ML20132F979

Forwards Final rule,SP-96-122,re Environ Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses

ML20132F979
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/20/1996
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	GENERAL
References
SP-96-122, NUDOCS 9612260147
Download: ML20132F979 (19)

Text

. .

DEC 2 01%S' STATE LIAISON OFFICERS STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES; FINAL RULE (SP-96-122)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations on the environmental review of applications to renew the operat_ing licenses of nuclear power plants to make minor clarifying and conforming changes and add language inadvertently omitted from Table B-1 .

of the rulemaking published June 5,1996 (61 FR 28467). This final rule also presents an  !

analysis of the comments received and the staff, responses to the comments requested in i the final rule published June 5,1996. After reviewing the comments received, the NRC has determined that no substantive changes to the final rule are warranted. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the final rule. The rule becomes effective on January 17,1997.

. Origina1 Signed Dr.

. PAULH.LOHAUS r /'

, Richard b. Bangart, Director ,

._ Office of State Programs  !

r <

Enclosure:

~ '

As stated

)

I Distribution:

DIR RF ~ DCD (SP03) RSL0s ) E-Mailed RLBangart PDR (YES X NO ) RSA0s ) 12/20/96 l PLohau SDr:ggitis )

Agr:ement State File f j l

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SP96122.SCD l To receive a copy of this document, Indicate Ir} the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = l Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = Np chpy M A/ l OFFICE Sh OSP OSP;6Di 0%Ctsp l )

NAME SCDroggitis:maj PHLohat s' W RLBandart' DATE 12/20/96 12/h)/96 12P.()/96 OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4 '

3 ,

49 9612260147 961220

"""e"=" NBC RU DES CM

,,nn *,

,o UNITED STATES g

j 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006H001

,,,,,* December 20, 1996 4

STATE LIAISON OFFICERS STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES: FINAL RULE (SP-96-12S The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations on the environmental review of applications to renew the operating licenses of nuclear power plants to make minor clarifying and conforming changes and add language inadvertently omitted from Table B-1 of the rulemaking published June 5,1996 (61 FR 28467). This final rule also presents an analysis of the comments received and the staff responses to the comments requested in the final rule published June 5,1996. After reviewing the comments received, the NRC has determined that no substantive changes to the final rule are warranted. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the final rule. The rule becomes effective on January 17,1997.

)NO W 4

(e Richard L. Bangart, Director ~fY Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated s

T

es Federal Register / Vcl. 61, N2. 244 / Wednes' day, December 18, 1996 / Rul:s and Regulitions 66537 9 808.02 Empienesen of servies sees ensi suPPLassENTARY BIP0ftSADON: concerning chronic effects of

, , L Introduction electromagnetic fields.

(2) The cost of per diem, subsistence, The Commission has amended its H. Analysis ofPublic Comments mileage, or commercial transportation to envimumntal protection regulations in

! perform the service for rice inspection 10 CFR Part 51 to impmve the efBciency A. Commenters.

only in $ 868.91. Table 1. See $ 868.90, of the promas of environmental review Table 1, footnote 1, for fees for for applicants seeking to renew a in response to the Federal Register inspection of commodities other than notice for the final rule published on )

nuclear power plant operating license June 5,1996 (61 FR 28467),11 rice. for up to an additional 20 years. The l

. . . . . final rule contaf ning these amendments organizations and 1 private citizen

. submitted written comments. The 11 Deted: December 13,1996. wa8 Published in the Federal Register organizations included the EPA: the gg on June 5,1996 (61 FR 28467). The .

States of Maryland, Massachusetts, and Assistant Secretah, Marketing and Aegulategmms. re it Y 437, ri? "" W "*'

a *d 6 licensees. Cmanenters expressed l

j (FR Doc. 96-32080 Filed 12-17-96; 8:45 sml Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) cm eN

• u for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" esPeas of the I anAmescaosa N (May 1996). At several stages in the rule and several commenters referred to 1 development of the rule the materialin NUREG-1437 which they Commission sought ublic comment by believe to be inaccurate or ambiguous.

Other than one State, the commenters

"" " r expmssed that the rule should be NUCLEAR REGULATORY

, and public workshops.To history of this rulemaking is summedzed in the revised to address their concerns. The 10 CFR Part 61 June 5,1M nodce (61 M 28469). Prior seven commenters from the nuclear to the final rule h-a% effective, the power industry stated that their Commission believed it appropriate to concerns should be addressed by seek comments on the treatment oflow. supplemental rulemaking and should ,

• ' ' not delay the effective date of the rula Environmental Review for Renewal of 88 Published in 61 FR 28467. The Nuclear Power Plant Operating t la ra ca]

U**"*** effects from the uranium fuel cycle, and Conunissim assumes 6a@A. two the effects from the disposal of high- States, and the private individual intend AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory level waste and spent fuel. In a for their concerns to be addressed by Commission. supplemental notice published on July revising the final rule and final GEIS ACTION: Final rule. 18, im (61 FR 37351), de Conunission now rather than bf supplemental extended the comment period for these rulemaking. These specific concerns SUGAAARY:The Nuclear Regulatory issues to August 5,1996, and indicated and how and when the should be Commission is amending its regulations that the final rule would become resolved are addressed low.

