ML19343D755

Requests for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re 10CFR51, Environ Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing & Related Functions. Estimated Respondent Burden Is 33,902 H

ML19343D755
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/03/1991
From:	Cranford G NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
To:
References
OMB-3150-0021, OMB-3150-21, NUDOCS 9109110265
Download: ML19343D755 (72)

Text

.

poil

,. w

'" s a

- mra t

. Request for OkB Revtern no i

. Sje'""s'p" reb tw3.

Qg 3 ;g y

.important (g4;A A

.ss._-.-

[

Reid instructions before compie:mg forr-Do r'ot use tne same SF S3 Send three cop >es o' th:s form. the materaad to ne 'evieu a. anc io'

• ' to request both an Executwe Oroer 12291 reuew and aca ovat under.

paperwork-wree copies of the supporting statemen-tc the P;perwork Reduction Att r

. J Answer ai! Ovestions in Part 1. If in s request is 1~ revetw uncer E O Othee J info naten and Reguiaton Atfus

)

- 12291. compiete par 11 and sign tne reputatory tertitcation if tne O*tice c' Management and Bucget

- reouest is for accrova! under 19e Pacerwork Recuc*:on kt and 5 CFfs Attentien: Dcchet Library Ranm 3201 l

1320 skip Fr1

c.,mpiete Es - e i:2 sp ini Leerm cm cet.:icate Wasmngton. DC 2050?

PART l.-Cv e This Part for AU Request.

f

,1. oepartment.ageG eb brea# orm ovnupeco* _

u em m.

LU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3

1 5 0 i

-' 3. Nome et person wno ca. wen ar:sm et Esa ri ca&1Tn75W ~ ~

~ - ' ' '

~ ~~---

1re % 7r~TT' ~ ~-

[

l 4. Ittle Of triform 8ttOn 0c90G.30 Dr f yrerte,(g _._

301 >492-3936

~.D_ona.Ld_Cleaty.__

{

i I

10 CFR 51, EnvironmentM Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Functions i

b. L.tyi a*nO'^ i 1Dr milaf'X37.

• Unt* m.. 3* ? p a t-ilm en,

t b

' a v.

'a '

42 x L2201(c)

6. Amnec c:w po r w am

. m, g...n r-

.t c 3

.' }

J dnO:vCuad uf riou e%C'

't

(

s

.. t sa - 4 s

4 3

r E.] s:sie 6 ccamoveer",r-1, i _

~

m

~

j X-<%-

t PART li.-Complete itsis Part Only

? heauest is for OMB Review Uncer Execbtive Orde.12291 I

____._._...m r

p

7. Rerumm toe %ee Vw mim f

l'

~u-&

i

_ B. Tyve cr steco=s.<cn c.mer :~ o -

. - =:ec 7pr et revres reovests:

C awtwaw n;v : u cape :-.

Ma;

. _. ten w -

i l

. 1 i a.a. v r t -

[

.y u.

i.,

oi i

t.

. ; S:aa 4

t 9 D Hiettw af e. 2

~

~ ~

' ~

~~'

"~

~

~~

~~

i Ui --

l

10. Does t+s reuanoscntae 'e. e m.x u - m 7r r:

o

.; N ew t++ hoe A n - but on k

. a'c 5 U R ;E f f

e t

. 11,0 a mhcr rus _,etnem a sega4

.q:. ; ru, en s

it"f.J o;; DE v,&,e inte at ou 4e i

Certificction tor Regulatory Suomissir ne i

. en su:mw

. w.. oi e tm e.,e..

u..

. 4

,t-

" c wmi

.c -

' policy OrreCPr

.c tu+u r sre,., ;e1 e n.-.

a._

sig;nat se et e e <

._t 1

.br.aur m. _ _ _-...__ _.-_.._

n wn

[

P f

.22. gws we orr, i.,.,, as m a

.z..e......

u u x,w.:u i

9109110265 910903

/

PDP ORO EUSOMB 1,j l ; ;

PDR t

,t T

A',

r-

_.. ~

PAP.T Hi -.Comobte This Part Only if the Reauest is f or Approval of a Coilecuon of information Under the Paperwork Recuction Act ana 5 CTR U20.

12. Anst actwes:nt.e reers. uses and a%ctec esv:, meres c *se

" Nuclear Facilities, Environmental Protection" The proposed amcndment to 10 CFR 51 requires applicants to subrit a supplement to the Environnental Report at the operating license renewal stage.

14. T pe of m5crmaden core:tton acnect oni.y one) btar=ston ccnec Hons not contames m.-wes 1 O iegu:ar suom svon 2 [ Emergency suomssie, Mr" aw: e em Wormation collections contained in tales 3 C Erstng 'eg Aapon pc cnarge proposea!

5 Nr er : -de-m ' a - ncat

• A.

-te

tate ed e triec cr ca. i e eva 4 b Notice et o'cposed riemaorg (NPRt.')

A C Aerafar wtms:cs

%te' tscoca* on at tNs sine y

<e p -

5 [ t mal. fGEM was vecGuS, DuLimhed 3 C E~ r p n s.4D" Ssn

1. "3

• W icet

'on'e

15. Type ot rev<ew reasestes 4 checa on9 orej I!, New cObect:o1 4 L "e r 5(a*F !ent of a Tev'OvsW ittrr0=*C T AP:SO1 *Cr w" ( *: et p* u ?

$n,m"ren 2

99V'sIOn O' a Currently hDDroveV CDhecten 3 0 uteneo,er: e eorat on date at a currentwero ec cenemn a, c.a ut.n,

. me u aw.mc wnout any range e, re s_t stance er - ine met oc o' c ot eninn

, s.%

1 genc< e:m mmees*:v:e s rw: cor cw -- n_w -

r2.

s,. c m e y e:*, '

._ a

emer~

~

y-

u. u.cuampe%r ;. s=ae men m,:m, 1 NJ nMr Of rehDOndeNt$.

4 E erJia'*:ry "P c D"'D' 3 9r e 2 Nme of responses per resoancem 1

- E "em u-g er mager ent 3 Totai annwa: responses t hre l f.mes sme 2>

26

C 'e:.ew.

wours penesponse 1.304

-[:m s Teteces 9ne a r mes ime o 33.902 1s. Ant ua: recoroce:nns oveen n %e"cv e rewre-co<g cr retmce a r9 avow s

1 Numpar ci recorcueepers

[ teta m e: 4 2 #f': Uni hours Der recCr. 'eeper.

Nfforfsng 2 I.'",.accas e 3 Tatat re:o *eeomg nours e ne i rocs one 2)

, [,..,r,

a Gecoe meepmg retention penod

-s

19. Tctal ant.av burcen 33*902

=

1 Recuested (hne 175 ous Ve :B-J.

5-2 **%

33 3,e 2 ;.n curren OMe inveme,

Y-r i, 0

3 Dyve ze We 1 <ess :me i)

Explanarson of artierente b-n 4 Frograrn cr.arge

[ M or mesc<.se.t 5 Adjustment

20. Cu"ent enost recent) OMe controi r ede or tamrnent number

24. %: mens seat.cn t : r w 'eraf w vest omssve' r9f am es, 1

3150-0027 s.....a y

21. ReQuestec estration Cate

] qq.,ec TO DMa'n or ret &n 6 Denkt 1/31/94

,I w my

25. Arethe responcents onmiNy educet enai agent es or inst <t.;t.ons or s"e smary p.nese c' e c:e ect:on e atec to Fece ai ecacanon vog e-s* [ *es 1 Nn 26 Does tne agency use semprg to se>ect resporcents o does tre egency ecommenc or rescrie ce s e o'sa% ng or stat st.ca< raws "s

a3 b, re.aoncents?

27.Pegu ry Authofsty IDr ref err'"atIDn cc! e: tion e

CFR

. or FR at CPe toe @)

Paperwork CefilfiCatIDS tn suDmrttmE thrs recuest ict oMB approval. the agency Saad. the sen.or ctfic.m or an aut*:oraed e resentat ve :e tAes that toe reev. ernerets o' 5 Cf P 1320. the Ertvacy /4ct, btatGtical standarOs or d.rectwes. and cry et*'er apDhcab+e mforrnet c ' '.)Discy O*tet!ves ra ve D**e t y pue0 min SigrCiurn i prDgram O*tsCial cate i

/]

n a te

• ncy

.c the s mor at or an autnonrec.pr entatae Lie Sq ku4 hG,--

G

f. 2 l,

\\

,C rald F. Cr)Mord. DSO for Infoma n Resources ihnacement

--e Cr0 1440- I.5 3 'M i

Y OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 51 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 0F APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PEACTOR OPERATING LICENSES Description of the Information Collection Applicants for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors must submit an environmental report describing likely environmental impacts of license renewal. Under the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51, a large number of environmental impacts would not have to be addressed by the applicant in the traironmental report. The NRC has completed a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) which assesses potential environmental impacts on a generic basis. The proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 codify the results of the GEIS.

A.

JUSTIFICATION 1.

Need for the Information Collection.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (fiEFA) directs that, to the fullest extent possible:

(1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in NEPA; and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall comply with the procedures in Section 102(2) of NEPA except where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements. The regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 implement Section 102(2) of NEPA in a manner which is ccnsistent with the NRC's domestic licensing and related regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978; and the Commission's announced policy to take into account the regulations of the Council of Environmental Quality published November 29, 1978 (43 FR 55978-56007), voluntarily, subject to certain conditions.

2.

Agency Use of Info _rmation. Part 51 of the NRC's regulations specifies inf ortit:on and data to be provided by applicants for license renewal so that the NRC can make determinations necessa'y to r

adhere to the poli:ics, regulations, and public laws of the United States which are to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, at amended. The NRC completes its review of this

o s

w information in approximately 1 year. When litigation is not j

involved, this review could be completed in approximately 6 months.

10 CFR 51.53(c)(1) requires each applicant for renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under 10 CFR 54 to submit with its application a separate document entitled " Supplement to Applicant's" l

Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage."

i 10 CFR 51.53(d) requires each applicant for a license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a production or utilization facility and each applicant for a license or license amendment to store spent fuel.... to submit a separate document entitled

" Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report - Post Operating i

License Stage," which will update the " Supplement to Apolicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage."

i Appendix B, Part III requires that an applicant for license renewal demonstrate that there is no cost advantage of replacement of equivalent generating capacity by a new coal fired power plant.

If no such demonstration can be made, a justification for choosing the license renewal alternative must be provided in the application.

The criteria the NRC must adhere to when considerino the environmental infonnation of a propnsed action is specified in Sections 51.20, 51.21, 51.22 and 51.30 of 10 CFR Part 51.

{

The information in the proposed amendments at proposed 51.53(c) is environmental information about potential environmental impacts of license renewal to be submitted as part of an application for renewal i

)

of an operating license for a nuclear power reactor.

Statements in the proposed amendments at 51.53(d) and Appendix B regarding requirements refer to the requirements in 51.53(c).

j i

3.

Reduction of Burden Through Information Technology. There is no legal obstacle to the use of information technology. Moreover, NRC encourages its use.

j 4.

Effort to Identify Duplication In cases where renewals or updates to environmental reports are required, reference to the previously submitted documents is i

acceptable; only revised or new information is required to be submitted to the NRC.

5.

Effort to Use similar Information.

Information submitted to other l

Federal Government and State agencies may be referenced.

l t

I 6.

Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden. No es,31icants are expected to be small businesses.

I 7.

Consequences of Less Frequent Collection. This information is l

submitted by applicants only once, at the time of license renewal application.

I

}

r i

8.

Circumstances Which Justify Variation from OMB Guidelines.

The provisions of 10 CFR Sections 51.55, 51.66 and 51.69 specify the L

number of copies that are required for environmental review by

{

l Federal, State, and local agencies. These reviews are necessary so that NRC can fulfill its authority and responsibility mandated under l

NEPA. A total of 150 copies are required for review by several Federal and State agencies, and for use in the NRC's litigation j

process.

4 i

i 9.

Consultations Outside the Agency.

Public comments were solicited in

[

l an a 2ance notice of proposed rulemaking published July 23, 1990 (55

}

FR 29964).

Public comments will be solicited on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 and the draf t GEIS which supports the i

proposed rule.

l t

Moreover, when an environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared by the NRC, the draft EIS is sent out for public comment.

l The NRC staff met with the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of the Inter or, the Department of Energy, and the i

d Environmental Protectiol Agency to seek their comments on the approach used in tne praposed amendments to Part 51.

j

10. Confidentiality of Information. Section 51.16(b) requires persons wno wish to have prop,ietary information withheld from public disclosure to submit a request justifying the withholding.

Proprietary informacion is protected in accordance with the provisions of 10 Cr'R Section 2.790(b).

However, none is anticipated.

I

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions.

Part 51 information i

collections do not involve sensitive or private information.

l

12. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government.

The estimated number of hours for review of each application under the proposed j

amendments is 814 hours0.00942 days <br />0.226 hours <br />0.00135 weeks <br />3.09727e-4 months <br />. Total estimated cost would be 584,000 i

(814 x 5115/ hour). Annualized cost would depend on the number of license renewal applications NRC receives.

For two applications in the 3-year period, the annualized cost would be 555,944.

