucca

Mountain repository. Such estimates

would involve very great uncertainty,

especially with respect to cumulative

population doses over thousands of

years. The standard proposed by the

NAS is a limit on maximum individual

dose. The relationship of potential new

regulatory requirements, based on the

NAS report, and cumulative population

impacts has not been determined,

although the report articulates the view

that protection of individuals will

adequately protect the population for a

repository at Yucca Mountain. However,

EPA’s generic repository standards in 40

CFR part 191 generally provide an

indication of the order of magnitude of

cumulative risk to population that could

result from the licensing of a Yucca

Mountain repository, assuming the

ultimate standards will be within the

range of standards now under

consideration. The standard in 40 CFR

part 191 protects the population by

imposing ‘‘containment requirements’’

that limit the cumulative amount of

radioactive material released over

10,000 years. The cumulative release

limits are based on EPA’s population

impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer

deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric

tonne (MTHM) repository.

Nevertheless, despite all the

uncertainty surrounding the effects of

the disposal of spent fuel and high-level

waste, some judgement as to the

regulatory NEPA implications of these

matters should be made and it makes no

sense to repeat the same judgement in

every case. Even taking the uncertainties

into account, the Commission concludes

that these impacts are acceptable in that

these impacts would not be sufficiently

large to require the NEPA conclusion,

for any plant, that the option of

extended operation under 10 CFR part

54 should be eliminated. Accordingly,

while the Commission has not assigned

a single level of significance for the

impacts of spent fuel and high-level

waste disposal, this issue is considered

Category 1. Excepting the collective

effects previously discussed, for other

Category 1 issues, the impacts will be

considered at the individual renewal

stage as a means of judging the total

impact of an individual license renewal

decision. However, the Commission has

already judged the impacts of high level

waste disposal as part of this rule.

With respect to the nonradiological

impact of the uranium fuel cycle, data

concerning land requirements, water

requirements, the use of fossil fuel,

gaseous effluent, liquid effluent, and

tailings solutions and solids, all listed in

Table S–3, have been reviewed to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28479

determine the significance of the

environmental impacts of a power

reactor operating an additional 20 years.

The nonradiological impacts

attributable to the relicensing of an

individual power reactor are found to be

of small significance. License renewal of

an individual plant is so indirectly

connected to the operation of fuel cycle

facilities that it is meaningless to

address the mitigation of impacts

identified above. This is a Category 1

issue.

Table S–3 does not take into account

long-term onsite storage of LLW, mixed

waste, and storage of spent fuel

assemblies onsite for longer than 10

years, nor does it take into account

impacts from mixed waste disposal. The

environmental impacts of these aspects

of onsite storage are also addressed in

Chapter 6 of the final GEIS and the

findings are included in the final rule in

Table B–1 of appendix B to 10 CFR part

51.

Chapter 6 of the GEIS discusses the

impacts of offsite disposal of LLW and

mixed waste and concludes that impacts

will be small. The conclusion that

impacts will be small is based on the

regulations and regulatory programs in

place (e.g., 10 CFR part 61 for LLW and

40 CFR parts 261, 264, and 268 for

hazardous waste), experience with

existing sites, and the expectation that

NRC, EPA, and the States will ensure

that disposal will occur in compliance

with the applicable regulations.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) made the

States responsible for the disposal of

commercially generated LLW. At

present, 9 compacts have been formed,

representing 42 States. The Texas

Compact (Texas, Maine, and Vermont)

is pending before the U.S. Congress.

New LLW disposal facilities in the

host States of California, North Carolina,

and Texas are forecast to be operational

between 1997 and 1998. Facilities in the

host States of Connecticut, Illinois,

Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, and New York are

scheduled for operation between 1999

and 2002. Envirocare, in Utah, takes

limited types of waste from certain

generators.

There are uncertainties in the

licensing process and in the length of

time needed to resolve technical issues,

but in NRC’s view there are no

unsolvable technical issues that will

inevitably preclude successful

development of new sites or other offsite disposal capacity for LLW by the

time they will be needed. For example,

in California, the proposed Ward Valley

LLW disposal facility was unexpectedly

delayed by the need to resolve technical

issues raised by several scientists

independent of the project after the

license was issued. These issues were

recently reviewed and largely resolved

by an independent review group. In

North Carolina, Texas, and Nebraska,

the license application review period

has been longer than is required by the

LLRWPA, but progress continues to be

made.

The State’s LLW responsibilities

include providing disposal capacity for

mixed LLW. Mixed waste disposal

facility developers face the same types

of challenges as LLW site developers

plus difficulties with dual regulation

and small volumes. However, in NRC’s

view there are no technical reasons why

offsite disposal capacity for all types of

mixed waste should not become

available when needed. NRC and EPA

have developed guidance on the siting

of mixed waste disposal facilities as

well as a conceptual design for a mixed

waste disposal facility. A disposal

facility for certain types of mixed waste

is operated by Envirocare in Utah. States

have begun discussions with DOE about

accepting commercial mixed waste for

treatment and disposal at DOE facilities.

Although these discussions have yet to

result in DOE accepting commercial

mixed waste at DOE facilities, it appears

that progress is being made toward

DOE’s eventual acceptance of some

portion of commercial mixed waste at

its facilities.

While the NRC understands that there

have been delays and that uncertainties

exist such as those just discussed, the

Commission concludes that there is

reasonable assurance that sufficient

LLW and mixed LLW disposal capacity

will be made available when needed so

that facilities can be decommissioned

consistent with NRC decommissioning

requirements. This conclusion, coupled

with the expected small impacts from

both storage and disposal justify

classification of LLW and mixed waste

disposal as Category 1 issues.

The GEIS addresses the matter of

extended onsite storage of both LLW

and mixed waste from refurbishment

and operations for a renewal period of

up to 20 years. Summary data are

provided and radiological and

nonradiological environmental impacts

are addressed. The analysis considers:

(1) The volumes of LLW and mixed

waste that may be generated from

license renewal;

(2) Specific requirements under the

existing regulatory framework;

(3) The effectiveness of the

regulations in maintaining low average

doses to members of the public and to

workers; and

(4) Nonradiological impacts,

including land use, fugitive dust, air

quality, erosion, sedimentation, and

disturbance of ecosystems.

In addition, under 10 CFR 50.59,

licensees are allowed to make changes

to their facilities as discussed in the

final safety analysis report without NRC

permission if the evaluation indicates

that a change in the technical

specifications is not required or that an

unreviewed safety question does not

exist. Licensees would have to ensure

that any new LLW activities would not

represent an unreviewed safety question

for routine operations or for conditions

that might arise from potential

accidents. Both onsite and offsite

impacts would have to be considered. If

a LLW or mixed waste activity fails

either of the two tests in 10 CFR 50.59,

a license amendment is required.

Subject to the two possible review

requirements just noted, the

Commission finds that continued onsite

storage of both LLW and mixed waste

resulting from license renewal will have

small environmental impacts and will

require no further review within the

license renewal proceeding.

The GEIS addresses extended onsite

storage of spent fuel during a renewal

period of up to 20 years. The

Commission has studied the safety and

environmental effects of the temporary

storage of spent fuel after cessation of

reactor operation and has published a

generic determination of no significant

environmental impact (10 CFR 51.23).

The environmental data on storing spent

fuel onsite in a fuel pool for 10 years

before shipping for offsite disposal have

been assessed and reported in NUREG–

0116, ‘‘The Environmental Survey of the

Reprocessing and Waste Management

Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle’’

(October 1976), and published in the

Commission’s regulations (10 CFR

51.51). Environmental assessments (EA)

for expanding the fuel pool storage

capacity have been conducted for

numerous plants. In each case, a finding

of no significant environmental impact

was reached.

Radioactive exposures, waste

generation, and releases were evaluated

and found to be small. The only

nonradiological effluent from waste

storage is additional heat from the plant

that was found to have a negligible

effect on the environment. Accidents

were evaluated and were found to have

insignificant effects on the environment.

Dry cask storage at an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is

another technology used to store under

a general license. The environmental

impacts of allowing onsite dry cask

storage under a general license were
28480 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

assessed in an EA and found to be

insignificant. Further, the Commission

has conducted EAs for seven specific

licensed ISFSIs and has reached a

finding of no significant environmental

impact for each site. Each EA addressed

the impacts of construction, use, and

decommissioning. Potential impacts

that were assessed include radiological

impacts, land use, terrestrial resources,

water use, aquatic resources, noise, air

quality, socioeconomics, radiological

impacts during construction and routine

operation, and radiological impacts of

off-normal events and accidents. Trends

in onsite spent fuel storage capacity and

the volume of spent fuel that will be

generated during an additional 20 years

of operation are considered in the GEIS.

Spent fuel storage capacity requirements

can be adequately met by ISFSIs

without significant environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

onsite storage of spent fuel at all plants

have been adequately assessed in the

GEIS for the purposes of an

environmental review and agency

decision on renewal of an operating

license; thus, no further review within

the license renewal proceeding is

required. This provision is relative to

the license renewal decision and does

not alter existing Commission licensing

requirements specific to on-site storage

of spent fuel.