on the environmental review of effective on September 5,1996, absent B. Radioactive Waste Storage and applications to renew the operating not!ce from the Commission to the Disposal, and Cumulative Radiological licenses of nuclear power plants to contrary. The Caunissim.has reviewed Effects of the Umnium fue1 Cycle make minor clarifying and conforming the comments submitted and finds no changes and add language inadvertently need to amend the substantive Comment. The two commenting omitted from Table B-1 of the Pmvisions of the rule. States expressed concern over the rulemaking published June 5,1996 (61 ' This final rule amends the June 5, prospect of long-term storage of high-FR 28467). This final rule also presents 1996 rule with minor nonsubstantive level waste (HLW) at reactor sites. One an analysis of the comments received changes. The changes are: addition of State also expressed concern over the j

and the staff responses to the comments five Ground-water Use and Quality prospect oflong-term storage oflow ,

requested in the final rule published issues inadvertently left out of Table B- level waste (LLW) at reactor sites. This June 5 1996. After reviewing the , 1 in the June 5,1996 notice (see,61 FR State believes that,"the Commission comments received, the NRC has 29278 July 29,1996); minor conforming should establish a policy which would determined that no substantive changes changes to reflect recent amendments to condition license renewal to a ,

to the final nale are warranted

• 55 51.53 and 51.95 effected by a separate resolution of radioactive waste disposal EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule shall be rulemaking (" Decommissioning of issues." One State believes that effective on January 17,1997. Nuclear Power Reactors," July 29,1996 provisions in NRC's regulations for (61 FR 39278)); substitution of one addressing significant new information ADDRESSES: Copies of comments sentence under Findings for the issu9 received and all documents cited in the and the to-year cycle for reviewing the supplementary information section of "Offsite radiological impacts (< ret fuel continued appropriateness of the 61 FR 28467 may be examined at the and high level waste disposal)in Table conclusions codified by the rule are not B-1,in order to more accurately adequate with respect to the issues of NRC Public Document Room,2120 L repreynt a U.S. Environmental on-site storage and disposal of HLW:

Street NW, (Lower Invel) Washingten, Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory DC, between the hours of 7:45 am and and, therefore, site-specific position: a word substitution in to CFR environmental review should be 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

51.53(c)(3)(li)(M), in order to clarify the required for these issues, i.e., these FOR FURTHER INFORedATION CONTACT: information on the environmental effect issues should be designated Category 2.

Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear

• of transportation of fuel and waste to A third State believes that a Category 1 Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear and from a nuclear power plant that is designation is appropriate for these Regulatory Commission, Washington, to be submitted with a license renewal issues,i.e., findings for the issue DC 205554001, telephone: 301-415- application: and minor clarifying codified in the rule may be adopted in 6263; e-mail DPC@nrc. gov. changes to the text in Table B-1 site-specific license mnewal reviews.

66538 Federal Register / Val / 61, No. 244 / Wedniscay, Dec;mber 18, 1996 / Rules and Regul:tions and supports the provision in the rule reassessment of the status of LLW and a result of this rulemaking,10 CFR f:r periodic evaluation of these issues. HLW disposal programs. The 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) requires applicants to K"ponse. As stated at 61 FR 28477, Commission recognizes that the review the environmental effects of the Commission acknowledges that possibility of significant unexpected transportation in accordance with there is uncertainty in the schedule of events remains open. Consequently, the $ 51.52 (Table S-4) and to discuss the availability of disposal facilities for Commission will review its conclusions generic and cumulative impacts LLW and HLW.The Commission on these waste findings should associated with transportation understands the continuing concern of significant and pertinent unexpected infrastructure in the vicinity of a high-the States and uf the pubhc over the events occur (see also,49 FR 34658 level waste repository site.The prospects for timely development of (August 31,1984)). In view of the candidate site at Yucca Mountain I waste disposal facilities. The Commission's favorable conclusions should be used for the purpose of uncertainty in the schedule of regarding prospects for safe and impact analysis as long as that site is cva11 ability of disposal facilities is erwironmentally acceptable waste under consideration for licensing. The especially of concern because of the disposal,it sees no need for amendments to to CFR Part 51 in this waste currently being generated during conditioning licenses as recommended. rulemaking do not alter the existing the initiallicensing term of power The Category 1 designations for these provisions of 6 51.52. If an applicant's reactors. The Commission, however, three issues (low-level waste storage and reactor meets all the conditions in continues to believe that there is disposal, offsite radiological impacts $ 51.52(a) the applicant may use the sufficient understanding of and (spent fuel and high level waste environmentalimpacts of transportation cxperience with the storage of LLW and disposal), and on-site spect fuell in the of fuel and waste to and from the reactor HLW to conclude that the waste final rule has not been changed in set forth in Summary Table S-4 to generated at any plant as a result of response to these comments. characterize the transportation impacts license renewal can be stored safely and Comment. Six industry organizations from the renewal ofits license, without significant environmental specifically commented on the However, because Table S-4 does not impacts prior to permanent disposal. treatment of the LLW and HLW issues take into account the generic and The Commission believe.that in 61 FR 28467 and in the GEIS. Except cumulative (including synergistic) conditioning individual license renewal for the treatment of the environmental impacts of transportation infrastructure decisions on resolution of radioactive impacts of transportation of radiological construction and operation in the waste disposal issues is not warranted material to and from the plant, the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain because the Commission has already industry commenters agree with the repository site, such information would made a generic determination, codified Commissions findings on waste issues. have to be provided by these applicants.