Note: These estimates may differ from those in the Regulatory i

Analysis due to use of fully-loaded costs rataer than incremental i'

costs.

13. Estimate of Industry.

a.

Reporting Burden and Cost:

l l

Under the existing 10 CFR Part 51, each applicant for license i

renewal must submit an environmental report which assesses all of the potential impacts of license renewal.

The staff estimates that the burden is 4,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per application.

For two applications annualized over a three year clearance, the burden is 2,667 hours0.00772 days <br />0.185 hours <br />0.0011 weeks <br />2.537935e-4 months <br />.

j i

t f

I r

s This proposed rulemaking, by eliminating many environmental impacts from case-by-case environmental review, would result in l

a substantial reduction of the above burden. This proposed rulemaking would reduce the total estimated burden per application to only 2,728 hours0.00843 days <br />0.202 hours <br />0.0012 weeks <br />2.77004e-4 months <br />. For two applications annualized over a three year clearance, the estimated burden is f

1,819 hours0.00948 days <br />0.228 hours <br />0.00135 weeks <br />3.116295e-4 months <br />. The estimated dollar cost is $313,720 per applicant, 2,728 hours0.00843 days <br />0.202 hours <br />0.0012 weeks <br />2.77004e-4 months <br /> x $115 per hour.

Note:

These estimates may differ from those in the Regulatory Analysis due to use of fully-loaded costs rather than incremental costs.

i b.

Recordkeeping Burden

)

t Recordkeeping requirements are not specified in 10 CFR 51.

i 14 Reasons for Chance in Burde.. The decrease in burden is allowed because a large number of environmental impacts will not be subject to review in individual license renewal proceedings. The proposed rulemakmg will codify environmental impacts which have been evaluated by NRC on a generic basis, f

15. Publication for Statistical Use. NRC does not publish information submitted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 for statistical use, i

m B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS l

Information collection provisions of Part 51 do not require the use of statistical methods.

[

[

I f

f i

i t

i i

P t

l 1

a e

F E"CLOSUFE 1 i

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

10 CFR Part 51

{

RIN 3150-AD 94 Environmental Review for Renewal of Operating Licenses AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I ACTION: Proposed rule.

p

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its

[

t regulations to establish new requirements for emironmental review of applications for l

f renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. The proposed amendments would define

~

the number and scope of emironmental issues which would need to be addressed as part of a license renewal application. Concurrent with the proposed amendments, the NRC is i

publishing for comment a draft Generic Emironmental Impact Statement, a draft Regulatory j

Guide. a draft Environmental Standard Review Plan, and a draft Regulatory Analysis, which j

supplement the proposed amendments. A workshop on the proposed amendments and the

[

draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement will be held during the comment period.

3 DATE: Comment period expires

//. Comments received after this date will be

[

considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only

[

of comments received on or before this date. Notification of intent to attend the workshop, l

t concurrent session preferences, and desire to participate ac : panelist during a specific l

session should be received by the staff no later than September 13,1991. Comments on the

}

proposed agenda received by the staff by September 13, 1991 will be considered in j

developing the final workshop agenda. A final agenda and detailed information on each session will be available after October 1,1991. This information will be mailed to all f

individuals and organizations who notify the NRC of their intent to atiend and to others who request it. The workshop will be held on i

i

i ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Notification of intent to attend and desire to participate as a panelist during a specific session should be sent to Donald Cleary, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Comments may be sent to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S.s'uclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be hand delivered to the Office of the Secretary, One White Flint North,11555 Rocksille Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:30 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of commentr, received 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. Federal workdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Cleary, Division of Safety Issues Resolution, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1.

Introduction.

II. Background.

l A. License Renewal-10 CFR Part 54.

B. Emironmental Review.

t C. Use of Generic Rulemaking.

i III. Proposed Action.

A. Proposed Amendments.

B. Generic Environmental Impact Statement C. Regulatory Guidance to Support the 10 CFR Part 51 Revisions.

D. Public Comments on ANPR.

IV. Questions.

f V.

Availability of Documents.

j VI. Workshop VII. Submittal of Comments in an Electronic Format VIII. Emironmental Impact.

2 l

4 e

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act i

X.

Regulatory Analysis.

XI. Regulatory Fiexibility Certification.

XII. Backfit Analysis.

XIII. Text of Proposed Part 51 Amendments i

I.

Introduction The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 51 to improve the efficiency of j

the process of environmental review when applicants seek renewal of an operating license for up to an additional 20 years. In preparation for possible license renewal applications, the Commission considered the merits of relying on the existing framework.for environmental review under Part 51 compared to revision of Part 51. In reaching its

[

decision to amend Part 51 the Commission considered the following factors: (1) license renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which the environmental impacts of operation are well understood based on operating experience to date; (2) activities and requirements t

associated with license renewal are anticipated to be within the range of experiencs. thus emironmental impacts can reasonably be predicted; and (3) changes in the environment around nut 7ar power plants are generally gradual and predictable with respect to characteristics important to emironmental impact analyses.

The Commission has conducted a study of the potential environmentalimpacts of license renewal. The objective of the study was to identify all the potential impacts I

associated with plant license renewal, determine mich of these impacts could be evaluated generically for all plants, and determine the significance of the impacts which could be generically evaluated. The analyses and results of this study are contained in the draft Generic Emironmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (NUREG-1437), which is being published for comment concurrently with this proposed rule. The GEIS concludes that only a limited number of the total potential impacts cannot be evaluated generically. The impacts that cannot be evaluated generically will have to be evaluated in each individual plant license L

3

t 4

a renewal case. The emironmental impacts that were generically evaluated will not have to be evaluated in individual plant license renewal cases.

The GEIS provides the basis for this rulemaking. The development of the GEIS has followed the recommended procedures set out by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and has included scoping actisities such as consultation with CEO and other Federal agencies a public workshop held on November 12-14,1989 (54 FR 419S0, October 13, 1989), and publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare the GEIS (55 FR 29967, July 23, 1990).

i The proposed rule addresses the potential environmental impacts which are generically evaluated for all plants in the GEIS, and codifies the findings made in the GEIS.

In addition, those potential impacts which are not generically evaluated in the GEIS are identified in the proposed rule for evaluation on a plant specific basis. By assessing and codifying certain potential environmental impacts on a generic basis, there will be no need to address these impacts in each and every future license renewal case. The proposed amendments should result in considerable savings to the NRC, the nuclear utility industry, and the nuclear utility ratepayers, while assuring that the environmentalimpacts of license I

renewal are evaluated, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The basic information and the supporting analysis of environmental impacts which serves as the basis of this proposed rulemaking are contained in the draft GEIS, NUREG-1437. The GEIS and these proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 also provide the basis l

for developing a license renewal supplement to Regulatory Guide 4.2, " Preparation of Emironmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations," which will provide guidance on the format and content of the environmental report to be submitted as part of the license renewal application. Additionally, the staff is also preparing an Environraental Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1429) that will provide guidance to the staff on the scope of the review necessary to implement the proposed amendments to Part 51.

II.

Background

A. License Renewal - 10 CFR Part 54 A significant number of the operating licenses for the existing nuclear power plants are due to expire in the early part of the twenty-first century. The NRC anticipates that a 4

.t

i number of licensees will submit applications for a renewal of their operating license 10 to 20 years prior to the license expiration. The first of these applications is expected in the near future. The NRC has issued a proposed rule,10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, (55 FR 29043, July 17,1990) that would establish the requirements that an applicant must meet, the information that must be submitted to the NRC for review so that the agency can determine whether these requirements have in fact been met, and the application procedures. The proposed Part 54 permits the renewal of an operating license for up to additional 20 year increments beyond the expiration of its current license (initial licenses authorize 40 years of operation). The t

Part 54 rule could be applied to multiple renewals of a plant operating license. However, the Part 51 amendments apply to one rr newal of the initial license for up to 20 years beyond the expiration of the initiallicense.

i

. Plant license renewal will be based on the current licensing basis. (i.e., the original plant licensing basis as amended during the initial license term), and changes as necessary i

to address the effects of age-related degradation on systems, structures, and components important to license renewal. An assessment shall be made by the licensee to determine those activities and modifications which are necessary, at the time of license renewal and throughout the renewal term, to ensure continued safe operation of the plant. Each licensee shall identify and incorporate those activities necessary for managing aging into its licensing basis, thereby ensuring that acceptable margins of safety are preserved throughout the license renewal term. Under 10 CFR Part 54, each applicant for license renewal must submit an emironmental report that complies with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC regulations governing environmental protection for domestic licensing.

B. Environmental Review The scope of NRC's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review is found in i

10 CFR Part 51. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 551.45, the applicant must submit an l

Environmental Report (ER) that discusses the impact of the proposed action on the emironment, any adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. In addition, an analysis is required that considers and balances 5

h

I I

the environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as the benefits of the action. NRC will independently review this material and publish the results.

Prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit (CP) or an Operating License (OL) l for a nuclear power plant, the NRC is required to assess the potential environmentalimpacts of the plant to ensure that the issuance of a permit or license is consistent with NEPA and the NRC implementing regulations of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. For those plants licensed subsequent to the enactment of NEPA, baseline quantitative studies and monitoring programs were often developed for comparison with data gathered from later programs if adverse effects of construction or operation were reasonably inferred from information 4

obtained during the gathering cf pre-construction or operational baseline phases. Such gudies were part of the applicant's environmental report and were reviewed in the staffs Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the specific plant. These studies and programs t

were restricted to the impact assessment of important resources and important species described in the staffs guidance documents such as Regulatory Guide 4.2, and Envi-i ronmental Standard Review Plans (NUREG-0555). The staff's final assessments of these programs were normally summarized in each plant specific FES. Based upon these reviews,

[

i appropriate environmental parameters would have been proposed for monitoring or for special studies.

Although two operating nuclear power plants were licensed prior to NEPA and do L

not have FESS, the GEIS did consider and envelope these plants. Accordingly, the Commission believes that there is no reason for special treatment of these two plants in the emironmental review for individual plant license renewal.

i Additionally, nonradiological discharges of pollutants to receiving waters from operation of nuclear power plants licensed by the NRC are subject to limitations or i

monitoring under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), administered by EPA or designated State agencies. The resultant reporting requirements under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are relied upon by EPA and designated State agencies to provide data on potential problems. Permits are subject to review and approval every five years and may be modified by the permitting authority based upon an analysis of data generated from plant specific NPDES monitoring programs.

6

F

~

r l

e The Commission considers that one of its responsibilities under NEPA is to keep j

informed of significant environmental impacts during the term of plant operations. For impacts invoMng degradation of the aquatic environment, the reporting requirements of

(

NPDES permits issued pursuant to FWPCA are generally relied upon to alert NRC to l

potential problems. In addition, the Commission includes conditions in its licenses to protect the emironment in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36(b). These conditions identify appropriate i

requirements for reporting and recordkeeping of environmental data, and of conditions and monitoring requirements for the protection of the nonaquatic environment. A license may also contain under Part 50 references to Environmental Protection Plans, Environmental Technical Specifications and Radiological Technical Specifications.

Therefore, the emironmental effect of current operating reactors is well known and the likely effect in the j

future if licenses are renewed can be extrapolated with some confidence. This practice is j

consistent with regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality which direct agencies to adopt monitoring and enforcement programs, where appropriate. As a result of the staff's environmental reviews, certain environmental conditions, including monitoring requirements, may be included in NRC licenses. The information generated from these requirements is provided to the NRC on a routine basis, and the Commission may respond where appropriate.

i C. Use of Generic Rulemakine The Commission has previously endorsed the generic rulemaking process and

]

recognized the advantages of generic rulemaking. In an interim policy statement on generic j

rulemaking to improve nuclear power plant licensing, these advantages were identified:

j r

"(a) enhance stability and predictability of the licensing process by providing f

regulatory criteria and requirements in discrete generic areas on matters which f

L are signi5 cant in the review and approval of license applications; (b) enhance j

public understanding and confidence in the integrity of the licensing process f

t by bringing out for public participation important generic issues which are of j

concern to the agency and the public; (c) enhance administrative efficiency in l

licensing by removing, in whole or in part, generic issues from staff review and adjudicatory resolution in individual licensing proceedings and/or by 7

t L

)

f e

establishing the imponance (or lack of importance) of various safety and l

emironmental issues to the decision process; (d) assist the Commission in resolving complex methodology and policy issues involved in recurring issues in the review and approval of individual licensing applications; and (e) yield an overall savings in the utilization of resources in the licensing process by the utility industry, those of the public whose interest may be affected by the rulemaking, the NRC and other Federal, State, and local governments with an expected improvement in the quality of the decision process.'

The NRC has used this generic approach in several Part 51 rulemakings. Table S-4 of $51.52, that sets forth the emironmental impacts of the transportation of radioactive waste and nuclear fuel,is such an example. Applicants meeting certain criteria can use the information in Table S-4 as the basis for their evaluation of the environmental impacts of the transportation of radioactive waste and spent fuel. They are not required to conduct j

heir own analysis of these impacts. Other examples of past generic Pan 51 rulemakings are Table S-3 of 551.51, that sets forth the emironmental irnpacts of the nuclear fuel cycle; and 551.53 and 551.95, that eliminate the requirement to consider need for power and j

alternative energy sources for nuclear reactors at the operating license stage (47 FR 12940,

{

March 26,1982). Therefore, this rule is consistent with NRC policy.