The environmental impacts from the

transportation of fuel and waste

attributable to license renewal are found

to be small when they are within the

range of impacts of parameters

identified in Table S–4. The estimated

radiological effects are within regulatory

standards. The nonradiological impacts

are those from periodic shipments of

fuel and waste by individual trucks or

rail cars and thus would result in

infrequent and localized minor

contributions to traffic density.

Programs designed to further reduce

risk, which are already in place, provide

for adequate mitigation. Recent, ongoing

efforts by the Department of Energy to

study the impacts of waste

transportation in the context of the

multi-purpose canister (see, 60 FR

45147, August 30, 1995) suggest that

there may be unresolved issues

regarding the magnitude of cumulative

impacts from the use of a single rail line

or truck route in the vicinity of the

repository to carry all spent fuel from all

plants. Accordingly, NRC declines to

reach a Category 1 conclusion on this

issue at this time. Table S–4 should

continue to be the basis for case-by-case

evaluation of transportation impacts of

fuel and waste until such time as a

detailed analysis of the environmental

impacts of transportation to the

proposed repository at Yucca Mountain

becomes available.

9. Accidents

Concern. Several commenters

expressed concerns regarding the

appropriateness of the severe accident

determination in the GEIS and with the

treatment of severe accident mitigation

design alternatives (SAMDAs) for

license renewal. A group of commenters

identified areas of concern that they

believe justify severe accidents being

classified as a Category 3 issue. The

areas included seismic risks to nuclear

power plants and site-specific

evacuation risks. Several commenters

questioned whether the analyses of the

environmental impacts of accidents

were adequate to make a Category 1

determination for the issue of severe

accidents. The contention is that a

bounding analysis would be established

only if plant-specific analyses were

performed for every plant, which was

not the case. Instead, the GEIS analysis

made use of a single generic source term

for each of the two plant types.

Response. The Commission believes

that its analysis of the impacts of severe

accidents is appropriate. The GEIS

provides an analysis of the

consequences of severe accidents for

each site in the country. The analysis

adopts standard assumptions about each

site for parameters such as evacuation

speeds and distances traveled, and uses

site-specific estimates for parameters

such as population distribution and

meteorological conditions. These latter

two factors were used to evaluate the

exposure indices for these analyses. The

methods used result in predictions of

risk that are adequate to illustrate the

general magnitude and types of risks

that may occur from reactor accidents.

Regarding site-evacuation risk, the

radiological risk to persons as they

evacuate is taken into account within

the individual plant risk assessments

that form the basis for the GEIS. In

addition, 10 CFR Part 50 requires that

licensees maintain up-to-date

emergency plans. This requirement will

apply in the license renewal term as

well as in the current licensing term.

As was done in the GEIS analysis, the

use of generic source terms (one set for

PWRs and another for BWRs) is

consistent with the past practice that

has been used and accepted by the NRC

for individual plant Final

Environmental Impact Statements

(FEISs). The purpose of the source term

discussion in the GEIS is to describe

whether or not new information on

source terms developed after the

completion of the most recent FEISs

indicates that the source terms used in

the past under-predict environmental

consequences. The NRC has concluded

that analysis of the new source term

information developed over the past 10

years indicates that the expected

frequency and amounts of radioactive

release under severe accident conditions

are less than that predicted using the

generic source terms. A summary of the

evolution of this research is provided in

NUREG–1150, ‘‘Severe Accident Risks:

An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear

Power Plants’’ (December 1990), and its

supporting documentation. Thus, the

analyses performed for the GEIS

represent adequate, plant-specific

estimates of the impacts from severe

accidents that would generally overpredict, rather than under-predict,

environmental consequences. Therefore,

the GEIS analysis of the impacts of

severe accidents for license renewal is

retained and is considered applicable to

all plants.

Based on an evaluation of the

comments, the Commission has

reconsidered its previous conclusion in

the draft GEIS concerning site-specific

consideration of severe accident

mitigation. The Commission has

determined that a site-specific

consideration of alternatives to mitigate

severe accidents will be required at the

time of license renewal unless a

previous consideration of such

alternatives regarding plant operation

has been included in a final

environmental impact statement or a

related supplement. Because the third

criterion required to make a Category 1

designation for an issue requires a

generic consideration of mitigation, the

issue of severe accidents must be

reclassified as a Category 2 issue that

requires a consideration of severe

accident mitigation alternatives,

provided this consideration has not

already been completed. The

Commission’s reconsideration of the

issue of severe accident mitigation for

license renewal is based on the

Commission’s NEPA regulations that

require a consideration of mitigation

alternatives in its environmental impact

statements (EISs) and supplements to

EISs, as well as a previous court

decision that required a review of severe

mitigation alternatives (referred to as

SAMDAs) at the operating license stage.

See, Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC,

869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989).

Although the Commission has

considered containment improvements

for all plants pursuant to its

Containment Performance Improvement

(CPI) program, which identified

potential containment improvements for

site-specific consideration by licensees,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28481

and the Commission has additional

ongoing regulatory programs whereby

licensees search for individual plant

vulnerabilities to severe accidents and

consider cost-beneficial improvements,

these programs have not yet been

completed. Therefore, a conclusion that

severe accident mitigation has been

generically considered for license

renewal is premature.

The Commission believes it unlikely

that any site-specific consideration of

severe accident mitigation alternatives

for license renewal will identify major

plant design changes or modifications

that will prove to be cost-beneficial for

reducing severe accident frequency or

consequences. This Commission

expectation regarding severe accident

mitigation improvements is based on

the analyses performed to date that are

discussed below.

The Commission’s CPI program

examined each of the five U.S.

containment types to determine

potential failure modes, potential plant

improvements, and the costeffectivenesses of such improvements.

As a result of this program, only a few

containment improvements were found

to be potentially beneficial and were

either identified for further NRC

research or for individual licensee

evaluation.

In response to the Limerick decision,

an NRC staff consideration of SAMDAs

was specifically included in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Limerick 1 and 2 and Comanche Peak 1

and 2 operating license reviews, and in

the Watts Bar Supplemental Final

Environmental Statement for an

operating license. The alternatives

evaluated in these analyses included the

items previously evaluated as part of the

CPI Program, as well as improvements

identified through other risk studies and

analyses. No physical plant

modifications were found to be costbeneficial in any of these severe

accident mitigation considerations.

Only plant procedural changes were

identified as being cost-beneficial.

Furthermore, the Limerick analysis was

for a high-population site. Because risk

is generally proportional to the

population around a plant, this analysis

suggests that other sites are unlikely to

identify significant plant modifications

that are cost-beneficial.

Additionally, each licensee is

performing an individual plant

examination (IPE) to look for plant

vulnerabilities to internally initiated

events and a separate IPE for externally

initiated events (IPEEE). The licensees

were requested to report their results to

the Commission. Seventy-eight IPE

submittals were received and seventyfive IPEEE submittals will be received,

covering all operating plants in the

United States. These examinations

consider potential improvements to

reduce the frequency or consequences of

severe accidents on a plant-specific

basis and essentially constitute a broad

search for severe accident mitigation

alternatives. The NRC staff is

conducting a process review of each

plant-specific IPE submittal and IPEEE

submittal. To date, all IPE submittals

have received a preliminary review by

the NRC with 46 out of 78 completed;

for the IPEEE submittals, 24 of the 75

are under review. These IPEs have

resulted in a number of plant procedural

or programmatic improvements and

some plant modifications that will

further reduce the risk of severe

accidents.

In conclusion, the GEIS analysis of

severe accident consequences and risk

is adequate, and additional plantspecific analysis of these impacts is not

required. However, because the ongoing

regulatory program related to severe

accident mitigation (i.e., IPE and IPEEE)

has not been completed for all plants

and consideration of severe accident

mitigation alternatives has not been

included in an EIS or supplemental EIS

related to plant operations for all plants,

a site-specific consideration of severe

accident mitigation alternatives is

required at license renewal for those

plants for which this consideration has

not been performed. The Commission

expects that if these reviews identify

any changes as being cost beneficial,

such changes generally would be

procedural and programmatic fixes,

with any hardware changes being only

minor in nature and few in number.

NRC staff considerations of severe

accident mitigation alternatives have

already been completed and included in

an EIS or supplemental EIS for

Limerick, Comanche Peak, and Watts

Bar. Therefore, severe accident

mitigation alternatives need not be

reconsidered for these plants for license

renewal.

Based on the fact that a generic

consideration of mitigation is not

performed in the GEIS, a Category 1

designation for severe accidents cannot

be made. Therefore, the Commission has

reclassified severe accidents as a

Category 2 issue, requiring only that

alternatives to mitigate severe accidents

be considered for those plants that have

not included such a consideration in a

previous EIS or supplemental EIS. The

Commission notes that upon completion

of its IPE/IPEEE program, it may review

the issue of severe accident mitigation

for license renewal and consider, by

separate rulemaking, reclassifying

severe accidents as a Category 1 issue.

The Commission does not intend to

prescribe by rule the scope of an

acceptable consideration of severe

accident mitigation alternatives for

license renewal nor does it intend to

mandate consideration of alternatives

identical to those evaluated previously.

