[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17985]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 25, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 141
Monday, July 25, 1994
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
RIN 3150-AD94
Environmental Review for Renewal of Operating Licenses
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing a
supplement to the proposed rule concerning the environmental review for
renewal of operating licenses. The supplement would revise the
definition of purpose and need for the proposed Federal action that
will be used in the environmental review of applications for renewal of
nuclear power plant operating licenses. This action was developed in
response to public comments on the proposed rule. The redefinition
presented in the supplement to the proposed rule would also affect the
identification of alternatives to the proposed action that will be
considered in environmental reviews for license renewal.
DATES: Submit comments by September 8, 1994. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Comments received on the proposed rule as well as other documents
relevant to this rulemaking are available for inspection at the NRC
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555; Telephone: (301) 415-6263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47016), the NRC published in the
Federal Register proposed amendments to its environmental protection
regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, that would establish new requirements for
the environmental review of applications to renew operating licenses
for nuclear power plants. Concurrently, the NRC published NUREG-
1437,\1\ a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) that
contained the analysis which NRC proposed to codify in 10 CFR Part 51.
In commenting on the proposed rule and the draft GEIS, a number of
States expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment of need for
generating capacity, alternative energy sources, and certain other
issues. They expressed strong concerns that the proposed rule would
intrude adversely on traditional State regulatory authority over these
matters. They expressed concern that designation of need for generating
capacity and alternative energy sources as Category 1\2\ issues would
substantially eliminate public participation, would adversely affect
independent State consideration of these matters, and would
inadequately provide for use of current, project specific information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Copies of NUREG-1437 may be purchased from the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and
copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001.
\2\Category definitions:
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 all nuclear power plants that fall within defined bounds.
Category 3--A generic conclusion on the impact was not reached
for any nuclear power plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission instructed the NRC staff to develop an options paper
for responding to these State concerns, to solicit State views on the
options, and to present these options to the Commission. To facilitate
discussion of these matters 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 (January 18, 1994; 59 FR 2542) announced the
scheduling of three regional workshops and the availability of the
options paper.
The workshops were held during the month of February 1994, in
Rockville, MD (February 9, 1994), Rosemont, IL (February 15, 1994), and
Chicopee, MA (February 17, 1994). Discussants represented seven States,
the National Association of Utility Regulatory Commissioners, three
public advocacy groups, the Nuclear Utility Management and Resources
Council (now known as the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)) and the NRC.
Representatives of several other States, public advocacy groups, and
industry actively participated from the floor. A transcript of each
workshop was taken. Subsequent to the workshops, written comments were
filed by eight States, three public advocacy groups, the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) and two utilities. In addition, subsequent to the
workshops and receipt of most of the written comments, the NRC staff
met with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Council on
Environmental Quality to discuss the staff's proposed options and the
comments and options offered by the States. EPA submitted written
comments on May 11, 1994.
In their written submittal, NEI and Yankee Atomic Electric Company
(YAEC) each presented an approach to the handling of need and
alternatives in the rule that they believe would resolve the concerns
expressed by the States. These proposals had not been adequately
developed for discussion at the time of the regional workshops. Because
the NRC staff needed to better understand these proposals before
reporting to the Commission on a recommended approach, a public meeting
with NEI and YAEC was held on May 16, 1994. The meeting was announced
in the Federal Register (May 4, 1994; 59 FR 23030). Participants in the
regional workshops were notified of the meeting in advance and later
furnished with the meeting transcript.
After considering the range of options, the NRC staff has narrowed
its consideration to two basic approaches to the treatment of ``purpose
and need'' and ``alternatives'' that will best satisfy the concerns of
the States and meet the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). One approach has been proposed by the State
of New York and was endorsed by several other States. The other
approach, recommended in this document, was developed by the NRC staff
after consideration of the meeting transcripts and written comments.
Borrowing from some of the elements of the YAEC and NEI proposals, the
NRC staff has developed its own approach which it believes would
contribute substantially to resolving the concerns raised by the
States. Both approaches are discussed below.