in 10 CFR 51.23, that spent fuel Transportation (radiological and For reactors not meeting the generated at any reactor can be stored nonradiological environmental impacts) conditions of $ 51.52(a), the applicant safely and without signincant is designated Category 2 in the final must provide a full description and cnvironmentalimpacts for at least 30 rule. This designation requires some detailed analysis of such environmental years beyond a license renewal term and additional review of the environmental effects associated with transportation in that there will be a repository available impacts of transportation. accordance with $ 51.52(b). Industry within the first quarter of the twenty. Tne industry commenters argue that commenters pointed out that the first century. The waste confidence the requirements for the review of conditions in paragraph (a) are not decision is discussed in Chapter 6 of transportation im cts for license likely to be satisfied by many plants NUREG-1437," Generic Environmental renewal descri in the final rule are now using higher burn-up fuel. In such Impact Statement for License Renewal unclear, and that there are good reasons cases, applicants may incorporate in i;r Nuclear Plants," May 1996. The to change the transportation issue from their analysis the discussion presented Commission similarly believes that a Category 2 to a Category 1 designation. in the GEIS in Section 6.2.3 " Sensitivity enough is known regardmg the effects of The requirements for the review of to Recent Changes in the Fuel Cycle,"

permanent disposal to reach the generic transportation issues in the final rule and Section 6.3 " Transportation." This conclusion in the rule. The rule is not were found by the commenters to be category of applicants also would have based on the assumption that Yucca unclear with respect to (1) the use and to consider the generic and cumulative

, Mountain will be licensed. Also from a legal status of to CFR 51.52, Table S- impacts of transportation operation in regulatory policy perspective, the 4 in the plant-specific 1; cense renewal the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain Commission disagrees with the view of review; (2) the conditions that must be repository site. These impacts may be one state that each renewal applicant met before an applicant may adopt attributed to an individual plant on a should come forward with an analysis Table S-4; and (3) the extent to whfch reactor-year basis.

cf the HLW storage and disposal the " generic" effects of transporting As part ofits efforts to develop environmental effects. This is a national spent fuel to a high-level waste regulatory guidance for this rule, the problem of essentially the same degree repository should be considered in a Commission will consider whether cf complexity and uncertainty for every plant-specific license renewal review, la further changes to the rule are desirable renewal application and it would not be addition, neveral commenters suggested to generically address: (1) The issue of useful to have a repetitive that DOE should have the responsibility cumulative transportation impacts and reconsideration of the matter. of considering the cumulative (2) the implications that the use of The Commission further believes that environmentalimpacts from higher burn-up fuel have for the the provisions in the present rule and transportation. conclusions in Table S-4. After clsewhere in the Commission's flesponse.The Commission does not consideration of these issues, the regulations adequately provide for the believe that changes to the rule in Commission will determine whether the introduction and consideration of new response to industry comments are issue of. transportation impacts should significant information in license warranted at this time. However,in be changed to Category 1, renewal reviews, and that the 10 year order to clarify the rule's requirements. As to the NRC'.s duty to consider the review cycle for the rule and the GEIS the following guidance is provided on cumalative transportation impacts of adequately provides for Commission the issue of transportation impacts. As license renewal, the Commission

_ - . - - - . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - -

t Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Rul:s and Regulitions 86539 7 continues to bellew that such analysis provide perspective only on the limits are based on radiation protection is saaappropriate.

an applimatNwill facthave that title DOE torather magnitude of b additional does, not on standards established by interagency its signiBcance.

spent fuel and high-level waste when it committees and reflects international Comment. EPA believes that the GEIS scientiSc consensus on b adequacy of is tronsported to a repository and that is =taar as to whether occupational protection standards, the Commission ultimately DOE must consider the doses are measured as the dose received environmentalimpacts of transportation by the average worker or the maximally chooses to denne radiological risk does not relieve the rammission of the exposed worker. The NRC should clarify "small."resulting from lhese standards responsibility under the National what signincance these two distinct Cornment.

i Enviromnental Policy Act to consider the impacts of transportation in its measures have with respect to the NRC's Commission, EPA takes s assumptions,in issue with the Section latory realme for reactor licensing.

environmental review for renewal of an se.Docupational does limits 6.2.2.2 of the GEIS, about regulatory operating license. and requirement to achieve limits for off-site releases of Finally, regarding the attribution of exposures which are as low as radionuclides for the candidate tronsportation impacts between the reasonably achievable (ALARA) are repository at Yucca Mountain. EPA ,

initial o ting license and the codined in the rammission's stated that the Commission should not license, the allocation of  !

regulations in to CFR Part 20. The dose Presume that EPA will adopt the l envimamental data in $ 51.51 and limits and measund doses correspond National Academy of Science environmental impacts in $ 51.52 on the to the ladividual. However, the overall recommendation regarding a 100 bases of a reference reactor year sets the e5ectiveness of the licensee's ALARA millirem annual dose limit. Further, precedence for allocating generic programs are renected by the averase EPA believes that the GEIS should

(common) impacts. doses received by the population of assume a smaller dose limit as a more

Comment. EPA states that the workers. A detailed discussion of the conservative h=#5 estimate, discussion of the radiologicalimpacts of rammission's radiation protection consistent with the stated objective of

the uranium fuel cycle (61 FR 28478) limits and protection measures is Table S-3 to represent the worst case or i requires clarification regarding the provided in Appendix E of the GEIS. bounding estunate of the potential a conective effects, over time, on human These regulations apply to license release from the uranium fuel cycle l ulations. renewal activities. he estimates in the (GEIS page 6-11 t