In general, the Commission expects that

significant efficiency can be gained by

using site-specific IPE and IPEEE results

in the consideration of severe accident

mitigation alternatives. The IPEs and

IPEEEs are essentially site-specific PRAs

that identify probabilities of core

damage (Level 1 PRA) and include

assessments of containment

performance under severe accident

conditions that identify probabilities of

fission product releases (Level 2 ). As

discussed in Generic Letter 88–20,

‘‘Individual Plant Examination for

Severe Accident Vulnerabilities’’

(November 23, 1988), one of the

important goals of the IPE and IPEEE

was to reduce the overall probabilities

of core damage and fission product

releases as necessary by modifying

hardware and procedures to help

prevent or mitigate severe accidents.

Although Level 3 PRAs have been

used in SAMDA analyses to generate

site-specific offsite dose estimates so

that the cost-benefit of mitigation

alternatives could be determined, the

Commission does not believe that sitespecific Level 3 PRAs are required to

determine whether an alternative under

consideration will provide sufficient

benefit to justify its cost. Licensees can

use other quantitative approaches for

assigning site-specific risk significance

to IPE results and judging whether a

mitigation alternative provides a

sufficient reduction in core damage

frequency (CDF) or release frequency to

warrant implementation. For example, a

licensee could use information provided

in the GEIS analysis (exposure indices,

wind frequencies, and demographics) to

translate the dominant contributors to

CDF and the large release frequencies

from the IPE/IPEEE results into dose

estimates so that a cost-benefit

determination can be performed. In

some instances, a consideration of the

magnitude of reduction in the sitespecific CDF and release frequencies

alone (i.e., no conversion to a dose

estimate) may be sufficient to conclude

that no significant reduction in off-site

risk will be provided and, therefore,

implementation of a mitigation

alternative is not warranted. The

Commission will review each severe

accident mitigation consideration

provided by a license renewal applicant

on its merits and determine whether it
28482 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

constitutes a reasonable consideration of

severe accident mitigation alternatives.

10. Decommissioning

Concern. Several commenters

requested further clarification of the

NRC’s position regarding

decommissioning requirements,

especially whether the total impacts

address returning the site to green field

conditions.

Response. The decommissioning

chapter of the GEIS analyzes the impact

that an additional 20 years of plant

operation would have on ultimate plant

decommissioning; it neither serves as

the generic analysis of the

environmental impacts associated with

decommissioning nor establishes

decommissioning requirements. An

analysis of the expected impacts from

plant decommissioning was previously

provided in NUREG–0586, ‘‘Final

Generic Environmental Impact

Statement on Decommissioning of

Nuclear Facilities’’ (August 1988). The

analysis in the GEIS for license renewal

examines the physical requirements and

attendant effects of decommissioning

after a 20-year license renewal

compared with decommissioning at the

end of 40 years of operation and finds

little difference in effects.

With respect to returning a site to

green field condition, the Commission

defines decommissioning as the safe

removal of a nuclear facility from

service, the reduction of residual

contamination to a level that permits

release of the property for unrestricted

use, and termination of the license.

Therefore, the question of restoring the

land to a green field condition, which

would require additional demolition

and site restoration beyond addressing

residual contamination and radiological

effects, is outside the current scope of

the decommissioning requirements.

Moreover, consistent with the

Commission’s conclusion that license

renewal is not expected to affect future

decommissioning, any requirement

relative to returning a site to a green

field and the attendant effects of such a

requirement would also not be affected

by an additional 20 years of operation.

Therefore, the issue of returning a site

to pre-construction conditions is beyond

the scope of license renewal review.

Concern. Several commenters

expressed concern that, because a

residual radioactivity rule is still not in

place, the LLW estimates should be

reexamined.

Response. The NRC does have criteria

in place for the release of reactor

facilities to unrestricted access

following decommissioning. These

include the guidance in Regulatory

Guide 1.86, ‘‘Termination of Operating

Licenses for Nuclear Reactors’’ (which

provides guidance for surface

contamination), dose rate limits from

gamma-emitting radionuclides included

in plant technical specifications, and

requirements for keeping residual

contamination as low as reasonably

achievable (ALARA) as included in 10

CFR part 20. These criteria were used in

developing NUREG–0586, the final GEIS

on decommissioning of nuclear

facilities, which was published in

August of 1988. One conclusion from

the analysis conducted for NUREG–

0586 was that waste volumes from

decommissioning of reactors are not

highly sensitive to the radiological

criteria. A proposed rule dated August

22, 1994, would codify radiological

criteria for unrestricted release of

reactors and other nuclear facilities and

for termination of a facility license

following decommissioning. NUREG–

1496, the draft GEIS for the proposed

rule on radiological criteria, included

analyses of a range of radiological

release criteria and confirmed the earlier

conclusions that waste volumes from

decommissioning of reactors are not

sensitive to the residual radiological

criteria within the range likely to be

selected. This range included residual

dose levels comparable to the

radiological criteria currently being

used for reactor decommissioning.

Based on the insensitivity of the waste

volume from reactor decommissioning

to the radiological criteria, the

Commission continues to believe, as

concluded in the decommissioning

section of the GEIS, that the

contribution to environmental impacts

of decommissioning from license

renewal are small. The Commission

further concludes that these impacts are

not expected to change significantly as

a result of the ongoing rulemaking.

Therefore, the determinations in the

GEIS remain appropriate.

11. Need for Generating Capacity

Concern. In addition to the major

procedural concern discussed earlier

about the treatment of need for

generating capacity, several commenters

raised concerns about the power

demand projections used in the GEIS.

Some commenters noted that any

determination of need quickly becomes

dated and, therefore, the demand for

and the source of electrical power at the

time of license renewal cannot be

accurately predicted at this time.

Moreover, they believe that the NRC’s

analysis is not definitive enough to

remain unchallenged for 40 years.

Another commenter criticized the

analysis because it focused only on

energy requirements without making

appropriate distinctions between energy

and peak capacity requirements, plant

availability, and capacity factors.

Response. The NRC has determined

that a detailed consideration of the need

for generating capacity is inappropriate

in the context of consideration of the

environmental impacts of license

renewal. Thus, the NRC will limit its

NEPA review of license renewal

applications to the consideration of the

environmental impacts of license

renewal compared with those of other

available generating sources. Hence, the

concerns regarding demand projections

used in the draft GEIS are no longer an

issue and they have been removed from

the GEIS.

12. Alternatives to License Renewal

Concern. In addition to the procedural

concern discussed earlier about the

treatment of alternative energy sources

as a Category 1 issue, several

commenters expressed concerns about

the comparison and analysis of

alternative energy sources, as well as the

economic analysis approach used in the

draft GEIS. Consistent with their

arguments against the Category 1

designation of alternatives, the

commenters questioned the approach

adopted in the GEIS of comparing only

single alternative energy sources to

license renewal. They believe that the

NRC’s failure to consider a mix of

alternatives ignores the potential for

other alternative sources of power that

are available to different regions of the

nation, such as demand-side

management, cogeneration, purchased

power from Canada, biomass, natural

gas, solar energy, and wind power. They

also indicated that this approach

neglects a utility’s ability to serve its

customers with a portfolio of supply

that is based on load characteristics,

cost, geography, and other

considerations, and fails to consider the

collective impact of the alternatives.

Furthermore, the possible technological

advances in renewable energy sources

over the next 40 years are not addressed.

One commenter argued that

designating the issue of alternative

energy sources as Category 1 allows a

license renewal applicant not to

consider the additional requirement of

economic threshold analysis. Relative to

the economic analysis of the alternatives

to license renewal, another commenter

questioned the proposed requirement

for the license renewal applicant to

demonstrate that the ‘‘replacement of

equivalent generating capacity by a coalfired plant has no demonstrated cost

advantage over the individual nuclear

power plant license renewal.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28483

According to the commenter, this

requirement would force the applicant

to perform an economic analysis of an

alternative to license renewal. The

commenter further argued that NEPA

does not require an economic

consideration.

Response. In response to these

concerns, the final rule no longer

requires a cost comparison of alternative

energy sources relative to license

renewal. Furthermore, the alternative

energy sources discussed in the final

GEIS include energy conservation and

energy imports as well as the other

sources discussed by the commenters.

An analysis of the environmental

impacts of alternative energy sources is

included in the GEIS but is not codified

in 10 CFR part 51.

The NRC believes that its

consideration of alternatives in the GEIS

is representative of the technologies

available and the associated

environmental impacts. With regard to

consideration of a mix of alternative

sources, the Commission recognizes that

combinations of various alternatives

may be used to replace power

generation from license renewal.

13. License Renewal Scenario

Concern. Several commenters raised

concerns related to the license renewal

scenario evaluation methodology as

implemented in the GEIS. The

fundamental issues were the degree of

conservatism built into the scenario and

the appropriateness of an upper bound

type approach in characterizing the

refurbishment activities (and associated

costs) in light of NEPA requirements to

determine reasonable estimates of the

environmental impacts of Federal

actions.

Regarding the concerns that the

refurbishment schedules and scenarios

developed for the GEIS were too

conservative, several commenters

indicated that many of the activities

slated for completion during the

extended refurbishment before license

renewal would actually be completed by

many facilities during the course of the

current licensing term. The effect of

having only one major outage instead of

leveling work over three or four outages

could lead to an over-estimate of the

refurbishment activities and costs that

any particular plant would expect to

see.