III.

Proposed Action A. Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 establish new requirements for j

emironmental review of individual plant license renewal applications. These amendments would require the applicant to address only those emironmental issues that require a plant-specific assessment as pan of an individual plant license renewal application. All applicants

{

will have to assess impacts on threatened and endangered species, and impacts on local transportation during periods oflicense-renewal related refurbishment activities. License-

)

2 Generic Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Licensing, Interim Policy Statement, 43 FR 58377, December 14,1978.

8 i

renewal related refurbishment activities are those activities that are planned and performed on a nuclear power plant in order to prepare the plant for operation during the license renewal period. These activities include equipment replacements, overhauls, maintenance, inspection and testing. For other issues all applicants either will have to demonstrate that their plants fall within defined bounds of plants for which generic conclusions can be j

reached, or, if they do not fall within these bounds, an assessment of the issue must be presented. Also, as part of its environmental report (ER), an applicant must include an analysis of whether or not tue findings of the above required assessments overturn the favorable cost-benefit balance regarding license renewal found in the proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51.

The proposed amencments codify the conclusions of the GEIS for those issues for which a generic conclusion can be reached. The proposed Appendix B, which summarizes i

the Commission's findings on the scope and magnitude of emironmental and other effects of renewing the operating license of an individual nuclear power plant, is added to 10 CFR Part 51. In the proposed appendix, the Commission also states its finding that the " renewal of any operating license for up to 20 years will have accrued benefit: that outweigh the economic, emironmental, and social costs of license renewal....".

In addition, the proposed amendments eliminate the requirement that in all cases the NRC staff must prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) for license renewal applications, and instead permit the staff to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) if certain conditions are met. The basis for this proposed change is the GEIS finding that only a limited number of potential impacts need to be addressed in individual plant l

l license renewal cases.

The Commission believes that in many instances, this limited set of potential environmental issues will be found to have impacts that are nonexistent or small, and i

therefore could be analyzed in an EA and a finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If no significant impacts are found in the EA, NRC will issue a FONSI. If a FONSI cannot f

be made, the emironmental review process would require the development of a draft EIS for public comment and a final supplemental EIS. The supplemental EIS would evaluate the environmental impacts identified in the EA, and their effect on the overall cost-benefit balance. The NRC will issue a supplemental EIS if any of the issues addressed are 9

O determined to have impacts that are negative and either moderate or large. as the terms are j

defined in proposed Appendix B of Subpart A of Part 51. Impacts that otherwise might be considered moderate could be reduced to small by commitments made in a license renewal application.

f I

The proposed amendments would define those emironmentalissues which need to be addressed in individual plant license renewal applications. The Commission wishes to emphasize that it is important for public comment on em'ironmental reviews in the GEIS to be made at this time. After the NRC concludes action on the rulemaking there will be no later opportunity for public comment at the individual plant licensing stage, except for r

those emironmental impacts that require plant-specific evaluation.

However, the adoption of the proposed amendments would not preclude reopening emironmental issues if significant new information becomes available. A petition to amend 10 CFR Part 51 will be acted upon if new information warrants a reopening of issues. The Commission plans to periodically review the GEIS findings contained in Appendix B of this Part and supporting documentation.

Emironmental Imoacts to be Reviewed in Individual Plant License Renewal Cases The Commission concludes that the adverse emironmentalimpacts oflicense renewal are minor relative to the benefits of continued operation for up to an additional 20 years past the initial license period. However, to address those environmental issues for which no generic conclusion can be reached, the proposed amendments require each applicant to address these issues in its Environmental Report.

The GEIS conclusions are placed in a framework of three categories: (1) a generic conclusion on the impact has been reached for all affected plants: (2) a generic conclusion on the impact has been reached for affected plants that fall within defined bounds; and (3) the emironmentalimpact must be evaluated in each individual nuclear power plant license renewal application.

These conclusions are further categorized according to significance ofimpact. "Small" impacts are so minor that they warrant neither detailed investigation or consideration of mitigative actions when such tmpacts are negative. " Moderate" impacts are likely to be clearly evident and usually warrant consideration of mitigation alternatives when such 10

impacts are negative. "Large" impacts involve either a severe penalty or a major benefit and f

I mitigation alternatives are always considered when such impacts are negative.

The following list is a combination of 24 Category 2 and 3 issues. The issues which must be addressed are:

(1) Potential impacts on threatened or endangered species must be assessed.

(2) The GEIS identifies the potential aquatic impacts of entrainment, impingement, and heat shock as potential problems at plants with once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation systems. However, as the GEIS notes, plant operations and effluents that have i

the potential to cause these impacts are under the regulatory authority of EPA or State I

authorities. The required permit process under the FWPCA is an adequate mechanism for e

control / mitigation of these potential aquatic impacts. If an applicant for relicensing has appropriate EPA or State permits, further NRC rniew of these potential impacts is not i

warranted. Therefore, the proposed rule requires an applicant to provide NRC with t

certification that it holds current FWPCA permits, or where State regulation occurs, current i

State permits. If not, an assessment of these aquatic impacts is required.

l (3) The GEIS concluded that potential aquatic impacts from any refurbishment activities would be minor or insignificant if best management practices are used to control soil erosion or spills. The proposed rule requires applicants to submit evidence of a j

construction impact control program.

(4) For plants located at inland sites and using cooling ponds, an assessment of groundwater quality impacts is required.

l (5) For plants using Ranney wells or pumping 100 or more gallons per minute and I

having private wells in the cone of depression, an assessment of groundwater use conflicts l

is required.

(6) For potential terrestrial impacts, the GEIS concluded that the only potential impact which need be evaluated in individual plant license renewal cases was any potential impact on important plant and animal habitats. These could include wetlands, wildlife concentration areas, and certain plant life environments. The proposed rule requires i

applicants to assess any potential impacts on such plant and animal habitats if construction i

activities due to refurbishment or extended operation could affect these resources.

{

11

i (7) The proposed amendments require any license renewal applicant, w hose site does i

f not have necess to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, to provide an assessment

[

of environmental impacts of low-level waste management.

i (8) Each applicant must verify that adequate provisions have been taken to assure that transmission line electric shock effects are not a health hazard. Reliance on National f

Electric Safety Codes can be used for this assessment.

j (9) An applicant with a plant at a site in low population areas, as defined by f

numerical criteria on population and distance from sizeable cities, or in areas where growth control measures are in effect must assess housing impacts.

(10) For socioeconomic impacts, all applicants must submit an assessment of potential i

transportation impacts during refurbishment.

j (11) For applicants with plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals, or discharging cooling water to small rivers, effects on human health of microbiological organisms must be addressed.

l (12) Applicants which exceed threshold criteria for cost of refurbishment, operating l

and maintc Ance, and fuel costs must submit a cost analysis to demonstrate the cost l

advantages oflicense renewal over the most reasonable replacement alternative. For certain plants, geothermal must also be assessed.

t B. Generic Environmental Impact Statement The GEIS establishes the bounds and significance of potential emirontnental impacts at all 118 light water nuclear power reactors currently holding an operating license or expected to be operating in the United States (113 nuclear power plants with an operating j

license as of June 30,1992 plus Bellefonte Units 1 and 2, Comanche Peak Unit 2, and Watts P

Bar Units 1 and 2). All environmental issues that may be of concern to NRC in its reviews of applications for the renewal of operating licenses at the 118 nuclear power plants considered are assessed. The scope of these issues reflects the potential effects of plant refurbishment activities associated with license renewal, an additional 20 years of plant l

operation, and possible change in plant environmental setting. For this analysis all of the j

environmental issues identified were combined into 104 issues.

For each type of f

environmental impact, the GEIS attempts to establish generic findings encompassing as 12 l

I i

i many nuclear power plants as possible. Plant and site-speciSc information is used in developing these generic Sndings. In conjunction with the proposed rule change, this GEIS also povides applicants seeking renewal of an operating license with information and analyses that may be referenced in their application. Further guidance on the format, content, and analysis standards for emironmental documentation in their application is f

provided in draft Regulatory Guide 4.2, supplement 1.

The analytical approach to assessing environmental impacts in this GEIS involved j

four stages. First, characterize each issue based on information from past plant construction and current operating experience to establish a baseline. Second, assess the extent to which activities and requirements associated with license renewal activities may differ from the baseline. Third, assess potential relevant changes in the emironment and estimate trends r

for the technology and economics of alternative energy sources. Fourth, combine these separate analyses to fully characterize the nature and magnitude of impacts and other issues that will result from the refurbishments necessary for license renewal and the potential emironmental impacts of operating plants for 20 years beyond their current 40 year licensing limit.

The upper bound scenario of refurbishment activities and plant operation that may be brought about by license renewalis described in detailin Appendix B of the GEIS. All l

plants are considered enveloped by Appendix B of the GEIS. The range of emironmental issues considered in the GEIS was identified from past studies of nuclear power plant construction and operation (principally EIS's), consultations with Federal and State regulatory agencies, and input from the nuclear utility industry and the general public.

The analyses in the GEIS drew on an extensive body of published materials from government, industry, academic, and other sources about operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants and their effects on the emironment. Additional plant-specific information not otherwise available was collected by the Nuclear Utilities Management and l

Resources Council (NUMARC) and made available to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for use in the report. This information is available in the NRC Public Document Room. A team of emironmental specialists from ORNL interviewed local, State, and Federal regulatory officials, as well as persons from business and other private organizations 13

r 4

in the sicinity of nuclear power plants, as part ot' the effort to establish the scope for the o

GEIS.

The objectives of the GEIS are to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of environmentalimpacts that may occur as a result of renewing operating licenses l

for nuclear power plants, (2) identify and assess those impacts expected to be generic to

(

license renewal, and (3) define the issues that need to be addressed by NRC and the l

applicants in plant-specific license renewal proceedings.

The broad topical areas covered are surface water quality, aquatic ecology, groundwater, terrestrial ecology, human health, socioeconomics, postulated accidents, waste management, decommissioning, need for generating capacity, and alternatives to license renewal.

l The GEIS identified and evaluated the significance of the environmentalimpact of l

each of 104 environmental issues associated with the renewal of individual plant licenses.

j For 80 issues, a generic conclusion that the potential environmentalimpacts are acceptable was made. For 22 issues this conclusion could be reached for some subset of all nuclear power plants which were within defined bounds specified in the GEIS. For two issues, it was concluded that no generic conclusion on impacts could be reached.

The Commission is proposing to limit the scope of environmental review in individual plant license renewal cases to only those impacts for which no generic conclusion could be reached (i.e., Category 2 and 3). All applicants will be required to provide appropriate information and analyses in their license renewal applications for all Category 2 and 3 issues identified in the GEIS.

An evaluation of the impacts which have been assessed on a generic basis is summarized in a proposed new Appendix B to Part 51.

NRC's NEPA review procedures in Part 51 require: "a preliminary analysis which l

considers and balances the environmental and other effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental and other effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the proposed action, i

"[551.71(d)]. This analysis is found in Section 10 of the GEIS. Table 10.I, " Summary of Conclusions on NEPA Issues" in the GEIS is included in these proposed amendments as j

i t

l proposed Table B.1 of Appendix B of Subpart A of Part 51. The table lists each 14 i

emironmental issue addressed by the GEIS, states the conclusions, and provides an assessment of the benefit or cost involved. The major benefit is the electric energy which would be produced by a plant whose license is renewed. The major economic costs are the expense of refurbishment and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs during the renewal term. For those adverse environmental impacts that can be assessed generically (Category 1 and for a subset of plants, Category 2), in each case the adverse impact is identified as small. For environmental issues for which generic conclusions can be reached, Table B.1 l

t shows that there are no adverse emironmental impacts that would offset the benefits of license renewal.

The other NEPA review requirements in 10 CFR Part 51 that have been codified in Table B.1 are a review of short and long term benefits and productivity, and irreversible commitments of resources. The principal short-term benefit from continued operation of nuclear plants is the production of electrical energy from an existing capital asset.

l The Commission finds that the resource commitments involved in license renewal l

would be a continuation of resource commitments during the initial operating license term.

Additional nuclear fuel will be used, and small amounts of materials used for plant j

refurbishment. ~ A minor amount of additional land would be used.

l Summarv of Issues Anah7ed in the GEIS The following describes those environmental issues that were examined in the GEIS, and summarizes the conclusions by major topical area.

1. Surface Water Quality The GEIS examined water quality; water use conflicts; altered salinity gradients; altered current patterns; temperature effects on sediment transport; altered thermal stratification; scouring due to discharged cooling water; eutrophication; discharge of chlorine i

l or other biocides or chemical contaminants; and discharge of sanitary wastes, Aquatic impacts from plant refurbishment activities in support of license renewal i

l could occur at any type of plant if erosion or spills occur. The GEIS concluded that "best management practices" need to be used during refurbishment to prevent impacts. Site-1 I

specific mitigation measures can be implemented during refurbishment to prevent or i

minimize construction related aquatic impacts from erosion or spills. Such impacts are i

15 i

h

4 normally oflimited duration and affect only a portion of the aquatic environment. Potential impacts on threatened or endangered species cannot be assessed generically an analysis in individual plant license renewal cases.