, se.The Commission believes GEIS of occupational doses due to l that e discussion adequatel Response.De Commission does not license renewal assume continued summarises the potential col active compliance with to CFR Part 20, assume that EPA will adopt a 100 health impacts of the uranium fuel including both the does limits and the millirem annual dose limit' The cycle. The following is provided to ALARA requirement. discussion in Section 6.2.2.2 is clear clarify the speciac elements of that Comment. EPA disagmes with the ""'"ded bY th' discussion.First, an estimate is Commission's deRaition of"small" that this limit is '"un8 Point for A C8

• m y ** 8 8 tar un om n, and est he is sorne provided of the too-year dose relative to radiological impacts. The  ;

commitment to the fataU. S.bpulation

"***" I C*"""'"' ""*"8 "I "'I es from the and rammission's de5nition is,"For theand international bodies that the limits I

the estimated cancer j uranium fuel cycle that are attributable burpose of assessing pacts, the Commission radiological has concluded should be a fraction of the too mrem / j to each 20-year license renewal. It is that those impacts that do not exceed year. At this time, the Commission is J to peculate as to what the then explained that much of the dose to permissible levels in the rammi== ion's [" g"g individuals is " tiny" and is attributed to regulations are considered small." EPA 3 '

redon releases from mines and tailing 4

points out that the Commission's Comment. EPA states:"The NRC has i piles. Second,it is explained that the regulations permit an upper limit that mis-stated the Agency's expectations does calculation could be extended to would exceed the range of10FA to regarding the performance of a high-l cover populations outside of the U. S. 10E4, established under the level waste repository, and in doing so over thousands of years, and that such Comprehensive Environmental has used an inappropriate benchmark a calculation would estimate thousands Response, Com tion and Liability for its discussion of acceptable doses to i of cancer fatalities.Hird, the Act, for negli y smalllifetime risk. the general public from the disposal of

, uncertainty that would be involved in EPA believes t risks falhng above this reactor fuel. Table B-1 * *

• states that this cosaputation and the conservative . range should not be designated as small EPA's cumulative release limits (from nature of the estimates of fatalities are or insigni$ cant. 40 CFR Part 191) are based on a discussed. Views of the scientinc Response.The definition of"small" population impact goal of 1,000 eammunity about the possible used for assessing radiological impacts premature cancer deaths in the first overestimation of fatalitiesmoulting in the GEIS is not synonymous with 10,000 years aAer closure of a from the assumptions used are " negligibly small," which implies that repository. he table mistakenly equates developed in Appendix E. Section E.4.1, an impact is so insignificant as to be EPA's standard for releases from a high-of the GEIS. Finally,th's discussion unworthy of consideration.De level waste repository--an extreme points out that no standants exist that Commission promotes licensee upper limit that would moult in 1,000 can be used to reach a conclusion as to Programs to bring doses below the premature cancer deathe-with EPA's the si=aine==e=

~

of the magnitude of the regulatory limits to"as low as goal or expectation for the performance Ii' collective radiological health e5ects. r===a==h y achievable" (ALARA) of such repositories. EPA stated in the Cornment. EPA maintains that natural through its agulations,10 CFR 50.36(a), promulgation ofits high level waste

, background radiation should not be . Appendix I to to CPR Part 50, and regulation that a repository for 100.000 used comparatively to judge the provisions in to CFR Part 20. Because metric tonnes ofreactor fuel would "M==- of additional doses of ALARA programs matinue to be cause between 10 and 100 such deaths, l radiation. effective, actual doses are far below the on the assumption that the repository j Response.%e statement referred to regulatory limits, limits that represent a complies with the NRC's enforceable by EPA (61 FR 28478),is intended to r small risk. As the ammia= ion's dose requirements for engineered barriers

66540 Federal Regist r / V:1. 61. No. 244 / Wzdn:sday, Dec;mber 18, 1996 / Ruhs and Rehulitions found at to CFR Part 00.The that in the case of the high-level waste severe axidents as a Category 1 issue.

Commission should not use 1,000 fatal repository these calculations are carried Completion of an IPE and IPEEE in itself cancers as a benchmark for repository out for 10,000 years, although in his is not sufficient to fulfill the performance and instead should view a calculation ofimpact should be Commission's responsibility under the consider the Agency's stated carried until there is no more impact. NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act cxpectation that a well constructed. The staff response to this comment is (NEPA). SAMDA alternatives must be well-sited repository should out- intended to point out that the likely . addressed within an Environmental perform this level by ten or one- radiological impacts attributable to any Impact Statement (EIS), or supplement hundred-fold. The same discussion one nuclear power plant's HLW to an EIS, or an Environmental cppears in Section 6.2.2.2 of the GEIS generated as a result of license renewal Assessment. The Commission believes on page 6-20 and should also be ' are uncertain and are unlikely to be that this can be most efficiently corrected there." significantly altered by consideration of accomplished generically through a Response.The Commission agrees the impacts that may be attributable to supplement to the CEIS and rule that referring to 1,000 premature cancer the period from 1,000 to 10,000 years. amendment based on Commission desths as an EPA population " impact The basis for the evaluation of the review of allIPEs and IPEEEs. Pnor to goal"is misleading. Until final environmentalimpact of the uranium successful completion of such a repository release standards are fuel cycle for the renewal of an rulemaking an applicant will have to promulgated and health impact operating license is to CFR 51.51- submit a SAMDA alternatives analysis, estimates are available, the Commission Table S-3, as supplemented with an based on its IPE and IPEEE (if available),

will continue to use 1,000 premature evaluation of the contribution of Radon- in its environmental report. Then the cancer deaths in the first 10,000 years 222 and Technetium-99 to the Commission will review that analysis in citer closure of a repository as an upper environmental impact of the fuel cycle. a supplemental EIS for the plant.

bound estimate of cumulative health The environmental data in Table S-3 .