Response. In response to this concern,

the NRC has revised the GEIS to include

two license renewal program scenarios.

The first scenario refers to a ‘‘typical’’

license renewal program and is

intended to be representative of the type

of programs that many plants seeking

license renewal might implement. The

second scenario retains the original

objective of establishing an upper bound

of the impacts likely to be generated at

any particular plant. The typical

scenario is useful for estimating impacts

at plants that have been well maintained

and have already undertaken most

major refurbishment activities necessary

for operation beyond the current

licensing term. The conservative

scenario estimates continue to be useful

for estimating the maximum impacts

likely to result from license renewal.

The revised approach of providing

two separate license renewal scenarios

also alleviates the concern about the use

of a bounding scenario for license

renewal activities. The NRC

acknowledges that some applicants for

license renewal may not be required to

perform certain major refurbishment or

replacement activities and, therefore,

may have fewer or shorter outages.

However, the two scenarios described in

the GEIS are neither unrealistic nor

overconservative in representing the

range of activities that could be

expected for license renewal and the

possible schedule for performing these

activities.

14. Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, the President

issued Executive Order (E.O.) 12898,

‘‘Federal Actions To Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994). This order requires each Federal

agency to make achieving

environmental justice part of its mission

by identifying and addressing, as

appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of its programs,

policies, and activities on minority and

low income populations. The

Commission will endeavor to carry out

the measures set forth in the executive

order by integrating environmental

justice into NRC’s compliance with the

National Environmental Policy of 1969

(NEPA), as amended. E.O. 12898 was

issued after publication of the proposed

rule and the receipt of comments on the

proposed rule. As a result, no comments

were received regarding environmental

justice reviews for license renewal.

Therefore, a brief discussion of this

issue relative to license renewal is

warranted.

As called for in Section 1–102 of E.O.

12898, the EPA established a Federal

interagency working group to, among

other things, ‘‘* * * provide guidance

to Federal agencies or criteria for

identifying disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental

effects on minority populations and

low-income populations * * *.’’ The

CEQ was assigned to provide this

guidance to enable agencies to better

comply with E.O. 12898. Until the CEQ

guidance is received, the Commission

intends to consider environmental

justice in its evaluations of individual

license renewal applications. Greater

emphasis will be placed on discussing

impacts on minority and low-income

populations when preparing NEPA

documents such as EISs, supplemental

EISs, and, where appropriate, EAs.

Commission requirements regarding

environmental justice reviews will be

reevaluated and may be revised after

receipt of the CEQ guidance.

IV. Discussion of Regulatory

Requirements

A. General Requirements

In this final rule, the regulatory

requirements for performing a NEPA

review for a license renewal application

are similar to the NEPA review

requirements for other major plant

licensing actions. Consistent with the

current NEPA practice for major plant

licensing actions, this amendment to 10

CFR Part 51 requires the applicant to

submit an environmental report that

analyzes the environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action,

considers alternatives to the proposed

action, and evaluates any alternatives

for reducing adverse environmental

effects. Additionally, the amendment

requires the NRC staff to prepare a

supplemental environmental impact

statement for the proposed action, issue

the statement in draft for public

comment, and issue a final statement

after considering public comments on

the draft.

The amendment deviates from NRC’s

current NEPA review practice in some

areas. First, the amendment codifies

certain environmental impacts

associated with license renewal that

were analyzed in NUREG–1437,

‘‘Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal at

Nuclear Plants’’ (xxxx 1996).

Accordingly, absent new and significant

information, the analyses for certain

impacts codified by this rulemaking

need only be incorporated by reference

in an applicant’s environmental report

for license renewal and in the

Commission’s (including NRC staff,

adjudicatory officers, and the

Commission itself) draft and final SEIS

and other environmental documents

developed for the proceeding. Secondly,

the amendment reflects the

Commission’s decision to limit its

NEPA review for license renewal to a

consideration of the environmental
28484 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives to the proposed action.

Finally, the amendment contains the

decision standard that the Commission

will use in determining the acceptability

of the environmental impacts of

individual license renewals.

The Commission and the applicant

will consider severe accident mitigation

alternatives to reduce or mitigate

environmental impacts for any plant for

which severe accident mitigation

alternatives have not been previously

considered in an environmental impact

statement or related supplement or in an

environmental assessment. The

Commission has concluded that, for

license renewal, the issues of need for

power and utility economics should be

reserved for State and utility officials to

decide. Accordingly, the NRC will not

conduct an analysis of these issues in

the context of license renewal or

perform traditional cost-benefit

balancing in license renewal NEPA

reviews. Finally, in a departure from the

approach presented in the proposed

rule, this final rule does not codify any

conclusions regarding the subject of

alternatives. Consideration of and

decisions regarding alternatives will

occur at the site-specific stage. The

discussion below addresses the specific

regulatory requirements of this

amendment and any conforming

changes to 10 CFR part 51 to implement

the Commission’s decision to eliminate

cost-benefit balancing from license

renewal NEPA reviews.

B. The Environmental Report

1. Environmental Impacts of License

Renewal

Through this final rule, the NRC has

amended 10 CFR 51.53 to require an

applicant for license renewal to submit

an environmental report with its

application. This environmental report

must contain an analysis of the

environmental impacts of renewing a

license, the environmental impacts of

alternatives, and mitigation alternatives.

In preparing the analysis of

environmental impacts contained in the

environmental report, the applicant

should refer to the data provided in

appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, which

has been added to NRC’s regulations as

part of this rulemaking. The applicant is

not required to provide an analysis in

the environmental report of those issues

identified as Category 1 issues in Table

B–1 in Appendix B. For those issues

identified as Category 2 in Table B–1,

the applicant must provide a specified

additional analysis beyond that

contained in Table B–1. In this final

rule, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) specifies the

subject areas of the analysis that must be

addressed for the Category 2 issues.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR

51.53(c)(2) requires the applicant to

consider possible actions to mitigate the

adverse impacts associated with the

proposed action. This consideration is

limited to designated Category 2

matters. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(d),

the environmental report must include

a discussion of the status of compliance

with applicable Federal, State, and local

environmental standards. Also, 10 CFR

51.53(c)(2) specifically excludes from

consideration in the environmental

report the issues of need for power, the

economic costs and benefits of the

proposed action, economic costs and

benefits of alternatives to the proposed

action, or other issues not related to

environmental effects of the proposed

action and associated alternatives. In

addition, the requirements in 10 CFR

51.45 are consistent with the exclusion

of economic issues in 10 CFR

51.53(c)(2).

2. Consideration of Alternatives

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR

51.53(c)(2) requires the applicant to

consider the environmental impacts of

alternatives to license renewal in the

environmental report. The treatment of

alternatives in the environmental report

should be limited to the environmental

impacts of such alternatives.

The amended regulations do not

require a discussion of the economic

costs and benefits of these alternatives

in the environmental report for the

operating license renewal stage except

as necessary to determine whether an

alternative should be included in the

range of alternatives considered or

whether certain mitigative actions are

appropriate. The analysis should

demonstrate consideration of a

reasonable set of alternatives to license

renewal. In preparing the alternatives

analysis, the applicant may consider

information regarding alternatives in

NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal

of Nuclear Plants’’ (xxxx 1996).

The Commission has developed a new

decision standard to be applied in

environmental impact statements for

license renewal as discussed in Section

IV.C.2. The amended regulations for

license renewal do not require

applicants to apply this decision

standard to the information generated in

their environmental report (although the

applicant is not prohibited from doing

so if it desires). However, the NRC staff

will use the information contained in

the environmental report in preparing

the environmental impact statement

upon which the Commission will base

its final decision.

3. Consideration of Mitigation

Alternatives

Consistent with the NRC’s current

NEPA practice, an applicant must

include a consideration of alternatives

to mitigate adverse environmental

impacts in its environmental report.

However, for license renewal, the

Commission has generically considered

mitigation for environmental issues

associated with renewal and has

concluded that no additional sitespecific consideration of mitigation is

necessary for many issues. The

Commission’s consideration of

mitigation for each issue included

identification of current activities that

adequately mitigate impacts and

evaluation of other mitigation

techniques that might or might not be

warranted, depending on such factors as

the size of the impact and the cost of the

technique. The Commission has

considered mitigation for all impacts

designated as Category 1 in Table B–1.

Therefore, a license renewal applicant

need not address mitigation for issues so

designated.

C. Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement

This amendment also requires that the

Commission prepare a supplemental

environmental impact statement (SEIS),

consistent with 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2). This

statement will serve as the

Commission’s independent analysis of

the environmental impacts of license

renewal as well as a comparison of these

impacts to the environmental impacts of

alternatives. This document will also

present the preliminary

recommendation by the NRC staff

regarding the proposed action.

Consistent with the revisions to 10 CFR

51.45 and 51.53 discussed above in

regard to the applicant’s environmental

report, this rulemaking revises portions

of 10 CFR 51.71 and 51.95 to reflect the

Commission’s approach to addressing

the environmental impacts of license

renewal.