2. Aouatic Ecolocv I

The GEIS examined impingement and entrainment: heat shock; cold shock; thermal plume barriers to migration: premature emergence of aquatic insects; stimulation of nuisance i

organisms; gas supersaturation; low dissolved oxygen in the discharge; accumulation of !

contaminants in sediment or biota: and losses from predation, parasitism, and disease.

For nuclear power plants using once-through coo

g systems, the operational expe-rience of existing plants indicates that many early concerns regarding aquatic resources have not materialized. Neither the published literature nor the responses of regulatory and resource agencies have revealed potential concerns about such early issues as phytoplankto and zooplankton entrainment and premature emergence of aquatic insects in thermal discharges. Although significant localized effects of these stresses have occasionally b demonstrated, the populations' rapid regeneration times and biological compensatory mechanisms are sufficient to preclude long-term or far-field impacts.

On the other hand, some aquatic resources issues warranted further monitoring, an in some cases, mitigative measures to define and correct adverse impacts. The entrainment and impingement of fish and the discharge of large volumes of heated effluents into small or warm ambient waters were a source of concern at some nuclear power plants. Such is-sues were examined and resolved through the mechanisms of NPDES permits and associated FWPCA 316(a) and (b) determinations and were either found to be acceptable or actions were implemented to mitigate the problems. For a few plants, the NPDES process has not been completed and the issues relating to impingement, entrainment, and thermal discha have not all been resolved. For these plants, there may be unresolved issues relating to intake and discharge effects on fish and shellfish.

Resource agencies are expending major efforts to restore anadromous fish runs, particularly salmon and American shad, through water quality improvements, stocking, and removal of migration barriers.

As a result, a number of the agencies have expressed concerns about future impingement and entrainment impacts at plants that operate on 16

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - " ~ ~ ~

~

=

certain rivers. These concerns are routinely addressed during the NPDES permit renewal process. Nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems that currently discharge cooling water near the upper temperature limia of their NPDES permits may find compliance with those requitements increasingly difficult if climates change and ambient water temperatures warm in the coming decades. Under these conditions, such plants may j

i need to modify their operations during the warmest months or rely more on helper cooling towers to prevent adverse thermal impacts. Continuing consultation with resource agencies and permitting agencies and prompt resolution of NPDES permit issues are expected to ensure that future changes in the environment do not lead to unacceptable impacts on j

aquatic ecology.

3. Groundwater Use and Oualitv The GEIS examined groundwater use and quality, groundwater u:.e conflicts including use of Ranney wells, and groundwater quality degradation. The GEIS concluded that i

groundwater use conflicts and quality degradation may be a problem at certain plants.

Groundwater quality at some river sites may be degraded by induced infiltration of poor-quality river water into an aquifer that supplies large quantities of plant cooling water.

Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade groundwater quality. For those plants located inland, the quality of groundwater in the vicinity of ponds must be shown to remain within the State regulatory agency's defined use category.

t

4. Terrestrial Ecolon The GEIS examined refurbishment impacts, cooling tower impacts on crops and native plants, bird collisions with cooling towers and transmission lines, cooling pond impacts, power line right-of-way management, electromagnetic field effects, effects on floodplains and wetlands, threatened or endangered species, air quality, and land use.

l Refurbishment would result in the disturoance of only small areas of land and should

{

t result in no significant loss of terrestrial habitats. Air quality impacts from refurbishment i

are not expected to lead to significant emironmental impact. Salt drift from cooling towers j

at nuclear plants has not been shown to threaten agricultural crops, orchards, or other culti-l vated plants. No yield reductions from cooling tower operation have been reported for crops except in situations where crops were experimentally placed next to cooling towers.

17 l

)

i i

l

No significant adverse impacts of transmission lines and their maintenance was idenuffed.

Potential refurbishment impacts that will require analysis in individual plant license renewal cases would be those that may occur if one or more important terrestrial resources (wetlands, endangered species) would be affected.

l

5. Eublic Health The GEIS examined radiation exposures to the public, occupational radiation exposures, electromagnetic fields acute effects, electromagnetic fields chronic effects, microbiological organisms, and noise.

The GEIS assessed public health impacts from refurbishment and extended operation.

Occupational exposure and doses to the public are expected to remain well within regulatory limits. The nine plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals and the fourteen dis-charging to small rivers have the potential to influence thermophilic organisms. Health questions related to public use of affected waters need to be addressed by utilities in these individual plant license renewal cases. The potential for electrical shock induced currents l

from transmission lines should be reviewed with respect to the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) recommendations. Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields have not demonstrated consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures.

6. Socioeconomics The GEIS assessed impacts in the following socioeconomic areas: housing, taxes, public services (excluding transportation), transportation, off-site land use, economic structure, and historic and aesthetic resources. Impacts from refurbishment activities as well as extended operation of nuclear power plants were examined. Generic conclusions were reached for taxes, public services excluding transportation, off-site land use, transportation impacts during continued operation, economic structure, and historic and aesthetic resources.

These impacts may be either positive (taxes, employment, income, etc.) or negative but small, and thus need not be addressed in individual plant license renewals.

Housing impacts during refurbishment could be negathe and potentially significant (mode. tate or large impact) for plants located in areas categorized as " low population or that>

.e growth control measures to limit housing development. In particular circumstances transportation impacts during refurbishment could also be negative and significant. As a i

i result, only these two issues need to be evaluated as part of individual plant license rer ewals.

i 18

I

7. Uranium Fuel Cvele The GEIS assessed the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle based on the values given in 10 CFR 51.51 Table S-3, and analyzed the radiological impact from radon-222 and i

technetium-99.

Categories of natural resource use analyzed include land use, water i

consumption and thermal effluents. radioactive releases, burial of transuranic and high and l

low level wastes, and radiation doses from transportation and occupational exposures.

?

Radiological and nonradiological impacts are found to be small.

8. Waste Manacement 3

The GEIS examined the potential emironmental impacts from the generation of various types of wastes during refurbishment and extended operation for an additior'al 20 years. More specifically, the GEIS examined nonradiological waste, mixed waste, low level radiological waste storage and disposal, spent fuel storage and disposal, and transportanon.

l The GEIS concluded that license renewal would have only minor impacts on mixed waste and non-radiological waste management activities. For low-level radioactive waste, on-site storage was judged to be adequate as suitable land is available at all plants for interim storage of additional waste from refurbishment and extended plant operation if l

disposa! sites continue to accept waste in normalincrements. The conclusions regarding low-level radioactive waste disposal hinge on the timely implementation of present plans for l

1 siting regional compact and individual State disposal sites. If circumstances change and the GEIS assumptions are no longer valid, these impacts would need to be addressed in individ-ual plant license renewal applications.

The greater volume of spent fuel resulting from up to 20 more years of operation can

{

t be safely accommodated on-site through dry or pool storage at all plants. Radioactive waste transportation impacts were concluded to be small and bounded by the values in 10 CFR l

51.52 Table S-4.

i

9. Postulated Accidents in Chapter 5 of the GEIS, the emironmentalimpacts of postulated accidents were evaluated for the license renewal period. This included severe accidents as well as design basis accidents. For design basis accidents, all plants have had a previous evaluation of their environmental impacts. In addition, the licensees will be required to maintain acceptable design and performance criteria throughout the plant license renewal period. The calculated 19 1

l

4 releases from design basis accidents would not be expected to change. Therefore, it has j

been concluded that the design of the plants relative to impacts from design basis accidents remains acceptable. Severe accident emironmentalimpacts were not evaluated in the past for all plants. However, since 1981, all plant Final Emironmental Statements (FESS) have included an analysis of severe accidents. In addition, in the past ten years, extensive work i

on severe accident analysis and safety issue resolution has taken place. Therefore, the severe accident analyses done previously in support of FESS (a total of 27 FESS contain analyses of severe accidents) plus the results of other severe accident analyses done in the past were utilized and extended to predict the severe accident emironmental impacts for all plants at the mid-point of their license renewal period. In this assessment the emironmental impacts of releases of radioactive materials to the atmosphere and groundwater as well as fallout over land and water were evaluated. In addition, the economic consequences of such f

accidents and the need for evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) were evaluated.

The GEIS concluded that the environmentalimpacts of severe accidents during the license renewal period represent a low risk to the population and emironment. Although the otisite consequences are potentially large, they are of low likelihood. Because of this.

it was concluded that these impacts need not be considered further in individual plant license renewal applications. In addition to the low risk, Commission Policy is to consider SAMDAs only at the initial construction stage (where plant design features may be more easily

+

incorporated). Accordingly, SAMDA evaluations at the license renewal stage are not necessary.

10. Decommissioning The GEIS examitied radiation doses, waste management, air quality, water quality, i

ecological resources, economic impacts, and socioeconomic impacts.

The physical requirements and attendant effects of decommissioning nuclear power plants after a 20-year license renewal period are not expected to be different from those of decommissioning at the end of the current 40-year license period. Decommissioning after l

a 20-year license renewal period would increase the occupational dose by about 0.5 person-rem and the public dose by a negligible amount. License renewal would not increase the l

quantity or classification oflow-level radioactive waste generated by decommissioning by any 20 i

appreciable extent. Air and water quality, and ecological impacts of decommissioning would not change as a result of license renewal.

There is considerable uncertainty about the cost of decommissioning. While license renewal would not be expected to change the ultimate cost of decommissioning, it would reduce the present value of the cost. The socioeconomic effects of decommissioning will depend on the magnitude of the decommissioning effort, the size of the community, and other economic activities at the time. However, it is not expected that the impacts would be increased by decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period rather than at the end of the current license term. Since a generic conclusion on the acceptabihiy of the incremental impacts of decommissioning can be reached for all plants, impacts on decommissioning need not be evaluated in each individual plant license renewal application.

11. Need for Generating Capacity Projections of electric power demand to 2030 in each of the 11 Department of Energy regions indicate that there will be a need for the generating capacity represented by license renewal in all 11 regions. The analysis was also extended to individual / utility senice areas.

From both these viewpoints, the GEIS concluded that the generating capacity of each nuclear pcr.ver plant would be needed to meet the nation's electric power demand.

12. Alternatives to License Renewal Section 8 of the GEIS established the need for the electric generating capacity represented by the renewal of operating licenses. Section 9 of the GEIS addressed how the demand for this generating capacity could be fillect by alternatives to license renewal, and weighed the alternatives against the action of license renewal.

The GEIS concluded that new fossil fuel and nuclear power plants are reasonable alternatives for replacement of retired nuclear capacity because they are proven commercial power-generating technologies, they can provide the baseload capacity currently provided by large nuclear units, and they are available nationwide. However on balance, none of these alternatives offer significant environmental advantages over license renewal. In fact, license renewal of existing nuclear generating capacity would delay or eliminate the emi-ronmental impacts associated with the construction of replacement power plants. The principal issues associated with operation of new fossil plants are emissions of pollutants.

i This includes 50,, NO, and CO, 'vhich contribute to the degradation of air quality, 21

k..

I including acid rain and decreased visibility, and increase the potential for global warmmg and f

i climate change. Although license renewalis expected to be more advantageous than new i

fossil or new nuclear plants from a cost perspective in most situations, a decision to seek l

license renewal is a prerogative of individual utilines. The GEIS evaluated several studies and developed an independent estimate. Each study focused on comparing the costs of l

license renewal and new coal capacity. This review concluded that license renewal offers significant savings under a diverse set of conditions. However, differences m operatmg i

parameters and performance of nuclear plants would influence the actual cost savings for individual plants.

l With respect to renewables, the staff fm' ds that wind, solar, hydro, and biomass are not preferred near term alternatives to license renewal because of technological limitations (nonbaseload power sources), availability, and/or economics. The potential exists for small scale regional application of geothermal energy as a replacement for a small fraction of

}

current nuclear baseload capacity.

[

t Therefore, the GEIS concludes, for the nation as a whole, license renewal is I

preferable to replacement of the generating capacity with a new facility. Since there is some l

uncertainty associated with the economic costs of license renewal due to the plant specific j

i nature of the refurbishment required, a limited data submission including analysis of cost of

[

refurbishment should accompany each license renewal application. If this data meets the threshold criterion, no alternatives analysis need accompany the license application. If the

{

submission shows that license renewal cannot meet the threshold criterion, the applicant should submit an alternatives analysis for the most reasonable alternative. In addition, plants f

in California, Oregon, Washington or Anzona should submit a cost comparison to t

geothermal.

C.

Regulatory Guidance to Suo_ nort the 10 CFR Part 51 Revisions I

To assure proper implementation of the revised sections of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC l

is issuing a draft Regulatory Guide and a draft Environmental Standard Review Plan for i

i license renewal. Both documents are being published concurrently with these proposed j

amendments. The draft guide, identified as Draft Supplement 1.0 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, i

i establishes a uniform format and content acceptable to the staff for structuring and

[

22

[

V i

I

presenting the environmentalinformation to be compiled and submitted by an applicant far a renewed operating license. More specifically, this draft regulatory guide describes the content of environmental information to be included in lice ise renewal applications, j

including the criteria to address appropriate Category 2 issues as specified in the proposed amendments.