Efrects. The following sentence has been and discussion of associated MI'##"* 8"I# N#I # "'#

substituted in the rule for the one with environmental impacts is expressed on U#C#8I which EPA disagrees:" Repository the basis of a reference reactor year of Comment. Four industry commenters performance standards that will be operation. Discussion of fuel cycle disagreed with the treatment of chronic required by EPA are expected to result impacts has been further supplemented health effects of transmission line in releases and associated health in the final GEIS with available electromagnetic fields. The rule consequences in the range between to information on the status of regulatory contains the finding that the magnitude and 100 premature cancer deaths with requirements and studies on the of effects is uncertain. No finding is ,

an upper limit of 1,000 premature possible performance of the candidate made in the rule as to whether this issue cancer deaths world-wide for a 100,000 high level waste repository at Yucca is a Category 1 or Category 2. The metric tonne (MTHM) rep'ository." Mountain, commenters note that no submittalis Comment. EPA states: The hRC has . . required of an applicant for this issue not adequately justified certain C. Severe Accident Afitigation Design until such time as the Commission finds assumptions regarding its analysis of Alternotaves that a consensus has been reached by risks from the disposal of spent nuclear Comment. Three industry the appropriate Federal health agencies (reactor) fuelin the high-level waste commenters disagreed with the that there are adverse health effects. The repository at Yucca Mountain. The NRC designation of severe accidents as commenters believe that the number of asserts that analyses in the Gels of Category 2 in the final rule and the scientific studies performed over a long health effects from disposal of reactor requirement that severe accident period of time which could find no fuel need not extend beyond 1,000 mitigation design altematives harmful effects is adequate disclosure years, though NRC's own regulations for (SAMDAs) must be addressed by the under the NEPA to designate this issue high-level waste disposal, found at to applicant and staffif SAMDAs had not Category 1. It is suggested that an CFR Part 60, contain explicit numerical previously been addressed in a staff alternative to a Category 1 designation is requirements on releases occurring after environmental document for the plant. rewording Footnote 5 to Table B-1 in the first 1,000 years. An analysis They noted that efforts to analyze severe the rule to state in a more positive extending over a longer period of time accident vulnerabilities and the manner that there is no scientific would be more appropriate, such as for opportunities to mitigate the evidence of chronic biological effects on 10,000 years as required in EPA's high- vulnerabilities will be completed for all humans and that this issue will not be level waste standard applicable to sites plants in the near future. These analyses admitted as a contention in any hearing other than Yucca Mountain." will provide the bases for a generic on a renewal application. One Response.This comment refers to an finding on SAMDAs for all plants, commenter believes that this issue is not NRC staff response (found at NUREG- including the designation of Category 1 related to refurbishment activities and 1529, page C7-3) to a comment made by for severe accidents. One commenter thus should not be addressed in the en EPA participant in the NRC Public proposed that a generic Category 1 context oflicense renewal.

Workshop to Discuss 1.icense Renewal, finding could be made that Response. The Commission is not held in Arlington, Virginia, November 4 consideration of SAMDAs is not inclined at this time to change the rule and 5,1991 (Session 4, page 26). The required for any plant that has a relative to the treatment of the chronic EPA participant pointed out that in the completed Individual Plant human health effects of transmission discussion of the uranium fuel cycle in Examination (IPE) and Individual Plant line electromagnetic fields. The i the draft GEIS, NRC provided estimates Examination of External Events (IPEEE). Commisalon recognizes that biological l cf population dose commitments from Response. It is stated at 61 FR 28481 and physical studies of electromagnetic j open pit uranium mines and stabilized that upon completion of its IPE/IPEEE fields have not found consistent tailings piles for 100,500 and 1,000 program, the Commission may review evidence linking harmful effects with years, but didn't provide long-term the issue of severe accident mitigation field exposures and that much of the estimates for other long-lived materials. for license renewal and consider, by scientific evidence and many experts in The commenter went on to point out separate rulemaking, reclassifying the Seld arguably would support a l l

l

Federal Register / Val. 61. No. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Rults and Regulttions 66541 Category 1 deterinination for this issue. Response. Several considerations led review to look at non-nuclear design However, the Commission also to the Commission's decision to require alternatives in context of severe recognizes that research is continuing in a supplemental EIS in license renewal accidents including non-nuclear this area, and that a scientific consensus reviews. The proposed rule and alternatives." The commenter proceeds ,

on the issue has not yet emerged. supporting CEIS would have included a to express concern that the analysis of Consequently, the Commission believes preliminary conclusion of a favorable alternatives consider " efficiency and '

that a more conservative position on the cost benefit balance. The function of an conservation" and that sites considered I matter is appropriate at this time. With EA would have been to consider the for alternatives not be limited ,

respect to concern that nonproductive impacts associated with a limited set of geographically because of the ability to l litigation of this issue will take place in environmental issues and whether these wheel power over long distances. l license renewal hearings, it should be impacts would overturn the favorable Finally, the individual objects to '

noted that because of the intensive preliminary cost-benefit finding in the eliminating utility economics from the scrutiny given to this issue within the GEIS and codified in the rule. Because envimamental review because "The real scientific community, any contention there was a possibility that the impacts world reason to extend an operating will have to meet scientific standards for the limited set of environmental limnse is that of utility economics."