The issues of need for power, the

economic costs and benefits of the

proposed action, and economic costs

and benefits of alternatives to the

proposed action are specifically

excluded from consideration in the

supplemental environmental impact

statement for license renewal by 10 CFR

51.95(c), except as these costs and

benefits are either essential for a

determination regarding the inclusion of

an alternative in the range of

alternatives considered or relevant to

mitigation. The supplemental
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28485

environmental impact statement does

not need to discuss issues other than

environmental effects of the proposed

action and associated alternatives. This

rule amends the requirements in 10 CFR

51.71 (d) and (e) so that they are

consistent with the exclusion of

economic issues in 10 CFR 51.95(c).

Additionally, 10 CFR 51.95 has been

amended to allow information from

previous NRC site-specific

environmental reviews, as well as NRC

final generic environmental impact

statements, to be referenced in

supplemental environmental impact

statements.

1. Public Scoping and Public Comments

on the SEIS

Consistent with NRC’s current NEPA

practice, the Commission will hold a

public meeting in order to inform the

local public of the proposed action and

receive comments. In addition, the SEIS

will be issued in draft for public

comment in accordance with 10 CFR

51.91 and 51.93. In both the public

scoping process and the public

comment process, the Commission will

accept comments on all previously

analyzed issues and information

codified in Table B–1 of appendix B to

10 CFR part 51 and will determine

whether these comments provide any

information that is new and significant

compared with that previously

considered in the GEIS. If the comments

are determined to provide new and

significant information bearing on the

previous analysis in the GEIS, these

comments will be considered and

appropriately factored into the

Commission’s analysis in the SEIS.

Public comments on the site-specific

additional information provided by the

applicant regarding Category 2 issues

will be considered in the SEIS.

2. Commission’s Analysis and

Preliminary Recommendation

The Commission’s draft SEIS will

include its analysis of the

environmental impacts of the proposed

license renewal action and the

environmental impacts of the

alternatives to the proposed action.

With the exception of offsite

radiological impacts for collective

effects and the disposal of spent fuel

and high level waste, the Commission

will integrate the codified

environmental impacts of license

renewal as provided in Table B–1 of

appendix B to 10 CFR part 51

(supplemented by the underlying

analyses in the GEIS), the appropriate

site-specific analyses of Category 2

issues, and any new issues identified

during the scoping and public comment

process. The results of this integration

process will be utilized to arrive at a

conclusion regarding the sum of the

environmental impacts associated with

license renewal. These impacts will

then be compared, quantitatively or

qualitatively as appropriate, with the

environmental impacts of the

considered alternatives. The analysis of

alternatives in the SEIS will be limited

to the environmental impacts of these

alternatives and will be prepared in

accordance with 10 CFR 51.71 and

subpart A of appendix A to 10 CFR part

51. The analysis of impacts of

alternatives provided in the GEIS may

be referenced in the SEIS as appropriate.

The alternatives discussed in the GEIS

include a reasonable range of different

methods for power generation. The

analysis in the draft SEIS will consider

mitigation actions for designated

Category 2 matters and will consider the

status of compliance with Federal, State,

and local environmental requirements

as required by 10 CFR 51.71(d).

Consistent with 10 CFR 51.71(e), the

draft supplemental environmental

impact statement must contain a

preliminary recommendation regarding

license renewal based on consideration

of the information on the environmental

impacts of license renewal and of

alternatives contained in the SEIS. In

order to reach its recommendation, the

NRC staff must determine whether the

adverse environmental impacts of

license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal

for energy planning decisionmakers

would be unreasonable. This decision

standard is contained in 10 CFR

51.95(c)(4).

3. Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement

The Commission will issue a final

supplemental environmental impact

statement for a license renewal

application in accordance with 10 CFR

51.91 and 51.93 after considering the

public comments related to new issues

identified from the scoping and public

comment process, Category 2 issues,

and any new and significant

information regarding previously

analyzed and codified Category 1 issues.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103,

the Commission will provide a record of

its decision regarding the environmental

impacts of the proposed action. In

making a final decision, the

Commission must determine whether

the adverse environmental impacts of

license renewal (when compared with

the environmental impacts of other

energy generating alternatives) are so

great that preserving the option of

license renewal for energy planning

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

D. NEPA Review for Activities Outside

NRC License Renewal Approval Scope

The Commission wishes to clarify that

any activity that requires NRC approval

and is not specifically required for

NRC’s action regarding management of

the effects of aging on certain passive

long-lived structures and components in

the period of extended operation must

be subject to a separate NEPA review.

The actions subject to NRC approval for

license renewal are limited to continued

operation consistent with the plant

design and operating conditions for the

current operating license and to the

performance of specific activities and

programs necessary to manage the

effects of aging on the passive, longlived structures and components

identified in accordance with 10 CFR

part 54. Accordingly, the GEIS does not

serve as the NEPA review for other

activities or programs outside the scope

of NRC’s part 54 license renewal review.

The separate NEPA review must be

prepared regardless of whether the

action is necessary as a consequence of

receiving a renewed license, even if the

activity were specifically addressed in

the GEIS. For example, the

environmental impacts of spent fuel

pool expansion are addressed in the

GEIS in the context of the

environmental consequences of

approving a renewed operating license,

rather than in the context of a specific

application to expand spent fuel pool

capacity, which would require a

separate NEPA review.

These separate NEPA reviews may

reference and otherwise use applicable

environmental information contained in

the GEIS. For example, an EA prepared

for a separate spent fuel pool expansion

request may use the information in the

GEIS to support a finding of no

significant impact.

V. Availability of Documents

The principal documents supporting

this supplementary information are as

follows:

(1) NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’

(May 1996).

(2) NUREG–1529, ‘‘Public Comments

on the Proposed 10 CFR part 51 Rule for

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant

Operating Licenses and Supporting

Documents; Review of Concerns and

NRC Staff Response’’ (May 1996).

(3) NUREG–1440, ‘‘Regulatory

Analysis of Amendments to Regulations

Concerning the Environmental Review
28486 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant

Operating Licenses’’ (May 1996).

Copies of all documents cited in the

supplementary information are available

for inspection and for copying for a fee

in the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. In addition, copies of

NRC final documents cited here may be

purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, PO Box 37082, Washington, DC

20013–7082. Copies are also available

for purchase from the National

Technical Information Service, 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

VI. Submittal of Comments in an

Electronic Format

Commenters are encouraged to

submit, in addition to the original paper

copy, a copy of their letter in an

electronic format on IBM PC DOScompatible 3.5- or 5.25-inch, doublesided, double-density (DS/DD) diskettes.

Data files should be provided in

Wordperfect 5.1 or later version of

Wordperfect. ASCII code is also

acceptable or, if formatted text is

required, data files should be provided

in IBM Revisable-Form Text Document

Content Architecture (RFT/DCA) format.

VII. Finding of No Significant

Environmental Impact: Availability

The NRC has determined that this

final rule is the type of action described

as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR

51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an

environmental impact statement nor an

environmental assessment has been

prepared for this regulation. This action

is procedural in nature and pertains

only to the type of environmental

information to be reviewed.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Statement

This final rule amends information

collection requirements that are subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval number 3150–0021.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 4,200 hours per response,

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to

the Information and Records

Management Branch (T–6F33), U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by

Internet electronic mail at

BJS1@nrc.gov; and to the Desk Officer,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, NEOB–10202 (3150–0021),

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

IX. Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a

regulatory analysis for this final rule.

The analysis examines the costs and

benefits of the alternatives considered

by the Commission. The two

alternatives considered were:

(A) Retaining the existing 10 CFR part

51 review process for license renewal,

which requires that all reviews be on a

plant-specific basis; and

(B) Amending 10 CFR part 51 to allow

a portion of the environmental review to

be conducted on a generic basis.

The conclusions of the regulatory

analysis show substantial cost savings of

alternative (B) over alternative (A). The

analysis, NUREG–1440, is available for

inspection in the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Copies of the analysis

are available as described in Section V.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this final

rule will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. The final rule states the

application procedures and

environmental information to be

submitted by nuclear power plant

licensees to facilitate NRC’s obligations

under NEPA. Nuclear power plant

licensees do not fall within the

definition of small businesses as defined

in Section 3 of the Small Business Act,

15 U.S.C. 632, or the Commission’s Size

Standards, April 11, 1995 (60 FR

18344).

XI. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has

determined that this action is not a

major rule and has verified this

determination with the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of

OMB.

XII. Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that these

amendments do not involve any

provisions which would impose backfits

as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1);

therefore, a backfit analysis need not be

prepared.

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; the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the

NRC is adopting the following

amendments to 10 CFR part 51.

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED

REGULATORY 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).

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. Sections 51.20,

51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 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 51.45 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 51.45 Environmental report.

* * * * *

(c) Analysis. The environmental

report shall include an analysis that

considers and balances the

environmental effects of the proposed

action, the environmental impacts of

alternatives to the proposed action, and

alternatives available for reducing or

avoiding adverse environmental effects.