T%tt "Emironmental Standard Rniew Plan for License Renewa;" (ESRP-LR) pr: wides guidance for the NRC staff when performing 10 CFR Part 51 environmental t

reviews of applications for renewal of operating licenses. The plan parallels Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1. The primary purpose of the ESRP-LR is to ensurc that these reviews are fo ned on those environmental concerns associated with license renewal as Jescribed in 10 CFR Part 51. Specifically, it provides guidance to the NRC staff regarding environmental issues that should be reviewed and provides acceptance criteria to help the l

reviewer evaluate the information submitted as part of the license renewal ar man. It is also the intent of this plan to make information about the regulatory process available and to improve communicatmn between the NRC, interested members of the public, and the nuclear power industry, thereby increasing understanding of the review process.

D.

Public Comments on Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking i

On July 23, 1990, NRC published in the Egderal Recister an advance notice of i

proposed ruiemaking (ANPR) (55 FR 299M) and a companiot notice of intent to prepare a generic emironmentalimpact statement (55 FR 29967). Advice and recommendations on the proposed rulemaking were invited fron all irterested persons.

Comments were j

i requested on nine specific questions. Comments were received from 29 groups and j

individuals. Two private individuals vr.; both opposed is the rulemaking. Of five citizens groups; one supported, three supported with qualifications, and one opposed the rulemaking-l Of the mo State agencies responding, one supported the rulemaking and one supported it with qualificaticas. Three Fedet, agencies supported the rulemaking with qualifications.

All 16 NRC nuclear power plant licensees commenting on the ANPR supported the rulemaking. The one industry group commenung supported the rulemaking. A sur mary b

of comments on each quesQn and the saff response follow.

23 n

Question No.1. Is a generic emironmental impact statement, or an environmental assessment, required by NEPA to support this proposed rulemaking or can the rulemaking be supported by a technical study?

Comments Strong support for a generic emironmental survey rather than a full GEIS to provide the technical basis for the rulemaking was expressed by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), nuclear utilities, U.S. Department of Energy, and Americans for Nuclear EnerEy, Inc. The U.S. Emironmental Protection Agency and the State of Wisconsin Public Sersice Commission suppcrt development of a comprehensive GEIS. Other comments offered no specine opinion on a GEIS verses a genene emiron-mental survey. Supporters of the generic environmental survey approach state that it is legally acceptable ar.. would be less costly and less subject to delays. Supporters of a comprehensive GEIS believe that it is a feasible approach and a prudent one.

NRC Restmuse The NRC believes that while the generic environmental survey provides an acceptable approach to rulemaking, the GEIS approach appears preferable and has been tentatively adopted. He purpose of this rulemaking is to resolve as many National Emironmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues as possible prior to plant-by-plant license renewa' reviews. NRC recognized the possibility that not all NEPA issues would be fully resolvable in the GEIS; however, NRC did not wish to make a priori judgements as to which issues could be resolved generically ar.d which could not. Also, even though some issues may not be fully 1

resolved generically, the analyses performed for the GEIS have helped sharpen and focus i

1 the issues that must be addressed in specific license renewal reviews.

Question No. 2. What alternative forms of codifying the findings of the generic emironmental impact statement should be considered?

24

i l

Comments i

This question was not specifically addressed by most commenters. The NUMARC recommendation was that the findings of the GEIS be codified by classifying potential emironmental impacts of license renewal into four categories which it describes.

t NRC Response The NRC believes that the categories used in the GEIS and the results of the evaluation in Chapter 10 permit codification of findings which is at least as adequate as would result from the NUMARC recommendation. The approach taken in the proposed rulemaking to codify the results of the GEIS is a mix of the 4 approaches :dentified in the ANPR Question No. 3.

What activities associated with license renewal will lead tn environmental impacts? By what mechanism will they lead to impacts?

Comments

[

Several respondents addressed this question in a general manner. NUMARC states:

l "In general, most of the activities associated with license renewal that may have environmental impacts are the same activities considered in environmental evaluations for j

the initial licenses." Activities associated with license renewal are more fully discussed in a oscument which NUMARC submitted with its comments. The document is " Study of l

Generic Environmental Issues Related to License Renewai," dated May 9,1989. A State l

agency identified a number of replacement activities which would result in the generation of low-level radioactive waste and doses to workers engaged in these activities.

l i

NRC Response NUMARC previously submitted a study to NRC in May 1989 in the context of the rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for f

t Nuclear Power Plants. Information on plant modification and operation activities associated i

with license reuctal contained in this document was reviewed by the preparers of the GEIS.

25

?

i

Activities associated with license renewal are addressed in the GEIS in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. These encompass the activities identified by the State agency.

Question No. 4. What topical areas should be covered in the generic emironmental impact statements? Should the proposed outline be supplemented or restructured?

Comments Respondents to this question identified priority topics that should be treated in the GEIS and commented on the completeness of the scope of these topics. Those addressing the scope of such topics generally are satisfied with the list in the ANPR. Most concerns are with the balance of treatment of topics within the outline. NUMARC, supported by member utilities, believes that some topics such as plant modifications associated with the license renewal process and decommissioning are unduly emphasized by being given major section status. A number of respondents discussed topical areas already identified in the ANPR about which they are particularly concerned. Several topics not identi5ed in the ANPR were identified as concerns by one or more respondents. Concern was expressed that the pool of trained nuclear engineers is diminishing. Thus, operators may be less well qualified in the future. A respondent stated that each type of reactor should be treated separately. A Federal agency stated that the GEIS could assess the utilities' efforts for compliance with the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) for financial assistance to private co-generation facilities, and that it could also assess the utilities' efforts to comply with State and local conservation efforts.

The State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission (WPSC) raised the following points not explicitly covered in the ANPR. These are the following; (1) regarding the need for generating capacity, whether NRC should defer to determination of need for generating capacity made by the relevant State agency; (2) whether an accident, that has the potential for leading to a demand oy the public that all reactors be shut down, could jeopardize.he f

supply of electricity; (3) whether management history will be taken into consideration in a license renewal decision; and (4) whether embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel may result in shutting plants down for susceptibility to pressurized thermal shock soon after extending the license.

l i

l 26

~

i 1

NRC Rest >onse l

Tne NRC believes that the scope of the GEIS accommodates most of the issues of

[

concern raised in the comments. However some issues raised are beyond the scope of the I

GEIS. The issue of qualification of operators in the future will be assured through NRC regulations, especially 10 CFR Part 55, Operator's Licenses. Relative to the issues of the f

NRC assessing compliance with PURPA and State and local conservation efforts, the NRC has not explicitly assessed compliance on a utility-by-utility basis nor does it believe it is f

necessary to do so. Conservation and cogeneration projections are already incorporated in

[

forecasts of need for generating capacity.

Relative to WPSC's comment that the NRC should defer to determination of need j

made by relevant State agencies, the NRC encourages State agencies to review analyses in

[

L the GEIS for consistency with their own analyses and to comment where there are significant disagreements. Relative to the concern that there may be a public demand to shutdown all reactors after a severe accident at one, the NFC assumes in the GEIS that the programs described in Section 5 of the GEIS will maintain a low probability of severe accident and that a shutdown of all reactors is speculative. Management history is not an issue within the f

GEIS or proposed rule. Although it will be continually monitored through the operating life of the plant, it will not be a major topic for evaluation in a license renewal review. The embrittlement status of the reactor pressure vessel will be considered for license renewal and may indeed limit the term or bar issuance of a renewed license.

i Question No. 5. For each topical area, what are the specific emironmental issues j

that should be addressed?

F i

Comments i

NUMARC was the only respondent who specifically addressed this question. Several i

other respondents did identify specific topics and emironmental issues of concern to them.

These other responses are addressed under Question No. 4. NUMARC referred NRC to l

the detailed areas treated in the NUMARC report titled " Study of Generic Environmental Issues Related to License Renewal," dated May 9,1989, and submitted to NRC in May 1989.

}

l i

27

NRC Response The NUMARC report has been reviewed and was considered in developing the GEIS scope and analyses.

Question No. 6. For each topical area and each specific issue, what information and data are required to perform generic analyses? Where do the information and data exist?

Comments NUMARC referred to its study submitted to the NRC titled, " Study of Generic Environmental Issues Related to License Renewal," and pointed out that the study contains relevant information and an extensive list of data sources. The U.S. EPA offered to provide information relative to the effect of electromagnetic frequency radiation and on global climate change. The State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission stated that information l

l on need for power and the amount of technically and economically possible conservation and load management exists at each utility and the corresponding State utility commission.

l NRC Response All information in the NUMARC study has been reviewed and used as appropriate in developing the GEIS. NRC has considered EPA information and guidance on effects of electromagnetic frequency radiation and global climate change. A regional generic approach has been taken in the GEIS with required need for power, conservation and load management.- NRC believes this is an adequate analysis to establish need for generating ca-pacity for any individual plant but is requesting comment on its analysis.

Question No. 7. For each topical area and each specific issue what criteria should be used to judge the significance of the environmental impact?

l t

Comments This question was specifically addressed by NUMARC and Yankee Atomic Electric Company. NUMARC provided a more detailed response that was consistent with that provided by Yankee Atomic. A number of general observations were made with regard to 28

5 significance criteria embodiz in NRC practice in the emironmental and associated safety areas and in CEO guidelines. Examples of significance criteria were provided for endan-gered species, impacts to aquatic biota, and radiological impacts.

NRC Response These comments generally support the approach to the determination of significance in emironmental issues employed in the GEIS.

Question No. 8. For each topical area and each specific issue what is the potential for successful generic analysis?

f_omments NUMARC addressed this question in detail. Commenting utilities stated support for the NUMARC response. The responses of other commenters ranged from a general statement that generic treatment is not feasible to a general statement that it is feasible.

Several commenters each mentioned doubts about the possibility of generic treatment of at f

least some of the following; need for generating capacity, alternatives, climate change, impacts from refurbishment and continued operation, and severe accidents. NUMARC stated "that nearly all, if not all, of the impacts associated with license renewal have been found amenable to generic analysis." Using the four categories of generic conclusions (see Question No. 2), NUMARC presented conclusions on the categorization of various impacts from plant opetation, plant modification, accidents, decommissioning, need for generating l

capacity and alternative generating capacitv.

{

i NRC Response The NRC has considered the positions offered in comments on the potential of generic analysis for each topical area and each specific issue. NRC findings are summarized in Section 10 of the GEIS. NRC believes that the approach taken in the GEIS has resulted in generic conclusions which encompass site and region specific considerations and considers l

forecasting uncertainties relative to the future.

t 29 I

l f

7 Question No. 9.

What length of extended operating time can reasonably be j

addressed in the proposed rulemaking? To what extent is it possible to reach generic conclusions about the environmental impacts which would be applicable to plants having renewed operating licenses expiring in the year 2030,2040 or 2050?

i Comments Several commenters had doubts about the accuracy of 3cng term forecasts of need for generating capacity, alternative energy sources, climate change and severe accidents.

This question was specifically addressed by NUMARC which pointed out that emironmental impact evaluations are performed for new plants for 40 to 50 years into the future, but that i

unlike new plants, applicants which will apply for plant license renewal have an operating history with accumulated monitoring data. NUMARC also states that NRC has the option of revising the GEIS at any future time if experience shows an impact which deviates I

r significantly from its predicted value.

NRC Response NRC agrees with NUMARC's observations and believes the conclusions reached in j

the GEIS on each issue reflect careful consideration of future uncertainties.

l IV.

Questions Public comment on conclusions regarding potential environmental impacts is being solicited as part of this rulemaking. The Comnussion will evaluate comments on this notice

[

and the draft GEIS before publishing a final rule.

In addition to general comments on the proposed rulemaking, the Commission is especially interested in public responses to the following questions:

I (1)

Should the NRC staff have the flexibility, as provided in the proposed rule, to choose to prepare an environmental assessment, instead of a supplemental environmental impact statement, for each plant license renewal proceeding? In answering this question, i

does it make a difference if this proposed rulemaking is supported by a generic emironmental survey rather than a full GEIS.

f 30

(2)

For the purposes of presentation of a full discussion of environmental impacts from postulated accidents as required under NEPA:

(a)

Is the exposure index (EI) method, as used in Chapter 5 of the GEIS to i

predict potential environmental impacts from severe accident atmospheric releases of radioactive material, sufficient to present for consideration the potential impacts from severe accident atmospheric releases for all plants for the license renewal period? If not, what alternative analyses would be acceptable?

(b)

Is the method of analysis of radionuclide deposition from fallout from severe l

accident atmospheric releases over open bodies of water, as used in Chapter 5 of the GEIS,

ufficient to present for consideration the potential impacts of atmospheric fallout for all plants? If not, what alternative analyses would be acceptable?

(c)

Is the method of analysis of releases to groundwater from severe accidents, as used in Chapter 5 of the GEIS, sufficient to present for consideration the potentialimpacts of releases to groundwater for all plants? If not, what alternative analyses would be l

acceptable?

(3)

Is it reasonable to conclude that, based upon the calculated low risk to the environment from severe accidents and the June 13,1980 Commission Policy Statement on accident considerations under NEPA (45FR40101), SAMDAs need not be considered in individual license renewal applications? If not, what alternative would be acceptable?

L i

(4)

What significant environmentalissues,if any, have not been evaluated in the GEIS?