The State Approach
The approach proposed by the State of New York is a modification of
the Option 2 as discussed in the NRC staff options paper. There are
three major elements to the State option. Quoting from the written
submittal of the State of New York:
i. the text of the actual rule should be modified to include, and
each individual relicensing decision should include, statements that
the NRC's findings with respect to need for generating capacity and
alternative energy sources are only intended to assist the NRC in
meeting its NEPA obligations and do not preclude the States from making
their own determinations with respect to these issues;
ii. determinations regarding the issues of need for generating
capacity and alternative energy sources should be designated ``Category
3'' conclusions requiring site-specific review, rather than ``Category
1'' generic conclusions; and
iii. all NRC project specific EIS and relicensing decisions should
make reference to State determinations on the issues of need for
generating capacity and alternative energy sources, and should defer to
and be guided by those State determinations to the maximum degree
possible pursuant to NEPA.
The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (renewal of an
operating license) continues to be defined in terms of the need for
power. This approach would address some of the State concerns because
the NRC would no longer perform the alternatives and need for power
analyses unless State analyses of these issues were inadequate or non-
existent. The NRC staff does not recommend this option, however, for
several reasons. First of all, the NRC would have to develop guidelines
for determining the acceptability of State analyses. Some States may
view the application of these guidelines as an intrusion on their
planning process. In addition, some States may not be prepared to
submit the required information to the NRC in a timely fashion given
the differing time-tables used by States in their energy planning
process. Finally, some States may not be capable of submitting the
required information to the NRC.
Recommended Approach
Based on the information gathered at the various public meetings
and from written comments, the NRC staff has developed the following
recommended approach. The major features of the recommended approach
are:
Redefine the purpose and need for the proposed action
(renewal of an operating license) as preserving continued operation of
a nuclear power plant as a safe option that State regulators and
utility officials may consider in their future energy planning
decisions.
Consider a range of alternatives to the proposed action to
identify any action that may reasonably serve the stated purpose and
need. Review the environmental impacts of any such alternatives.
Consider the environmental consequences of the ``no
action'' alternative to license renewal, which the NRC is required to
do by NEPA, i.e., the environmental impact of a range of energy sources
that might be used if NRC should preclude the option of continued
operation (license renewal).
Change NRC's NEPA decision standard for license renewal so
that renewal does not depend on an NRC conclusion that operation is the
preferred NEPA option. Instead, license renewal would depend on an NRC
conclusion that continued operation of a nuclear power plant is within
the reasonable range of alternatives considered and should not be
rejected as an option for future consideration.
Under the NRC staff's recommended approach, the definition of the
purpose and need of the Federal action in the GEIS would read:
The purpose and need of the proposed action is to preserve the
option of continued operation of the nuclear power plant for State
regulators and utility officials in their future energy planning
decisions.
In formulating this proposed purpose and need statement, the NRC
staff has attempted to consider the perspective of State regulators,
the needs of license renewal applicants, the nature of the applications
at issue, and the function that the NRC plays in the decisional
process. This proposed definition does not indicate an endorsement by
the NRC of nuclear power operation as a preferred energy source.
Instead, the proposed definition is intended to convey that, absent
findings in the Atomic Energy Act safety review or in the NEPA
environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license
renewal application, the NRC will not interfere with the energy
planning decisions of state regulators and utility officials. It would
also be explained in the GEIS that a renewed license is not a mandate
nor a commitment to operate but is simply documentation that the
licensee can meet the NRC's public health and safety requirements.
The GEIS would continue to include a full discussion of the
environmental impacts of license renewal, the purpose and need for
license renewal, alternatives that can serve that purpose and need, the
no action alternative, and the environmental consequences of the no
action alternative. In doing so, the NRC would fulfill its obligations
under NEPA to consider alternatives to the proposed action. The GEIS
would contain no discussion of need for power, the economic
competitiveness of nuclear power, or other economic considerations
related to these issues.
In applying the proposed definition of purpose and need to the
GEIS, the NRC staff has identified only two basic alternatives which
reasonably flow from the proposed approach: renewing an operating
license, which would preserve the option, and not renewing the
operating license (the no action alternative), which would not preserve
the option but is nevertheless required under NEPA. The NRC staff will
give further consideration to identifying additional alternatives and
is soliciting public comment by means of this document. If any other
reasonable alternatives are identified, the environmental impacts
associated with them will be assessed.