Except for environmental reports

prepared at the license renewal stage

pursuant to § 51.53(c), the analysis in

the environmental report should also
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28487

include consideration of the economic,

technical, and other benefits and costs

of the proposed action and of

alternatives. Environmental reports

prepared at the license renewal stage

pursuant to § 51.53(c) need not discuss

the economic or technical benefits and

costs of either the proposed action or

alternatives except insofar as such

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, environmental

reports prepared pursuant to § 51.53(c)

need not discuss other issues not related

to the environmental effects of the

proposed action and alternatives. The

analyses for environmental reports

shall, 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, those

considerations or factors shall be

discussed in qualitative terms. The

environmental report should contain

sufficient data to aid the Commission in

its development of an independent

analysis.

* * * * *

3. Section 51.53 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.53 Postconstruction environmental

reports.

(a) General. Any environmental report

prepared under the provisions of this

section may incorporate by reference

any information contained in a prior

environmental report or supplement

thereto that relates to the production or

utilization facility or any information

contained in a final environmental

document previously prepared by the

NRC staff that relates to the production

or utilization facility. Documents that

may be referenced include, but are not

limited to, the final environmental

impact statement; supplements to the

final environmental impact statement,

including supplements prepared at the

license renewal stage; NRC staffprepared final generic environmental

impact statements; and environmental

assessments and records of decisions

prepared in connection with the

construction permit, the operating

license, and any license amendment for

that facility.

(b) Operating license stage. Each

applicant for a license to operate a

production or utilization facility

covered by § 51.20 shall submit with its

application the number of copies

specified in § 51.55 of a separate

document entitled ‘‘Supplement to

Applicant’s Environmental Report—

Operating License Stage,’’ which will

update ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental

Report—Construction Permit Stage.’’

Unless otherwise required by the

Commission, the applicant for an

operating license for a nuclear power

reactor shall submit this report only in

connection with the first licensing

action authorizing full-power operation.

In this report, the applicant shall

discuss the same matters described in

§§ 51.45, 51.51, and 51.52, but only to

the extent that they differ from those

discussed or reflect new information in

addition to that discussed in the final

environmental impact statement

prepared by the Commission in

connection with the construction

permit. No discussion of need for

power, or of alternative energy sources,

or of alternative sites for the facility, or

of any aspect of the storage of spent fuel

for the facility within the scope of the

generic determination in § 51.23(a) and

in accordance with § 51.23(b) is

required in this report.

(c) Operating license renewal stage.

(1) Each applicant for renewal of a

license to operate a nuclear power plant

under part 54 of this chapter shall

submit with its application the number

of copies specified in § 51.55 of a

separate document entitled ‘‘Applicant’s

Environmental Report—Operating

License Renewal Stage.’’

(2) The report must contain a

description of the proposed action,

including the applicant’s plans to

modify the facility or its administrative

control procedures as described in

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter.

This report must describe in detail the

modifications directly affecting the

environment or affecting plant effluents

that affect the environment. In addition,

the applicant shall discuss in this report

the environmental impacts of

alternatives and any other matters

described in § 51.45. The report is not

required to include discussion of need

for power or the economic costs and

economic benefits of the proposed

action or of alternatives to the proposed

action except insofar as such costs and

benefits are either essential for a

determination regarding the inclusion of

an alternative in the range of

alternatives considered or relevant to

mitigation. The environmental report

need not discuss other issues not related

to the environmental effects of the

proposed action and the alternatives. In

addition, the environmental report need

not discuss any aspect of the storage of

spent fuel for the facility within the

scope of the generic determination in

§ 51.23(a) and in accordance with

§ 51.23(b).

(3) For those applicants seeking an

initial renewal license and holding

either an operating license or

construction permit as of June 30, 1995,

the environmental report shall include

the information required in paragraph

(c)(2) of this section subject to the

following conditions and

considerations:

(i) The environmental report for the

operating license renewal stage is not

required to contain analyses of the

environmental impacts of the license

renewal issues identified as Category 1

issues in appendix B to subpart A of this

part.

(ii) 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 issues in

appendix B to subpart A of this part.

The required analyses are as follows:

(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 (9×1010 m3/year), an

assessment of the impact of the

proposed action on the flow of the river

and related impacts on instream and

riparian ecological communities must

be provided. The applicant shall also

provide an assessment of the impacts of

the withdrawal of water from the river

on alluvial aquifers during low flow.

(B) If the applicant’s plant utilizes

once-through cooling or cooling pond

heat dissipation systems, the applicant

shall provide a copy of current Clean

Water Act 316(b) determinations and, if

necessary, a 316(a) variance in

accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or

equivalent State permits and supporting

documentation. If the applicant can not

provide these documents, it shall assess

the impact of the proposed action on

fish and shellfish resources resulting

from heat shock and impingement and

entrainment.

(C) If the applicant’s plant uses

Ranney wells or pumps more than 100

gallons of ground water per minute, an

assessment of the impact of the

proposed action on ground-water use

must be provided.

(D) If the applicant’s plant is located

at an inland site and utilizes cooling

ponds, an assessment of the impact of

the proposed action on groundwater

quality must be provided.

(E) All license renewal applicants

shall assess the impact of refurbishment

and other license-renewal-related

construction activities on important

plant and animal habitats. Additionally,

the applicant shall assess the impact of

the proposed action on threatened or
28488 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

endangered species in accordance with

the Endangered Species Act.

(F) If the applicant’s plant is located

in or near a nonattainment or

maintenance area, an assessment of

vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at

the time of peak refurbishment

workforce must be provided in

accordance with the Clean Air Act as

amended.

(G) If the applicant’s plant uses a

cooling pond, lake, or canal or

discharges into a river having an annual

average flow rate of less than 3.15×1012

ft3/year (9×1010 m3/year), an assessment

of the impact of the proposed action on

public health from thermophilic

organisms in the affected water must be

provided.

(H) If the applicant’s transmission

lines that were constructed for the

specific purpose of connecting the plant

to the transmission system do not meet

the recommendations of the National

Electric Safety Code for preventing

electric shock from induced currents, an

assessment of the impact of the

proposed action on the potential shock

hazard from the transmission lines must

be provided.

(I) An assessment of the impact of the

proposed action on housing availability,

land-use, and public schools (impacts

from refurbishment activities only)

within the vicinity of the plant must be

provided. Additionally, the applicant

shall provide an assessment of the

impact of population increases

attributable to the proposed project on

the public water supply.

(J) All applicants shall assess the

impact of the proposed project on local

transportation during periods of license

renewal refurbishment activities.

(K) All applicants shall assess

whether any historic or archaeological

properties will be affected by the

proposed project.

(L) If the staff has not previously

considered severe accident mitigation

alternatives for the applicant’s plant in

an environmental impact statement or

related supplement or in an

environmental assessment, a

consideration of alternatives to mitigate

severe accidents must be provided.

(M) The environmental effects of

transportation of fuel and waste shall be

reviewed in accordance with § 51.52.

(iii) The report must contain a

consideration of alternatives for

reducing adverse impacts, as required

by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license

renewal issues in Appendix B to

Subpart A of this part. No such

consideration is required for Category 1

issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of

this part.

(iv) The environmental report must

contain any new and significant

information regarding the

environmental impacts of license

renewal of which the applicant is aware.

(d) Postoperating license stage. Each

applicant for a license amendment

authorizing the decommissioning of a

production or utilization facility

covered by § 51.20 and each applicant

for a license or license amendment to

store spent fuel at a nuclear power plant

after expiration of the operating license

for the nuclear power plant shall submit

with its application the number of

copies specified in § 51.55 of a separate

document entitled ‘‘Supplement to

Applicant’s Environmental Report—

Post Operating License Stage.’’ This

supplement will update ‘‘Supplement to

Applicant’s Environmental Report—

Operating License Stage’’ and

‘‘Applicant’s Environmental Report—

Operating License Renewal Stage,’’ as

appropriate, to reflect any new

information or significant

environmental change associated with

the applicant’s proposed

decommissioning activities or with the

applicant’s proposed activities with

respect to the planned storage of spent

fuel. Unless otherwise required by the

Commission, in accordance with the

generic determination in § 51.23(a) and

the provisions in § 51.23(b), the

applicant shall address only the

environmental impact of spent fuel

storage for the term of the license.

4. In § 51.55, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 51.55 Environmental report—number of

copies; distribution.

(a) Each applicant for a license to

construct and operate a production or

utilization facility covered by

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4)

of § 51.20, each applicant for renewal of

an operating license for a nuclear power

plant, each applicant for a license

amendment authorizing the

decommissioning of a production or

utilization facility covered by § 51.20,

and each applicant for a license or

license amendment to store spent fuel at

a nuclear power plant after expiration of

the operating license for the nuclear

power plant shall submit to the Director

of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation or the Director of the Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, as appropriate, 41 copies of

an environmental report or any

supplement to an environmental report.

The applicant shall retain an additional

109 copies of the environmental report

or any supplement to the environmental

report for distribution to parties and

Boards in the NRC proceedings; Federal,

State, and local officials; and any

affected Indian tribes, in accordance

with written instructions issued by the

Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation or the Director of the Office

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

as appropriate.

* * * * *

5. In § 51.71, paragraphs (d) and (e)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 51.71 Draft environmental impact

statement—contents.