(5)

Which evaluations presented, if any, are not sufficient for drawing generic conclusions?

(6)

What additional analyses can be done to further address the Category 2 and 3 items? For example, what screening criteria could be applied to local transportation during refurbishment and to threatened and endangered species to change these issues from Category 3 to Category 2? Are the criteria for meeting the defined bounding conditions for l

each of the Category 2 items sufficiently clear?

(7)

The GEIS and this proposed action apply to all plants currently holding an OL or CP, except for WNP 1 and 3, Grand Gulf 2, and Perry Unit 2. Should these plants be included in the scope of this action?

31 e

(2)

.For the purposes of presentation of a full discussion of environmental impacts from postulated accidents as required under NEPA-(a)

Is the exposure index (EI) method, as used in Chapter 5 of the GEIS to I

predict potential emironmental impacts from severe accident atmospheric releases of f

radioactive material, sufficient to present for consideration the potential impacts from severe i

accident atmospheric releases for all plants for the license renewal period? If not, what alternative analyses would be acceptable?

I (b)

Is the method of analysis of radionuclide deposition from fallout from severe accident atmospheric releases over open bodies of water, as used in Chapter 5 of the GEIS, f

sufficient to present for consideration the potential impacts of atmospheric fallout for all

[

plants? If not, what alternative analyses would be acceptable?

l (c)

Is the method of analysis of releases to groundwater from severe accidents, as

[

used in Chapter 5 of the GEIS, sufficient to present for consideration the potential impacts of releases to groundwater for all plants? If not, what alternative analyses would be acceptable?

(3)

Is it reasonable to conclude that, based upon the calculated low risk to the environment from severe accidents and the June 13,1980 Commission Policy Statement on accident considerations under NEPA (45FR40101), SAMDAs need not be considered in l

individual license renewal applications? If not, what alternative would be acceptable?

(4)

What signi5 cant emironmental issues, if any, have not been evaluated in the r

GEIS?

(5)

Which evaluations presented, if any, are not sufficient for drawing generic i

conclusions?

(6)

What additional analyses can be done to further address the Category 2 and 3 items? For example, what screenug criteria could be applied to local transportation during refurbishment and to threatened and endangered species to change these issues from Category 3 to Category 2? Are the criteria for meeting the defined bounding conditions for t

each of the Category 2 items sufficiently clear?

[

(7)

The GEIS and this proposed action apply to all plants currently holding an OL or CP, except for WNP 1 and 3, Grand Gulf 2, and Perry Unit 2. Should these plants be I

included in the scope of this action?

i' 31 I

i

V.

Availability of Documents The principal supporting documents of this supplementary information are as follows:

(1)

Draft Generic Emironmental Impact Statement, NUREG-1437 (2)

Draft Regulatory Analysis: Proposed Part 51 Amendments, NUREG-1440 (3)

Draft Supplement to Regulatory Guide 4.2 (DG-4002)

(4)

Draft Environmental Standard Review Plan-License Renewal, NUREG-1429 A free single copy of each of these documents, to the extent of supply, may be requested by those considering providing comment by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (A'ITN:

Distribution Section).

Copies of all documents cited in the supplementary information are available for inspection and/or for copying for a fee, in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L St. NW., (Lower 12 vel)

Washington, DC.

In addition, copies of NUREGs 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 Pon Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161 i

I VI.

Workshop A workshop is being arranged to review the technical basis of the proposed amendments by experts with a diversity of perspectives. Such interaction is expected to contribute information for NRC consideration that may not otherwise have surfaced through written comments on the proposed amendments. In addition, the workshop may provide

[

additional information that will assist commentors in developing written comments.

The workshop is being designed to focus on the substantive technical findings of the GEIS codified in the proposed amendment. Workshop sessions will correspond to the major topical areas found in the GEIS and Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.

Workshop participants will be experts selected from industry, federal and state agencies and emironmental organizations. Each workshop concurrent session will be limited to 15 participants and will be conducted in a panel format. Questions and statements from the audience will be taken if time permits.

32 l

I Comments are invited on the following tentative agenda.

Day 1 7:45 - 8:30 Registration 8:30 - 8:45 Welcome 8:45 - 9:00 Workshop objectives, structure, groundrules 9:00 - 10:15 General Session - GEIS and proposed 10 CFR Part 51 rulemaking overview.

10:15 - 10:30 Break 10:30 - 11:45 General Session can't 11:45 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 3:00 Concurrent Sessions A. Surface Water, Aquatic Ecology, Groundwater B. Terrestrial Ecology, Land Use C. Socioeconomics 3:00 - 3:15 Break 3:15 - 5:15 Concurrent Sessions D. Decommissioning E. Human Health F. Need for Generating Capacity and Direct Economic costs and Bene 6ts i

Day 2 8:30 - 10:15 Concurrent Sessions f

G. Postulated Accidents H. Solid Waste Management J. Alternatives 10:15 - 10:30 Break 10:30 - 11:45 Concurrent Sessions G,H and J Cont'd 11:45 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 2:00 General Session - NEPA Process 33

.m.

2:00 - 3:00 Summary and Conclusion of Sessions i

VII. 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 DOS compatible 3.5 or 5.25 inch double sided double density (DS/DD) diskettes. Data files should be provided in Wordperfect 5.1.

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.

VIII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action desenbed in categorical exclusion 10 :FR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore neither an emironmental impact statement nor an environme av. assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

This action is procedi. in nature in that it penains to the type of environmental information to be rev ewed.

IX. Paperwork Reduren Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is j

estimated to average 2728 hours0.0316 days <br />0.758 hours <br />0.00451 weeks <br />0.00104 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instnictions, I

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection ofinformation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear 4

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 and to the Desk Officer Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019 (3150-0021), Office of Management and -

l Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

]

)

4 P

X. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The two alternatives considered were (a) retaining the present Part 51 review process for license renewal, where all review would be done on a plant specific basis, and (b) amending Part 51 to allow a portion of the emironmental review to be conducted on a generic basis. The conclusions of the draft regulatory analysis show substantial cost savings of alternative (b) over alternative (a).

The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., (Lower level), Washington, DC. Copies of the analysis are available I

as described in Section V of this notice. The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the addresses heading.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substan-tial number of small entities. The proposed rule sets forth application procedures and emironmental information to be submitted by nuclear power plant licensees to fa iitate 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, the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administrator (13 CFR Part 121), or the Commission's size Standards (50 FR 50241; December 9,1985).

XII. Backfit Analysis This rulemaking does not constitute a "backfit" as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) and a backfit analysis need not be prepared. This rule addresses procedural requirements for considering the emironmental effects of issuing a renewed operating license for nuclear power plants. The Commission has not previously addressed these requirements either in

{

rulemaking or in guidance documents.

Moreover, policy considerations weigh against consideration of Part 51 and amendments as a "backfit." The primary impetus for the 35 t

i

Backfit Rule was "regulatoty stability," viz., that once the Commission decides to issue a license, the tertns and conditions for operating under that license would not be arbitrarily changed pmt hoc. Regulatory stability is not a relevant issue with respect to license renewal.

l This rule has only a prospective effect upon nuclear power plant licensees. There are no licensees currently holding renewed nuclear power plant operating licenses who could be af-fected by this rule; consequently, there are no valid expectations that may be changed regarding the terms and conditions for obtaining a renewed operating license.

i i

e t

i a

l i

36 s

III-Text of Proposed Part 51 Amendments 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 1%9, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 51.

PART 51 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 1.

The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:

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).

Subpart A also.3 sued under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, secs.102.

l 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.S0, and 51.97 also issued i

under secs. 135,141, Pub. L 97-425, % Stat. 2232, 2241, and se. 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 j

Policy Act of 1982, sec.121,96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C.10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and i

51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec.114(f),96 Stat. 2216, as i

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

37 1

I

2.

Section 51.20 is amended by revising paragraph (b) (2) to read as follows:

551.20 Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring emironmental impact statements.

(b) * * *

(2) Issuance of a full power or design capacity license to operate a nuclear power reactor pursuant to part 50 of this chapter,[or) issuance or renewal of a full pcwer or design capacity license to operate a testing facility, or fuel reprocessing plant pursuant to part 50 of this chapter.

3.

Section 51.53 is revised to read as follows:

551.53 Supplement to emironmental report.

(a)

General. Any supplement to an environmental report prepared under the provisions of this section may incorporate by reference any information contained in a prior l

emironmental report or supplement thereto which relates to the same production or utilization facility or any information contained in a final environmental document previously prepared by the NRC staff which relates to the same production or utilization facility.

Documents which may be referenced include, but are not limited to, the final emironmental impact statement, supplements to the final emironmental impact statement including that prepared at the license renewal stage, environmental assessments and record of decision i

L l

prepared in connection with the construction permit, operating license and any license amendment for that facility.

i 38 i

i

(b)

Operating license stage. Each applicant for a license to operate a production or utilization facility covered by 551.20 shall submit with its application the number of copies, as specified in 551.55, of a separme document, entitled " Supplement to Applicant's Emironmental Report-Operating License Stage," which will update " Applicant's Emironmental Report-Construction Permit Stage." Unless otherwise required by the Commission, the applicant for an operating license for a nuclear power plant 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 5 5 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. Unless otherwise required by the Commission, no discussion of need for power or alternative energy sources or 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 551.23(a) and in accordance with 551.23(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, as specified in 551.55, of a separate document, entitled " Supplement'to Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Renewal Stage."

(2)

The supplemental report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the applicant's plans for modification to the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in accord with 554.21(c) of this chapter. Modifications directly 39 c

i E

P affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents that affect the emironment must be described in detail.

l (3)

For those applicants seeking an initial renewal license and holding an operating license as of June 30,1992, or who hold an operating license for Bellefonte Unit i

1 or 2, Comanche Peak Unit 2, or Watts Bar Unit 1 or 2, the scope of issues to be addressed in the supplemental report will be limited to the following:

f (i)

Unless otherwise required by the Commission, no discussion oflicense renewal issues identified as Category 1 issues in Appendix B of subpart A of this part is required in the supplemental report.

(ii)

For those issues identified as Category 2 in Appendix B of this pan the i

supplemental report must contain a demonstration that:

(A)

The nuclear power plant uses only cooling towers for primary condenser l

cooling or that the license renewal applicant holds current Clean Water Act 316 (b) i determinations and if necessary a 316(a) vari *nce pursuant to 40 CFR Part 125, or equivalent State permits. If no such demonstration can be made, an assessment of the impact of the individual nuclear power plant license renewal on fish and shellfish resources

- resulting from heat shock and impingement and entrainment must be provided.

(B)

The nuclear power plant is not located at an inland site or does not have i

cooling ponds. If no such demonstration can be made, an assessment of the impact of the individual nuclear power plant license renewal on groundwater quality must be provided.

(C)

De nuclear power plant does not use Ranney wells and either does not pump 100 or more gallons per minute of groundwater or does not have private wells located within the cones of depression of the nuclear power plant wells. If no such demonstration can be 40 l

r k

t made, an assessment of the impact of the individual nuclear power plant license renewal on groundwater use con 0icts must be provided.

(D)

License renewal related construction activities that are to be undertaken invohing additional on-site land use will not affect important plant and animal habitats, if no such demonstration can be made, an assessment of the impact of the individual plant license renewal on important plant and animal habitats must be provided.

(E)

No major construction activities associated with ~the individual nuclear power plant license renewal will occur at the site. If no such demonstration can be made, a construction impact control program that will mitigate potential impacts on the aquatic environment from soil erosion or spills must be implemented and a desciption of such program must be provided.

(F)

The nuclear power plant is in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. If no such demonstration can be made, an assessment of the impact of the individual nuclear power plant license renewal on housing availability must be provided.

(G)

The design of the transmission lines of the nuclear power plant meets the National Electric Safety Code recommendations regarding the prevention of electric shock from induced currents. If no such demonstration can be made, an assessment of the impact 2 An area is considered to have a medium or hign population if any one of the following conditions is satisfied:

(a) the plant is within 20 miles of a city of 25,000; i

(b) the plant is within 50 miles of a city of 100,000; (c) the population of the area within 20 miles of the plant is 75,000 or more; (d) the population of the area within 50 miles of the plant is 1,500,000 or more; or (e) the population of the area within 20 miles of the plant is 50,000 or more and within 50 miles of the plant the population is 400,000 or more.

41 l

l l

4 of the individual. nuclear power plant license renewal on the potential electric shock hazard from the transmission lines of the plant must be provided.

(H)

The nuclear power plant does not use a cooling pond, lake, or canal and does not discharge water to a small river. If no such demonstration can be made, an assessment of the impact of thermophilic organisms on the health of recreational users of affected water must be provided.

(I)

The nuclear power plant will have access to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility through a low-level waste compact or an unaffiliated state. If no such demonstration can be made, a presentation of capability and plans for interim waste storage must be prosided with an assessment of potential ecological habitat destruction due to construction activities.

(J)

Replacement of equivalent generating capacity by a coal-fired plant has no 5

demonstrated cost advantage over the individual nuclear power plant license renewal. If no such demonstration can be made, a justification for choosing the license renewal alternative must be provided. For nuclear power plants located in California, Oregon, Washington, or Arizona applicants for license renewal must also provide an assessment of geothermal generating capacity as an alternative to license renewal in addition to the cost demonstration results.