However, the NRC staff will examine the environmental impacts of
alternative sources of energy in its analysis of the no action
alternative. The implementation of the no action alternative, i.e.,
NRC's rejection of a license renewal application, would create a range
of potential environmental impacts including those impacts which would
result from the possible replacement of the nuclear plant's power by
some other source of energy. Accordingly, under the NRC staff's
proposed approach, the NRC staff will examine in the GEIS the full
range of environmental impacts of other sources of energy in order to
ensure a full consideration of the no action alternative.
The NRC would use the statement of purpose and need as a basis for
its decision standard in weighing the differences between license
renewal and the various alternatives involved. Final determinations
concerning alternatives in the GEIS would involve the following
decision criterion: NRC would use the information on environmental
impacts to reject the license renewal option only if the data
concerning environmental impacts and alternatives, including the no
action alternative, indicates that it would be unreasonable for the NRC
to preserve the option of nuclear power generation for future decision
makers.
For the no action alternative, the NRC would reject the license
renewal option only if the environmental impacts of license renewal
were so much worse than those of other sources of energy that the NRC
would be justified in eliminating the nuclear power plant as a tool for
future energy planners. It would not be necessary for the NRC to find
in the GEIS that existing nuclear power plants will be the preferred
source of energy. The NRC would only have to find that the
environmental impacts of nuclear plants place them within a
``reasonable range'' of future energy options viewed from the
perspective of environmental impacts. If, in an individual relicensing
action, new and significant information created a doubt concerning
previous conclusions in the GEIS, the NRC would consider that
information to determine if the previous determinations in the GEIS
were no longer valid for that particular plant.
This decision method used in the recommended approach would allow
the NRC to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and, at the same time, demonstrate an appreciation of
the primacy and expertise of the States in the area of energy planning.
This proposed standard for decision making in the GEIS would differ
from current NRC practice for application of NEPA at the construction
permit and the operating license stages and in the proposed amendments
to 10 CFR Part 51 for license renewal. Currently, at the construction
permit stage, the NRC compares the proposed action and the alternatives
using a cost-benefit analysis which includes consideration of the need
for power and other economic considerations related to power
generation. Under the current approach, the NRC rejects the licensing
action if the NEPA analysis demonstrates that an alternative is
``obviously superior.''
The recommended approach would avoid NRC determinations on such
economic issues and, instead, focus NRC's analysis in the GEIS on the
environmental impacts of license renewal and the associated
alternatives. For the purposes of the license renewal GEIS, the
proposed approach would replace the obviously superior standard with a
standard which requires the environmental impacts of the alternatives
considered to be so superior to the impacts of nuclear power as to
justify the preclusion of nuclear plant operation as an option for
future decision makers. In other words, based on the analysis of
environmental impacts, the proposed action must be in the ``reasonable
range'' of alternatives in order to justify NRC approval. Whether the
definition of purpose and need proposed for the license renewal stage
should also be applied at the construction permit and operating license
stage is under review by the NRC staff. That determination will be made
separately from the license renewal rulemaking.
The NRC staff believes that of the options considered, the
recommended approach will resolve concerns expressed by the States and
meet the original objectives of the rulemaking, i.e., to increase
regulatory efficiency and stability. The NRC notes that the primary
elements of this approach are a departure from past NRC practice as
applied at the construction permit and operating license stage.
However, the proposed purpose and need statement and the reasonable
range decision standard represent an approach to this issue which
reflects the differing set of circumstances pertinent to decisions
about continued operation of existing nuclear power plants. The NRC
staff believes that the definition and explanation of purpose and need
and the identification and consideration of alternatives is consistent
with the trend of current NEPA case law which allows an agency to
consider an applicant's wants when the agency formulates the goals of
its own proposed action (see e.g., Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v.
Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991); City of Grapevine, Tex. v. Dept.
of Transportation, 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Therefore, the staff
believes that its approach will address the concerns of the States and
meet the requirements of NEPA at the same time.
Within 30 days from the close of the public comment period the NRC
staff will report on the comments received. If the public comments
indicate opposition to this approach or the desirability of making
significant modifications to the approach, the NRC staff will seek
Commission guidance. Otherwise the NRC staff intends to proceed with
incorporation of the recommended approach in the final GEIS and the
final rule.
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201);
secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842); secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of July, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 94-17985 Filed 7-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