for admission. issues would be found to be nonexistent Response. The Umerick decision was or insignificant (no significant impacts), concemed with the consideration of E. Environmenfal/ustice use of an EA was provided for in the design mitigation alternatives Comment. Comments about the Proposed rule. In addition, a finding of specifically for the Limerick plant, not treatment of environmental lustice in no signi6 cant impact and the with "non nuclear design alternatives."

the rule were offered by EPA and two supporting EA may be issued in draft for With respect to the commenters licensees. EPA stated that as the comment at the discretion of the concerns about the treatment of Commission further defines its appropriate NRC staff director. The alternatives to license renewal, the environmental justice requirements it Proposed rule was challenged with Commission believes that the final GEIS should consider the draft guidance mopect to preliminary cost-benefit and rule adequately accommodate these issued by the Council on Environmental findings and procedural hurdles to concerns. The consideration of Quality (CEQ) on May 24,1996, and the Public input to the license renewal alternative energy sources in individual draft guidance issued by EPA on July review. To resolve these concerns, the license renewal reviews will consider 12,1996. The licensees believe that the Commission modified the rule to those alternatives that are reasonable for

' rule should include provisions for the eliminate the preliminary license the region, including power purchases treatment of envignmental justice that renewal finding and to make that from outside the applicant's service take into consideration that most finding only after consideration of all area. Also,in assessing the environmental impacts of relicensing impacts within the plant-specinc environmentalimpacts of new nuclear plants have been found to be review. The Commission believes that generating capacity it will not small and whether there is any benefit the sum of all the individualimpacts necessarily be assumed that the capacity in conducting an environmental justice that are to be considered in the decision would be constructed on the site under review for an already sited facility, whether to renew a nuclear power plant review. Finally, consideration of the Response.The Commission is aware Perating license for an additional 20 economic merits of renewing a plant 188FS. 88Pecially given the controversy operating license is eliminated only of the CEQ and EPA draft 8"Idance on the treatment of environmental justice over various aspects of nuclear power, from the Commission s decision exceeds the Commission's threshold for whether to renew. The decision about in c n ider a t e Co ssion a Endng of no signiScant impact.This the economic merits of continued d dv1 and the desire to ensure public access operation of a nuclear power plant will irerne t forthe en to the license renewal review process be made by the owners and the State environmental justice in NEPA reviews. led to the requirement of a regulators.

SUPP l emental EIS for license renewal-As these requirements are developed, III. Procedural Background the Commission will consider whether G. Purpose and Needfor the Proposed Because this rule makes only minor it is appropriate to take a generic rather Action clarifying and conforming changes and than a site-sp3cific approach to this Comment. EPA adds language inadvertently omitted issue for bcense renewal reviews. definition of the "proposed questions the action" from Table B-1 of the rulemaking F. Supplemental Site-Specific within the cortext of the discussion of published June 5,1996, and because Environmentallmpact Statement Versus Purpose and need at 61 FR 28472. public comments were solicited on that Environmental Assessment Response. The definition of" purpose rulemaking the NRC is approving this and need"is to be applied to the rule without seeking public comments Comment. A licensee disagrees with " proposed action" of renewal of a on proposed amendments. As such, the Commission's decision that a nuclear power plant operating license. It pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the supplemental EIS will be prepared for does not refer to and should not be Commission for good cause finds that a license renewal reviews rather than a confused with the purpose of the GEIS, notice and comment procedure is supplemental environmental assessment which is given in the GEIS, Section 1.1 unnecessary for this rulemaking.

(EA) as proposed in the proposed rule. Purpose of the GEIS.

The licensee believes that IV. Finding ofNo Significant environmental reviews will show that H. Alternatives Environmental 1mpact: Availability there will be no signincant Comment. A individual believes that The NRC has determined that this environmentalimpact for a number of the rule appears to contradict the final rule is the type of action described license renewal applicants, and Limerick Ecology Action decisicn, 869 as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR therefore preparation of an F.2d 719 (3rd Cir.1989). The 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an environmental assessment should be commenter states that this decision environmental impact statement nor an allowed under the final rule. "* *

• requires the environmental environmental assessment has been w

-_ ,A ce J- _J __ _ . _ _

96542 Federal Register / Vcl.'61, No. 244 / Wednesday,'Dec:mber 18, 1996 / Rulis and Regulations prepared for this regulation. This action VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 104,105,83 Stat. 85S-454?as amended (42 is proceduralin nature and pertains Certification U.S.C. 4332,4334,4335); and Pub. L. 954o4. l only to the type of environmental j As ufred by the Regulatory Title H,92 Stat. 3033-3041. Sections 51.20  ;

information to be reviewed. 51.30,51.60,51.61,51.s0, and 51.97 also Flexib ty Act of 1980,5 U.S.C. 605(b),  ;

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the Commission certifies that this final unde j"3 ,2 d [l~