(iii) For those issues identified as Category 3 in Appendix B of this part-the supplemental report must contain an assessment regarding:

4 3 In performing the cost demonstration, costs of refurbishment, construction, fuel, operation and maintenance must be considered.

42

of the indisidual nuclear power plant license renewal on the potential electric shock hazard from the transmission lines of the plant must be provided.

(H)

The nuclear power plant does not use a cooling pond, lake, or canal and does not discharge water to a small river. If no such demonstration can be made, an assessment of the impact of thermophilic organisms on the health of recreational users of affected water must be prosided.

(I)

The nuclear power plant will have access to a low-level kdioactive waste disposal facility through a low-level waste compact or an unaffiliated state. If no such demonstration can be made, a presentation of capability and plans for interim waste storage must be provided with an assessment of potential ecological habitat destruction due to construction activities.

(J)

Replacement of equivalent generating capacity by a coal-fired plant has no demonstrated cost advantage over the individual nuclear power plant license renewal. If 2

no such demonstration can be made, a justification for choosing the license renewal alternative must be provided. For nuclear power plants located in California, Oregon.

Washington, or Arizona applicants for license renewal must also provide an assessment of geothermal generating capacity as an alternative to license renewalin addition to the cost demonstration results.

(iii) For those issues identified as Category 3 in Appendix B of this part the supplemental report must contain an asses: ment regarding:

3 In performing the cost demonstration, costs of refurbishment, construction, fuel, operation and maintenance must be considered.

42

(A) The impact of the indisidual nuclear power plant license renewal on threatened or endangered species.

(B) The impact of the individual nuclear power plant license renewal on local transportation during periods of license renewal related refurbishment activities.

(4) The supplemental report must contain an analysis of whether the assessment required by paragraph (c)(3)(ii)-(iii) of this section changes the findings documented in Table B-1 of Appendix B of Subpart A that the renewal of any operating license for up to 20 years will have accrued benefits that outweigh the economic, emironmental and social costs of license renewal.

(d)

Post operating license stage.

Each applicant for a license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a production or utilization facility covered by 551.20 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, as specified in 551.55, of a separate document, entitled

" Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report--Post Operating License Stage," which will update " Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Stage,"

and " Supplement to Applicant's Emironmental 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 551.23(a) and the provisions in 551.23(b), the applicant shall only address the environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the term of the license applied for.

j 43 i

4 4.

In $51.55, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

5 51.55 Environmental renon--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 5 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 5 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 Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, forty-one (41) copies of an emironmental 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 emironmental report for distribution to parties and Boards in the NRC proceedings, Federal, State, and l

local officials and any affected Indian tribes, in accordance with written instructions issued by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate.

i i

i i

i 44 l

e

i l

5.

Section 51.95 is revised to read as follows:

551.95 Supolement to final environmental impact statement:

emironmental assessment.

(a) General. Any supplement to a final emironmental impact statement or any j

emironmental 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 which relates to the same production or utilization facility. Documents which may be referenced include, but are not limited to, the final emironmental impact j

i statement; supplements to the final environmental impact statement including that prepared at the operating license stage; environmental assessments and records of decisions prepared i

in connection with the construction permit, operating license and any license amendment for that facility. A supplement to a final emironmental impact statement will include a request for comments as provided in 551.73.

r (b) Oneratinc license stace. 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 f

environmental impact statement on the construction permit for that facility, which will update the prior environmental review. The supplement will only cover matters which differ i

from, or which reDect 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 f

for power or alternative energy sources or alternative sites or of any aspect of the storage i

of spent fuel for the nuclear power plant within the scope of the generic determination in j

r 45

551.23(a) and in accordance with 651.23(b), and will only be prepared in connection wath the first licensing action authorizing full power operation.

1 (c) Operatine license renewal state. In connection with tht. renewal of an operating i

i license for a nuclear power plant under Part 54 of this chapter, the NRC staff will prepare an environmental assessment, or if warranted a supplemental emirenmental impact statement. Unless otherwise determined by the Commission, the environmental assessment i

or the supplemental environmental impact statement will address only the matters in 551.53(c) of this part. A supplemental emironmental impact statement is required if significant impacts are found in the environmental assessment.

(d) Post operatine license stace. In connection with the amendment of an operating license to authorize the decommissioning of a prcduction 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 emironmental impact statement for the post I

operating 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 551.23(a) and the provisions of 551.23(b), a supplemental environmental impact statement for the post operating license stage or an emironmental assessment, as appropriate, will address the emironmental impacts of spent fuel storage only for the term of the license, license amendment or license renewal applied f

for.

4 46 l

e

h 6.

A new Appendix B is added to subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 of to read as follows:

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART A - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OF RENEWING THE OPERATING LICENSE OF A NUCLEAR POWER PIANT The Commission has considered the environmental and other costs and benefits of alternatives to granting a renewed operating license to individual nuclear power plants holding an operating license as of June 30, 1992 or who hold an operating license for Bellefonte unit 1 or 2, Comanche Peak unit 2, or Watts Bar unit 1 or 2. The Commission I

has found that the renewal of any operating license for up to 20 years will have accrued benefits that cutweigh the economic, environmental and social costs of license renewal, subject to an evaluation of those issues identified as Category 2 (only for those nuclear power plants that are outside the envelope defined in each issue) and Category 3 in Table B 1.

Table B-1 summarizes the Commission findings on the scope and magnitude of emironmental and other effects of renewing the operating license of an individual nuclear power plant as required under section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended. The Commission will periodically review the material in this appendix and update it if necessary.

h t

47 l

l l

TABLE B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 2

Issue Category' Findings PART L NEED FOR GENERA ~ITNG CAPACTTY Need for generating 1

LARGE BENEFIT License renewal of an individual nuclest capacity via license power plant will be needed to meet generating capacity renewal requirements in the service area and to avoid constructing and operating new generating facilities which would otherwise be necessary to replace the retired nuclear plant.

PART IL IMPACTS OF AL*IERNATIVES Advantages of alternatives 1

NO ADVANTAGE. License renewal of an individual nuclear to license renewal power plant is found to be preferable to replacement of the generating capacity with a new facility to the year 2020. License renewal is found to be preferable, both environmentally and 8

economically to either new fossil fuel or new nucicar capacity.

Wind, solar photovoltaic cells, solar thermal power, hydropower, and biomass may offer environmental advantages but are found to be not preferable to license renewal because of technological limitations, availability, and economics. Geothermal could be competitive in areas where geothermal resources are readily available. These areas are in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona.

PARTIIL BENEFTI5/ COST ASSESSMENT BENEFTIS Direct Ecocoauc 8

Generating capacity 1

LARGE BENEFIT. Will provide from 72 x 10 to 1270 x 10' net kW(c) reflecting the smallest to the largest plant.

Electric energy 1

LARGE BENEFIT. Will provide from 391 x 10' to 6898 x 10*

kWh/yr reflecting the smallest to the largest plant.

e 48

.. y.

1 r

t Avoided costs 2'

SMALL TO LARGE BENEFIT. Compared to replicement of f

electric generating capacity wnh a new coal-fired ple:n, license renewal offers savings u ader a diverse set of conditio.

j 4

Indirea Emoomic Local taxes SMALL BENEFIT. Tax revenues will increrse due to capital Refurbishment improvements.

i Local Taxes 1

SMALL BENEFIT. The impact of tax revenues may vary from

{

Renewal te r sroa!1 to large cepending on the total tax base of the taxmg i

junsdictions.

I Employment 1

SMAIJ. BENEFIT. Impacu on regional employment generally Refurbi<'. ment util be sma!! and short-lived.

l SMALL BENEIIT. Impacu on regional employment will be small. j Employmens 1

to large depetiding on the total employment base of the region.

{

Renewal term i

?

N 5

3

[

Direa Fmanesc j

l Refurbishment 2

MODERATE COST. Refurbishment costs will vary widely depending on specific plant requirements. In general, costs will be j

i signi5cantly lower relative to the capital cost of new coal-fired t

i plents.

Fuel 2

SMALL COST. Fuel costs will be much lower than for a new l

coal-fired plant.

l Operation and 2

LARGE COST. O & M costs will vary widely depending on maintenance spe -Je plant performance but on the average they will be significantly more than for a new coal-fired plant.

49

~

I

.... +

5

- - - ~.

I f

^

Environmental and Socioa:onomic l

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

Effects of refurbishment 2

SMALL COST. Impacts are expected to be minor and

[

on surface water quality insignificant during refurbishment if there are no major l

construction activities assoctated with the individual plant license j

renewal or if Best Management Practices (BMPs) are employed '.o t

control soil crosion and spills; applicant must provide evidence of j

approved BMPs in license renewal application.

Effects of refurbishment 1

SMALL COST. Water use during refurbishment will not chi.nge on surface water use or will be reduced during reactor outage.

I l-Altered current patterns at 1

SMA!1 COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating

[

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

j Altered salinity gradients 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating l

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

}

t i

Altered thermal 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating i

stratification of lakes nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renews! term.

j i

Temperature effects on 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operatmg j

sediment transport nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during l

j capacity the li:ense renews! term.

I-Scouring due to 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operatmg.

i discharged cooling water nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during t

the license renewal term.

f a

r i

Eutrophication 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operatmg nuclear power plants and is not crpected to be a problem durmg' o

I the license renewal term.

v a

}

l 50 l

t'

_ ~ _ _ _ -. _ _

t f

i l

i Discharge of chlorine or 1

SMALL COST. Effects are readily controited through National other biocides Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sptem (NPJES) permit and i

periodic modifications,if needed, and is not expmed to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Discharge of sanitary 1

SMALL COST. Effects are readily controlled through NPDES l

wastes pertnit and periodic modifications,if needed, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Discharge of other 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating f

I chemical contaminants nuclear power plants with cooling. tower-based heat dissipation

. (e.g., metals) sptems. Has oc s satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

[

f Water use conflicts 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.

The issue has been a concern at two nuclear power plants with cx)oling ponds and at two plants with cooling towers, but it will be j

resolved with appropriate state or regional regulatory agencies -

i outside of NRC license renewal actions. It is not crpected to be a t

problem dutiig the license tenewat term.

I s

i Aquatic Ecok>gy (for all plants) j Refurbishment 1

SMALL COST. During plant shutdown and refurbishment there will be negligible effects on aquatic biota due to a reduction of

{

entrainment and impingement of organisms or reduced release of f

• ~

chemicals.

Accumulation of 1

SMALL COST. Has been a concern at a single nuclear power contaminants in sediments plant with a cooling pond, but has been satisfactorily mitigated.

or biota Has not been found to be a prcblem at operating nuclear power j

plants with cooling towers or once-through cooling systems, or a cooling pond, except for one plant. It was successfully mitigated at that plant. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

f i

i i

51 i

i i

I

Entrainment of I

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operatmg phytoplankton and nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during zooplankton the license renewal term.

Cold shock 1

SMALL COST. Has been satisfactonly mitigated at operatmg nuclear plan;s with once-through cooling systems and has not endangered fish populations. Has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Thermal plume barrier 1

SMALL CO'T. Has not been found to be a problem at operating to migrating fish nucicar pcr er plants and is not expected to be a problem during the hcense renewat term.

Premature emergence of I

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operatmg aquatic insects nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal: rm.

Gas supersaturation 1

SMALL COST. Prmiously a concern at a small number of (gas bubble disease) operating nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems, but has been satisfactorily mitigated. Has not tven found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Low dissolved oxygen in 1

SMALL COST. Has been a concern at one nuclear power plant the discharge with a once-through cooling system, but the issue will be monitored in the NPDES permit renewal process. Has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with moling towers or cooling ponds. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renew 21 term.

Losses from predation, 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating parasitism, and disease nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during amor.g organisms the license renewal term.

exposed to sublethat stresses 52

?

Stimulation of nuisance 1

SMALL COST. Has been satisfactonly mitigated at the single organisms nuclear power plant with a once.through cooling sptem where at j

(e.g., shipworms) was a problem. Has not been found to be a problem at operatmg nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds. It is j

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

i Aquatic Ecoky l

(for plaats with onoc-through heat dissipation systems)

.i i

Entrainment of fist and 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most l

l_

shellfish early life suges operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the I

license renewal term. Licensees of plants that do not have an i

approved Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination or equivalent state permit,if required, at the time of license renewal j

l application must evaluate the entrainment issue in the license f

renewal application.

I Impingement of fish and 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most shellfish operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the

.f license renewal term. Licensees of plants that do not hase an

.q approved Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination or I

equivalent state permit,if required, at the time of license renewr.1 application must evaluate the impingement issue in the license I

renewal application.

i Heat shock 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most j

operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Licensees of plants that do not meet the i

state thermal discharge standards and do not have an approved Clean Water Act Section 316(a) determination at the time of I

license renewal application must evaluate the heat shock issue in j

the license renewal application.

l t

I l

e i

i.

t I

l 0

Ij-53 9

I i

t i

i e

Aquatic Emlogy l

1 (for plants with cooling-tower-based beat dissipation systems)

?