* * * * *

(d) Analysis. The draft environmental

impact statement will include a

preliminary analysis that considers and

weighs the environmental effects of the

proposed action; the environmental

impacts of alternatives to the proposed

action; and alternatives available for

reducing or avoiding adverse

environmental effects. Except for

supplemental environmental impact

statements for the operating license

renewal stage prepared pursuant to

§ 51.95(c), draft environmental impact

statements should also include

consideration of the economic,

technical, and other benefits and costs

of the proposed action and alternatives

and 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 pursuant to paragraph

(a) of this section. Supplemental

environmental impact statements

prepared at the license renewal stage

pursuant to § 51.95(c) need not discuss

the economic or technical benefits and

costs of either the proposed action or

alternatives except insofar as such

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

pursuant to § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28489

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 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 decisionmakers 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 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 decisionmakers

would be unreasonable at the license renewal stage.

4The consideration of reasonable alternatives to

a proposed action involving nuclear power reactors

(e.g., alternative energy sources) is intended to

assist the NRC in meeting its NEPA obligations and

does not preclude any State authority from making

separate determinations with respect to these

alternatives and in no way preempts, displaces, or

affects the authority of States or other Federal

agencies to address these issues.

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. Due

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

promulgated or imposed pursuant to 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 such 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.

(e) Preliminary recommendation. The

draft environmental impact statement

normally will include a preliminary

recommendation by the NRC staff

respecting the proposed action. This

preliminary recommendation will be

based on the information and analysis

described in paragraphs (a) through (d)

of this section and §§ 51.75, 51.76,

51.80, 51.85, and 51.95, as appropriate,

and will be reached after considering

the environmental effects of the

proposed action and reasonable

alternatives,4 and, except for

supplemental environmental impact

statements for the operating license

renewal stage prepared pursuant to

§ 51.95(c), after weighing the costs and

benefits of the proposed action. In lieu

of a recommendation, the NRC staff may

indicate in the draft statement that two

or more alternatives remain under

consideration.

§ 51.75 [Amended]

6. In Section 51.75, redesignate

footnote 4 as footnote 5.

7. Section 51.95 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.95 Postconstruction environmental

impact statements.

(a) General. Any supplement to a final

environmental impact statement or any

environmental assessment prepared

under the provisions of this section may

incorporate by reference any

information contained in a final

environmental document previously

prepared by the NRC staff that relates to

the same production or utilization

facility. Documents that may be

referenced include, but are not limited

to, the final environmental impact

statement; supplements to the final

environmental impact statement,

including supplements prepared at the

operating license stage; NRC staffprepared final generic environmental

impact statements; environmental

assessments and records of decisions

prepared in connection with the

construction permit, the operating

license, and any license amendment for

that facility. A supplement to a final

environmental impact statement will

include a request for comments as

provided in § 51.73.

(b) Initial operating license stage. In

connection with the issuance of an

operating license for a production or

utilization facility, the NRC staff will

prepare a supplement to the final

environmental impact statement on the

construction permit for that facility,

which will update the prior

environmental review. The supplement

will only cover matters that differ from

the final environmental impact

statement or that reflect significant new

information concerning matters

discussed in the final environmental

impact statement. Unless otherwise

determined by the Commission, a

supplement on the operation of a

nuclear power plant will not include a

discussion of need for power, or of

alternative energy sources, or of

alternative sites, or of any aspect of the

storage of spent fuel for the nuclear

power plant within the scope of the

generic determination in § 51.23(a) and

in accordance with § 51.23(b), and will

only be prepared in connection with the

first licensing action authorizing fullpower operation.

(c) Operating license renewal stage. In

connection with the renewal of an

operating license for a nuclear power

plant under part 54 of this chapter, the

Commission shall prepare a supplement

to the Commission’s NUREG–1437,

‘‘Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants’’ (xxxx 1996).

(1) The supplemental environmental

impact statement for the operating

license renewal stage shall address

those issues as required by § 51.71. In

addition, the NRC staff must comply

with 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3) in conducting

the additional scoping process as

required by § 51.71(a).

(2) The supplemental environmental

impact statement for license renewal is

not required to include discussion of

need for power or the economic costs

and economic benefits of the proposed

action or of alternatives to the proposed

action except insofar as such 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 the

alternatives, or any aspect of the storage

of spent fuel for the facility within the

scope of the generic determination in

§ 51.23(a) and in accordance with

§ 51.23(b). The analysis of alternatives

in the supplemental environmental

impact statement should be limited to

the environmental impacts of such

alternatives and should otherwise be

prepared in accordance with § 51.71 and

appendix A to subpart A of this part.

(3) The supplemental environmental

impact statement shall be issued as a

final impact statement in accordance

with §§ 51.91 and 51.93 after

considering any significant new

information relevant to the proposed
28490 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

action contained in the supplement or

incorporated by reference.

(4) The supplemental environmental

impact statement must contain the NRC

staff’s recommendation regarding the

environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action. In order to make

its recommendation and final

conclusion on the proposed action, the

NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and

Commission shall integrate the

conclusions, as amplified by the

supporting information 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) or

resolved Category 2, information

developed for those open Category 2

issues applicable to the plant in

accordance with § 51.53(c)(3)(ii), and

any significant new information. Given

this information, the NRC staff,

adjudicatory officers, and Commission

shall determine whether or not the

adverse environmental impacts of

license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal

for energy planning decisionmakers

would be unreasonable.

(d) Postoperating license stage. In

connection with an amendment to an

operating license authorizing the

decommissioning of a production or

utilization facility covered by § 51.20 or

with the issuance, amendment, or

renewal of a license to store spent fuel

at a nuclear power plant after expiration

of the operating license for the nuclear

power plant, the NRC staff will prepare

a supplemental environmental impact

statement for the postoperating license

stage or an environmental assessment,

as appropriate, which will update the

prior environmental review. Unless

otherwise required by the Commission,

in accordance with the generic

determination in § 51.23(a) and the

provisions of § 51.23(b), a supplemental

environmental impact statement for the

postoperating license stage or an

environmental assessment, as

appropriate, will address the

environmental impacts of spent fuel

storage only for the term of the license,

license amendment, or license renewal

applied for.

8. In § 51.103, paragraph (a)(3) is

revised and paragraph (a)(5) is added to

read as follows:

§ 51.103 Record of decision—General.

(a) * * *

(3) Discuss preferences among

alternatives based on relevant factors,

including economic and technical

considerations where appropriate, the

NRC’s statutory mission, and any

essential considerations of national

policy, which were balanced by the

Commission in making the decision and

state how these considerations entered

into the decision.

* * * * *

(5) In making a final decision on a

license renewal action pursuant to part

54 of this chapter, the Commission shall

determine whether or not the adverse

environmental impacts of license

renewal are so great that preserving the

option of license renewal for energy

planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

* * * * *

9. Paragraph 4 of appendix A to

subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is revised

as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart A—Format for

Presentation of Material in

Environmental Impact Statements

* * * * *

4. Purpose of and need for action. The

statement will briefly describe and specify

the need for the proposed action. The

alternative of no action will be discussed. In

the case of nuclear power plant construction

or siting, consideration will be given to the

potential impact of conservation measures in

determining the demand for power and

consequent need for additional generating

capacity.

* * * * *

10. A new appendix B is added to

subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 to read as

follows:

Appendix B to Subpart A—

Environmental Effect of Renewing the

Operating License of a Nuclear Power

Plant

The Commission has assessed the

environmental impacts associated with

granting a renewed operating license for a

nuclear power plant to a licensee who holds

either an operating license or construction

permit as of June 30, 1995. Table B–1

summarizes the Commission’s findings on

the scope and magnitude of environmental

impacts of renewing the operating license for

a nuclear power plant as required by section

102(2) of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, as amended. Table B–1, subject

to an evaluation of those issues identified in

Category 2 as requiring further analysis and

possible significant new information,

represents the analysis of the environmental

impacts associated with renewal of any

operating license and is to be used in

accordance with § 51.95(c). On a 10-year

cycle, the Commission intends to review the

material in this appendix and update it if

necessary. A scoping notice must be

published in the Federal Register indicating

the results of the NRC’s review and inviting

public comments and proposals for other

areas that should be updated.

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

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality.1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible during refurbishment because best management practices are expected to be employed to control soil erosion and spills.

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use.1 SMALL. Water use during refurbishment will not increase appreciably or will be reduced during

plant outage.

Altered current patterns at intake

and discharge structures.

1 SMALL. Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

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

Altered salinity gradients ............ 1 SMALL. Salinity gradients have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

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

Altered thermal stratification of

lakes.

1 SMALL. Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

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.

Scouring caused by discharged

cooling water.

1 SMALL. Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power plants

and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Eutrophication ............................. 1 SMALL. Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants

and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28491

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

Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Discharge of chlorine or other

biocides.

1 SMALL. Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Discharge of sanitary wastes

and minor chemical spills.

1 SMALL. Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications, if

needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Discharge of other metals in

waste water.

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

plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

Water use conflicts (plants with

once-through 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 small river with low flow).

2 SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling

ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near

these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).

Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)

Refurbishment ............................ 1 SMALL. During plant shutdown and refurbishment there will be negligible effects on aquatic

biota because of a reduction of entrainment and impingement of organisms or a reduced release of chemicals.

Accumulation of contaminants in

sediments or biota.

1 SMALL. Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but

has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Entrainment of phytoplankton

and zooplankton.