This final rule amends information hna s tial n of ma m203,101 Sn 133w223 (42 usc mllection requirements that are subject entities. The final rule states the 10155,10161, totest Secuan 51.22 also to the Paperwork Reduction Act of1905 application procedures and (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These ," de" by' e Stat 3036-3 38 4 1.S C environmentalinformation to be requimments were approved by the submitted by nuclear power plant 20211 and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of Office of Management and Budget, 1982, sec.121,96 Stat 2228 (42 U.S C.

approval number 3150-0021. licensees to facilitate NRC's obligations 10141). Sections 5L43,51.67. and Si.109 under NEPA. Nuclear power plant The public reporting burden for this also luued under Nuclear Weste Policy Act licensees do not fall within the mllection ofinformation is estimated to definition of small businesses as defined of 1982, sec.114tt),90 Stat. 2216, as average 4,200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> per response, in Section 3 of the Small Business Act, amended (42 U.S.C.10134(f)).

including the time for reviewing 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Commission's Size 2. Section 51.45 is amended by instructions, searching existing data Standards, April 11,1995 (60 FR revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

thering and maintaining the 18344).

sources,[ed, data nee and completing and 3M b reviewing the co!!ection ofinformation. yggt 3 ,,ggg ,,g,,,,g ,,,3,,,,7 Send comments regarding this burden t Faim Ad

, , f f estimate or any other aspect of this In accordance with the Small (c) Anol sis.The environmental collection ofinformation, including Business Regulatory Enforcement report shaflinclude an analysis that

! suggestions for reducing the burden, to Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has considers and balances the the Information and Records determined that this action is not a environmental effects of the Proposed Management Branch (T-4F33), U.S. ** major rule" and has verified this action, the environmental impacts of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, determination with the Office of alternatives to the proposed action, and Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Information and Regulatory Affairs, alternatives available for reducing or Internet electronic mail at OfSce of Management and Budget. avoiding adverse environmental effects.

BJStenrc. gov; and to the Desk Officer.

IX* Backfit AnalIsia Office ofInformation and Regulatory Prepared at the license renewal stage Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0021), The'NRC has determined that these pursuant to S 51.53(c), the analysis in Office of Management and Budget, amendments do not involve any the envimnmental report should also Washington, DC 20503. Provisions which would impose backfits include consideration of the economic, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1); technical, and other benefits and costs Public Protection Notification therefore, a backfit analysis need not be of the proposed action and of The NRC may nat conduct or sponsor, Prepand. alternatives. Environmental reports and a person is not requiredJo respond List of Subjects in to CFR Pad 51 Prepared at the license renewal stage a

tr, a collection ofinformadon unless it $ 5L53 ' ' "'

di I s a currently valid OMB control Administrative practice and procedure Environmentalimpact

[uant caI be S d e r* costs of either t e proposed ac io statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear VI. Regulatory Analysis Power plants and reactors, Reporting alternatives except insofar as such and recordkeeping requirements

• beneSts and costs are either essential for The regulatory analysis papared for a determination regarding the inclusion the final rule published June 5,1996 (61 For the reasons set outin the i preamble and under the authority of the of an altamative in the range of FR 28467)is unchanged for this final Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; altematives considered or relevant to midgetion. In addition, environmental d be efits o e al r tiv s am n N u nal MPorts prepand pursuant to 5 51.53(c) musidered by the Commission. The two # " "

• Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as attematives considered were: amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the to the envimnmental dects oMe (A) Retaining the existing to CFR Part NRCis adopting the following P 51 review process for hcense renewal, amendments to 10 CFR Part 51. lo e vir et1 p which requires that all reviews be on a an f to the fullest extent Precticable, shal plant-specific basis; and PART 51-ENYlRONMENTAL quanufy the various factors considered.

E) Amending to CFR Part 51 to allow PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR To the extent that there are important a portion of the environmental review t DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED qualitative considerations or factors that be conducted on a generic basis. REGULATORY FUNCTIONS cannot be quantiSed, those 4 The conclusions of the regulatory 1.The authority citation for Part 51 consioerotions or factors shall be analysis show substantial cost savings of continues to med as follows: discussed in qualitative terms.The attemative (B) over altemative (A). The environmental report should contain Authority: Sec. tst, os stat. 04s, as sum : lent data to aid the Commission in analysis, NUREG-1440, is available for amended. Sec. 1701.106 Stat. 2951,2952 inspection in the NRC Public Document 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201,2297f); secs. 201, as Its development of an independent Room,2120 L Street NW., (Lower amended,2o2, as Stat.1242, as amended, analysis.

level), Washington, DC. Copies of the 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5s4 t, ss42).

analysis are available as described in Subpart A also issued under National 3. Section 51.53 is revised to read asSection V. Environmental Policy Act of 1969, secs. t02, follows:

. l Federal Register / Vcl. 61, No. 244 / Wednisday, DecImber 18, 1996 / RulIs and Regul:tions 66543 651.63 Postoonewuction environmental (2) The report must contain a provide an assessment of the impacts of

'*P0ft*- desaiption of the proposed action, the withdrawal of water from the river (a) Geneml. Any environmental report including the apphcant's plans to on alluvial aquifers during low flow.