Entrainment of fish and 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating I

shellfish early life stages 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 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating l

l shellfish nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not j

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Heat shock 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating nucicar power plants with this type of cooling system and is not l

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

f Aquatic Emnogy j

(for plants Hth mohng pond heat dissipation systems)

Impingement of fish 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the f

a license renewal term. Licensees of plants that do not have an approved Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination or equivalent state permit, if required, at the time of license renewal application must evaluate the impingement issue in the license renewal application.

(

I Entrainrcent of fish early 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most life stages operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the j

liccase renewal term. Licensees of plants that do not have an approved Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination or equivalent state permit, if required, at the time of license renewal application must evaluate the entrainment issue in the license i

f renewal application.

f i

i i

j t

t f

(

54 r

I t

i I

{

l i

I i

Heat shock 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most l

i operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the

{

license renewal term. Licensees of plants that do not meet the l

state thermal discharge standards and do not have an approved r

l Clean Water Act Section 316(a) determination at the time of l

i i

license renewal application must evaluate the heat shock issue in

[

the license renewal application.

l t

I Groundwater Use and Quality, Impacts of Refurbishment Groundwater use and 1

SMALL COST. Extensive dewatering during the original quality construction on some sites will not be repeated during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant w2stes produced during I

refurbishment will be handled in the same manner as in current i

operating practices and is not expected to be a problem during the I

license renewal term.

I Groundwater Use and Quality, impacts of Operation j

l' Groundwater use conflicts 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most l

(potable and service operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the wat:r) license renewal term. Plants pumping 100 or more gpm M having i

private utils located within cones of depression of reactor wells are i

i l

req led to assess for use conflict during the license renewal term.

[

i Groundwater use conflicts 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most j

(water pumped for operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the

{

dewatering) license renewal term. Plants pumping 100 or more gpm M having l

private wells located within cones of depression of plant wells are required to assess for use conflict during the license renewal term.

f

- Groundwater use conflicts 1

SMALL COST. Water use conflicts are small and *ill be resolved I

(Surface water used as as necessary through surface water regulatory mechanisms outside 3

make-up water--potentially of NRC license renewal process and is not expected to be a l

affecting aquifer recharge) problem for any plant during the license renewal term.

[

i i

)

I t

!l l

l 55 i

t i

I l

5 l

I Groundw2ter use conflicts 2

SMALL COST. Ranney wells can result in potential groundwater

[

(Ranney wells) depression beyond site boundary, impacts of large groundwater withdrawal for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants usmg l

Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of application for f

license renew 21.

l Groundwater quality 1

SMALL COST. Groundwater quality at river sites may be i

degradation (Ranney degraded by induced infiltration of poorquality river water into an f

wells) aquifer that supplies large quantities of reactor cooling water.

I However, the lower-quality infiltrating water would not preclude the current uses of groundwater and is not expected to be a i

problem during the license renewal term.

Groundwater quality 1

SMALL COST. Nuclear power plants do not contnbute degradation (saltwater significantly to saltwater intrusion.

intrusion)

Groundwaier quality 2

SMALL COST. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade f

t degradation (cooling groundwater quality. His is not an issue for those plants located j

ponds) in salt marshes. However, for those plants located inland, the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity of the ponds must be shown to be adequate to allow continuation of current uses.

j f

i Terrestrial Resouras Refurbishment impacts 2

SMALL COST. Insignificant impact if no loss of important plant j

and animal habitat occurs. If important plant and animal habitats are affected the potential impact will be assessed at the time of license renewal.

Cooling tower impacts on 1

SMALL COST. Salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity f

crops associated with cooling tower operation have 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.

l t

e P

t 56 5

J '

A Cooling tower impacts on 1

SMALL COST. Salt dnft, icing, fogging, or increased humidity native plants associated with cooling tower operation have not been found to be i

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

l l

Bird collisions with 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating cooling towers nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

3 l

Cooling pond impacts on 1

SMALL COST. No significant damage to vegetation has been terrestrial resources observed as a result of fogging, icing, or increased relative humidity I

at nuclear reactor cooling ponds. The low levels of water

[

contaminants in cooling ponds are not a threat to wildlife using the i

ponds. No significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during tbc license renewal term.

j Power line right-of-way 1

SMALL COST. Periodic vegetation mntrol causes cyclic changes management (cutting and in the density of wildlife populations dependent on the right-of-herbicide application) way, but long-term densities appear relatively stable. Numerous studies show neither significant positive nor negative effects of power line rightsaf-way on wildlife. No signi5 cant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

[

Bird collisions with power 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operatmg t

lines nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renew 21 term.

(

Impacts of electromagnetic 1

SMALL COST. No signi5 cant impacts of electromagnetic fields f

fields on flora and fauna on terrestnal flora and fauna have been identified and is not t

(plants, agricultural crops, crpected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

i honeybees, wildlife, t

1:vestock) i I

I 3

57

Floodplains and wetland 1

SMALL COST. Penodic vegetation control is necessarv in on power line right-of-way forested wetlands underneath power lines and can be achiesed with minimal damage to the wetland. On rare occasions when heasy equipment may need to enter a wetland to repair a power line, impacts can be minimized through the use of standard practices.

No significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

"Iltreatened or Fminngered Specnes (for all plants)

Threatened or endangered 3

Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are not species expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species.

However, consultation with appropriate agencies must occur to determine if,in fact, threatened or endangered species are present and if they will be adversely affected.

Air Quality Air Quality 1

SMALL COST. Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small.

Land Use On site land use 1

SMALL COST. Projected on-site land use changes required during refurbishment and tbc renewal penod would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site.

Human Health,Impracts of Refurbishment Radiation crposures to the 1

SMALL COST. During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents and public liquid discharges would result in doses well below the natural background dose. Applicable regulatory dose limits to the public are not expected to be exceeded.

t 58

Occupational radiation 1

SMALL COST. Average occupational doses from refurbishment exposure are expected to be within the range of annual average doses experienced for pressurued-water reactors and boiling-water reactors. Upper-limit cancer and genetic risks from radiation exposure from the incremental doses from refurbishment are expected to be less than 1% of the natural cancer and genetic risk.

Human Health. Impacts of Operation Durtng Laxase Renewal Microbiological organisms 1

SMALL COST. Occupational health questions are expected to be (occupational health) resolved using industrial bygiene principles to minimize worker exposures.

Microbiological organisms 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at most (public health) operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. At the time of license renewal of plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals and plants discharging to small rivers applicants will assess the impact of thermophilic orEanisms on the health of recreational users of affected water.

Noise 1

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not expected to be a problem at any reactor durmg the license renewal term.

Electromagnetic fields, 2

SMALL COST. Has not been found to be problem at most acute effects (electric operating plants and is not expected to be a problem during the shock) license renewal term. If it catinot be found at the time of license renewal that the transmission lines of the plant meet the National Electric Safety Code recommendations regarding the prevention of shock from induced currents then an assessment of the potential electnc shock hazard from the transmission lines of the plant must be provided.

l Electromagnetic fields, 1

SMALL COST. Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz l

chronic effects electromagnetic fields havi not found consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures.

Radiation exposures to 1

SMALL COST. Radiation doses to the public wall continue to be public small with respect to natural background radiation.

i 1

59

A 6

Occupational radiation 1

SMALL COST. Projected manmum occupational doses during the exposures license renewal term are within the range of doses experienced and are considerably below the 5 rem exposure limit.

Socioeconomics Housing impacts of 2

SMALL COST. Not expected to be a problem at any plant located refurbishment in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. Housing impacts of the workforce associated with refurbishment will be assessed at the time of license renewal for plants located in spmely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing developmenL Housing impacts of license 2

SMALL COST. Not expected to be a problem at any plant located renewal term in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. Housing impacts of the workforce associated with refuelingtmaintenance outages will be assessed at the time of license renewal for plants located in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing development.

Public senice impacts of I

SMALL COST. Refurbishment induced population growth will be refurbishment small and will not strain local infrastructure at any plant.

Transportation impacts of 3

Impacts are generally crpected to be small, however, they must be refurbishment assessed for each plant to consider the increase in traffic associated with the additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions.

Public senice (including 1

SMALL COST. No significant impacts are expected during the transportation) impacts license renew 21 term.

during license renewal term

0 Offsite land use impacts of 1

SMALL COST. Impacts will not be significant at any plant refurbishment because plant-induced population growth will have little effect on land use patterns.

Offsite land use impacts of 1

SMALL COST. Changes in land use would be associated with license renewal term population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal of a plant.

Historic resources impacts 1

SMALL COST. No significant impacts are expected during of refurbishment refurbishment.

Historic resources impacts 1

SMALL COST. No significant impacts are expected during the of license renewal term license renew 21 term.

(transmission lines)

Historic resources impacts 1

SMALL COST. No significant impacts are expected durtng the of license renewal term license renewal term.

(normal operations)

Aesthetic impact of 1

SMALL COST. No significant impacts are crpected during refurbishment refurbishment.

Aesthetic impacts of 1

SMALL COST. Impacts will be small even though there may be license renewal term visual intrusiveness of the plant.

Aesthetic impacts of 1

SMALL COST. No significant impacts are expected during the license renes 21 term license renew 21 term.

(transmission lines)

Uranica Fuel Cyde SMALL COST. Impacts on the U.S. population from radioactive Radiological and I

gaseous and liquid releases including radon.222 and technetium-99 nonradiological impacts are small compared with the impacts of natural background radiation. Nonradiological impacts on the environment are small.

EnytronmentalImpacts of Postulated Accadents Design basis accidents 1

SMALL COST. Regulations require that consequences from design basis events remain acceptable for every plant.

Severe Accidents 1

SMALL COST. Risk from atmospheric releases is small.

(Atmospheric releases) 61

ki I

s I

l Severe Accidents 1

SMALL COST. Risks from both the drinking water pathway and

}

(Fallout onto open bodies the aquatic food pathway are small and interdiction can further l

of water) reduce both sufficiently for all plants.

t Severe Accidents 1

SMALL COST. Interdiction and the low probability of base mat j

(Releases from penetration yield a low risk to the public for all plants.

groundwater)

Severe Accidents 1

SMALL COST. Predicted costs due to postulated accidents range (Economic consequences) from $2,000/ reactor-year to $374,000/ reactor-year.

Severe Accident 1

SMALL COST.1.aw risk to the environment from severe e

i Mitigation Design accidents.

3 i

Alternatives Solid Waste Management j

Nonradiological waste 1

SMALL COST. No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Existing regulations will ensure proper handling and disposal at all plants.

Low-level radioactive 2

SMALL COST. Impacu will be Pil for plants having access to j

waste storage off-site disposal space. For those plants denied the use of off. site disposal space due to delayed compact plans, the potential for coological habitat disturbance due to construction of on-site storage facilities must be evaluated.

I s

Low-level radioactive 2

SMALL COST. Off-site disposal facilities are planning to handle

[

waste disposal refurbishment and normal operations waste streams for an additional 20 years. If implementation of plans is delayed, plants in affected compact regions or unaffiliated states must plan for

)

cxtended interim storage for an indefinite period of time and l

J evaluate the impacts of such storage, i

Mixed waste 1

SMALL COST. License renewal will not increase the small, j

continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by

{

t mixed waste at all plants.

-I 62 i

i

J Spent fuel 1

SMALL COST. A 50% greater 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 L

storage facility is not available.

Transportation 1

SMALL COST. Rail and truck transport corridors can safely i

accommodate increased shipments of radioactive wastes associated with license renewal. Shipments would result in impacts within the scope of the Table S.4 rule and therefore would result in acceptable impact.

Decommissaoning Radiation doses 1

SMALL COST. Doses to the public are small regardless of which decommissioning method is used.

Occupational doses would increase no more than 1 man-tem due to buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the license renewal term.

Waste management 1

SMALL COST. Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year heense 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 COST. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible whether at the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

Water quality 1

SMALL COST. 'nte potential for significint water quality impacts from crosion or spills is no greater if 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 COST. Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20 year ?icense renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.

63

l

. V I

Socioeconomic impacts 1

SMALL COST. Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would not be tnereased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year renewal license period, but they might be decreased by population and economic growth.

l ne numencal entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:

Category 1:

A genenc conclusion on the impact has been reached for all affected nuclear l

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 genenc conclusion on the impact was not reached for any nuclear power plant.

De findings in this column apply to Category 1 issues and Category 2 issues where plants fall within the bounds of the genene analysis. For Part I of this table, the entry in this column indicates the level of need. For Part 11 of this table, the entry in this column indicates the relative advantages of alternatives to license renewal. For Part III of this table, the entries in this column are benefits or costs, as indicated by the following headings:

SMALL impacts are so minor that they warrant neither detailed investigation nor consideration of mitigative actions when such impacts are negattve.

l f

MODERATE impacts are likely to be clearly evident and usually warrant consideration of l

mitigation alternatives when such impacts are negative.

l l

LARGE impacts involve either a severe penalty or a major benefit and mitigation alternatives are always considered when such impacts are negative.

The uncertainty associated with the economic cost of license renewal leads to the requirement that a demonstration will be made by an applicant for license renewal that there is no cost advantage of replacement of equivalent generating capacity by a new coal fired power plant. If no such demonstration can be made, a justification for choosing the license renewal alternative must be 4

.