1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem at

operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Cold shock .................................. 1 SMALL. Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with oncethrough cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish.1 SMALL. Thermal plumes 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.

Distribution of aquatic organisms 1 SMALL. Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the larger

geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.

Premature emergence of aquatic

insects.

1 SMALL. Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem during

the license renewal term.

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble

disease).

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. 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.

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge.1 SMALL. Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a oncethrough cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. 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.

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 nuisance organisms (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.

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish

in early life stages.

2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of 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. Further, ongoing efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations

may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license may no

longer be valid. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but

may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling

systems. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

Heat shock ................................. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the

possible need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing environmental conditions, the impacts may be of moderate or large significance at some plants. See

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
28492 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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

Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish

in early life stages.

1 SMALL. Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 SMALL. The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Heat shock ................................. 1 SMALL. Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants

with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Ground-water Use and Quality

Impacts of refurbishment on

ground-water use and quality.

1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering during the original construction on some sites will not be repeated during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant wastes produced during refurbishment

will be handled in the same manner as in current operating practices and are not expected

to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water; plants

that use <100 gpm).

1 SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use conflicts.

Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water, and

dewatering; plants that use

>100 gpm).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby ground-water users. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).

Ground-water use conflicts

(plants using cooling towers

withdrawing make-up water

from a small river).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conflicts may result from surface water withdrawals from small water bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer recharge, especially if other ground-water or upstream surface water users come on line before the time of license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).

Terrestrial Resources

Refurbishment impacts ............... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of important plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether important plant

and animal communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with the license renewal application. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).

Cooling tower impacts on crops

and ornamental vegetation.

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

tower operation 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.

Cooling tower impacts on native

plants.

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

tower operation 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.

Bird collisions with cooling towers.1 SMALL. These collisions 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.

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial resources.1 SMALL. Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial ecological resources are considered to be of

small significance at all sites.

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide

application).

1 SMALL. The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small significance at all sites.

Bird collision with power lines .... 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.

Impacts of 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.

Floodplains and wetland on

power line right of way.

1 SMALL. Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power lines

and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant impact is expected

at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)

Threatened or endangered species.2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are

not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. However, consultation

with appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine

whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28493

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

Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Air Quality

Air quality during refurbishment

(nonattainment and maintenance areas).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated with

license renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be

cause for concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The significance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed during the outage.

See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F).

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.

Land Use

Onsite land use .......................... 1 SMALL. Projected onsite land use changes required during refurbishment and the renewal period would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is

controlled by the applicant.

Power line right of way ............... 1 SMALL. Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in restrictions.

The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

Human Health

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment.1 SMALL. During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents would result in doses that are similar to

those from current operation. Applicable regulatory dose limits to the public are not expected

to be exceeded.

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment.1 SMALL. Occupational doses from refurbishment are expected to be within the range of annual

average collective doses experienced for pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reactors. Occupational mortality risk from all causes including radiation is in the mid-range for industrial settings.

Microbiological organisms (occupational health).1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of

accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures.

Microbiological organisms (public health) (plants using lakes

or canals, or cooling towers or

cooling ponds that discharge

to a small 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 small rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects generically. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).

Noise .......................................... 1 SMALL. Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not expected to

be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.

Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock).2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Electrical shock resulting from direct access to energized

conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures have not been found to be a problem at most operating plants and generally are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance

of the electric shock potential at the site. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H).

Electromagnetic fields, chronic

effects 5.

NA4 UNCERTAIN. Biological and physical studies of 60–Hz electromagnetic fields have not found

consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. However, because the state

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

possible.5

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term).1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal operations.

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term).1 SMALL. Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are within the

range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal maintenance outages, and

would be well below regulatory limits.

Socioeconomics

Housing impacts ......................... 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Housing impacts are expected to be of small significance

at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. Moderate or large housing impacts of the workforce associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located

in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing development. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Public services: public safety,

social services, and tourism

and recreation.

1 SMALL. Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to

be of small significance at all sites.

Public services: public utilities .... 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may lead

to impacts of moderate significance on public water supply availability. See

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Public services, education (refurbishment).2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Most sites would experience impacts of small significance

but larger impacts are possible depending on site- and project-specific factors. See

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
28494 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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

Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Public services, education (license renewal term).1 SMALL. Only impacts of small significance are expected.

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population

areas. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Offsite land use (license renewal

term).

2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Significant changes in land use may be associated with

population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

Public services, Transportation 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transportation impacts are generally expected to be of

small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with the additional workers

and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large

significance at some sites. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).

Historic and archaeological resources.2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are

expected to have no more than small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological resources. However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to

consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties

present that require protection. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K).

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment).1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during refurbishment.

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term).1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal

term).

1 SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

Postulated Accidents

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

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

bodies of water, releases to ground water, 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. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than

the disposal of spent fuel and

high level waste).

1 SMALL. Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the Commission in

Table S–3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects).1 The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, high

level waste and spent fuel disposal is calculated to be about 14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20 year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses

summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to

include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the

U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel

cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated (for example, no cancer cure in the next thousand

years), and that these does projection over thousands of years are meaningful. However

these assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that

there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are very

small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement

in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that

these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require

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

Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single

level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28495

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

Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

Offsite radiological impacts

(spent fuel and high level

waste disposal).

1 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the current candidate repository

site. However, if we assume that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, ‘‘Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,’’ and

that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits,

peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per year or less. However, while

the Commission has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there

is considerable uncertainty since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application

has been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate

possible pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem

per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses, but notes

that some measure of consensus exists among national and international bodies that the

limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100

millirem annual dose limit is about 310¥3.

Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The

likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the integrity of a

deep geologic repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy in the ‘‘Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste,’’ October 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a

reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after

100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies have expended considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high level waste

repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of doses to population may be possible in the future as more is understood about the

performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very

great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of

years. The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative

population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the view that

protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository at Yucca

Mountain. However, EPA’s generic repository standards in 40 CFR part 191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that could result

from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be

within the range of standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR part 191

protect the population by imposing ‘‘containment requirements’’ that limit the cumulative

amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. The cumulative release limits are

based on EPA’s population impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a

100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement

in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that

these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require

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

54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level

of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, 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 are found to be small.

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 will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The maximum additional on-site land that

may be required for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be small.

Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of low-level waste from any individual plant

at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable

assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when

needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

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 will not increase

the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all

plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of

mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent

with NRC decommissioning requirements.
28496 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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

Continued

Issue Category 2 Findings 3

On-site spent fuel ....................... 1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects through dry or

pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not

available.

Nonradiological waste ................ 1 SMALL. No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and

procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at all plants.

Transportation ............................ 2 Table S–4 of this part contains an assessment of impact parameters to be used in evaluating

transportation effects in each case. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M).

Decommissioning

Radiation doses .......................... 1 SMALL. Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of

which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase no more than 1

man-rem caused by buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the license renewal term.

Waste management ................... 1 SMALL. Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate no

more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in the quantities

of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

Air quality .................................... 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the end

of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

Water quality .............................. 1 SMALL. The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no greater

whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period or after the original

40-year operation period, and measures are readily available to avoid such impacts.

Ecological resources .................. 1 SMALL. Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.

Socioeconomic impacts .............. 1 SMALL. Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The impacts

would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and economic growth.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice 6 ............... NA4 NONE. The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be addressed

in plant-specific reviews.6

1 Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’

(xxxx 1996). 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 can not 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.

5Scientific evidence about a chronic biological effect on humans from exposure to transmission line electric and magnetic fields is inconclusive.

If the Commission finds that a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects, the

Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not

required to submit information on this issue. 6Environmental Justice was not addressed in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants,’’ because guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 issued on February 11, 1994, was not available prior to completion of

NUREG–1437. This issue will be addressed in individual license renewal reviews.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28497

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day of

May, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–13874 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–161–AD; Amendment

39–9644; AD 96–12–02]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes,

Excluding Model A300–600 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes, that

requires measurements of the thickness

of the inner skin of the longitudinal lap

joint from the inside of the fuselage at

certain stringers. This amendment also

requires inspections to detect stress

corrosion cracking in the subject area,

and repair, if necessary. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

stress corrosion cracking found in the

skin at the longitudinal lap joint at

certain stringers of the fuselage, which

was caused by the increased stress level

in the subject area when it was

reworked beyond certain limits. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent such stress

corrosion cracking which, if not

detected and corrected in a timely

manner, could result in rapid

depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: Effective July 10, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 10,

1996.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2797; fax (206) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Airbus

Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7444). That

action proposed to require

measurements of the thickness of the

inner skin of the longitudinal lap joint

from the inside of the fuselage at certain

stringers using the ultrasonic thickness

measurement method. That action also

proposed to require high frequency

eddy current (HFEC) inspections to

detect cracking in the subject area, and

repair, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the two

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

Both commenters support the

proposed rule.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 17 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 32

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated

to be $32,640, or $1,920 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

96–12–02 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39–

9644. Docket 95–NM–161–AD.

Applicability: Model A300 B2 and B4

series airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers

003 through 156 inclusive; on which Airbus

Modification 2611 has not been installed;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not