prepared under the provisions of this modify the facility or its administrative (B)If the applicant's plant utilizes section may incorporate by reference control procedures as described in once-through cooling or cooling pond any information contained in a prior accordance with 5 54.21 of this chapter. heat dissipation systems, the applicant environmental report or supplement This report must describe in detail the shall provide a copy of current Clean thereto that relates to the production or modifications directly affecting the Water Act 316(b) determinations and,if utilization facility or any Information environment or affecting plant effluents necessary, a 316(a) variance in contained in a final environmental that affect the environment. In addition, accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or document previously prepared by the the applicant shall discuss in this report equivalent State permits and supporting NRC staff that relates to the production the environmentalimpacts of documentation. If the applicant can not or utilization facility. Documents that alternatives and any other matters provide these documents,it shall assess*

may be referenced include, but are not described in 5 51.45. The report is not the impact of the proposed action on limited to, the final environmental required to include discussion of need fish and shellfish resources resulting impact statement: supplements to the for power or the economic costs and from heat shock and impingement and final environmental impact statement, economic benefits of the proposed- entrainment, including supplements prepared at the action or of alternatives to the proposed (C)If the applicant's plant uses license renewal stage: NRC staff- action except insofar as such costs and Ranney wells or pumps more than 100 prepared final generic environmental benefits are either essential for a gallons (total onsite) of ground water per impact statements; and environmental determination regarding the inclusion of minute, an assesament of the impact of assessments and records of decisions sh alternative in the range of the proposed action on ground-water Pf' Pared in connection with the alternatives considered or relevant to use must be provided.

construction permit, the operating mitigation. The environmental report (D) If the applicant's plant is located license, and any license amendment for need not discuss other issues not related at an inland site and utilizes cooling that facility. to the environmental effects of the Ponds, an assessment of the impact of (b) Operatinglicense stage. Each proposed action and the alternatives. In the proposed action on groundwater apphcant for a license to operate a addition, the environmental report need quality must be provided.

production or utilization facility not discuss any aspect of the storage of (E) Alllicense renewal applicants covered by 5 51.20 shall submit with its spent fuel for the facility within the shall assess the impact of refurbishment application the number of copies scope of the generic determination in and other license-renewal related s cified in 5 51.55 of a separate $ 51.23(a) and in accordance with construction activities on important rocument entitled " Supplement to 6 51.23(b). Pl ant and animal habitats. Additionally, Applicant's Environmental Report- (3) For those applicants seeking an the applicant shall assess the impact of Operating 1.lcense Stage," which will initial renewal hcense and holding the proposed action on threatened or update " Applicant's Environmental either an operating license or endangered species in accordance with Report-Construction Permit Stage." construction permit as of June 30,1995, the Endangered Species Act.

Unless otherwise required by the the environmental report shall include (F)If the applicant's plant is located Commission, the applicant for an the information required in paragraph in or near a nonettainment or operating license for a nuclear power (c)(2) of this section subject to the maintenance area, an assessment of reactor shall submit this report only in following conditions and vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at connection with the first licensing considerations: the time of peak refurbishment action authorizing full-power operation. (1) The environmental report for the workforce must be provided in in this report, the applicant shall operating license renewal stage is not accordance with the Clean Air Act as discuss Ine same matters described in required to contain analyses of the amended.

$$ 51.45,51.51, and 51.52, but only to environmental impacts of the license (G)If the applicant's plant uses a i the extent that they differ from those renewal issues identified as Category 1 cooling pond, lake, or canal or l discussed or reflect new information in issues in Appendix B to subpart A of discharges into a river having an annual ,

addition to that discussed in the final this part, average flow rate of less than 3.15x10u )

environmentalimpact statement (ii) The environmental report must fLS/ year (9x10'om2/ year), an assessment prepared by the Commission in contain analyses of the environmental of the impact of the proposed action on connection with the construction impacts of the proposed action, public health from thermophilic permit. No discussion of need for including the impacts of refurbishment organisms in the affected water must be power, or of altemative energy sources, activities,if any, associated with limnse provided.

or of alternative sites for the facility, or renewal and the impacts of operation (H)If the applicant's transmission of any aspect of the storage of spent fuel during the renewal term, for those lines that were constructed for the for the facility within the scx>pe of the issues identified as Category 2 issues in specific purpose of connecting the plant generic determination in $ 51.23(a) and Appendix B to subpart A of this part. to the transmission system do not meet in acx:ordance with 5 51.23(b)is The required analyses are as follows: the recommendations of the National required in this report. (A)If the applicant's plant utilizes Electric Safety Code for preventing (c) Opemtinglicense renewalsfoge. cooling towers or cooling ponds and electric shock from induced currents, an (1) Each applicant for renewal of a withdraws make-up water from a river assessment of the impact of the license to operate a nuclear power plant whose annual flow rate is less than proposed action on the potential shock I under part 54 of this chapter shall 3.15x10u ft3/ year (9x10' oms / year), an hazard from the transmission lines must I submit with its application the number assessment of the impact of the be provided.

of copies specified in 5 51.55 of a proposed action on the flow of the river (I) An assenment of the impact of the seperste document entitled " Applicant's and related impacts on instream and proposed action on housing availability, Environmental Report-Operating riparian ecological communities must land-use, and public schools (impacts License Renewal Stage." be provided. The applicant shall also from refurbishment activities only)

86544 Federal Register / Vzl. 61 N:. 244 / Wednesday, DeSmber 18, 1996 / Rul:s and Regul:tions within the vicinity of the plant must be License Stage," which will update -(d) Anolysis. The draft environmental provided. Additionally, the applicant " Applicant's Environmental Report ~ impact statement willinclude a shall provide an assessment of the Operating Limnse Stage," as preliminary analysis that considers and impact ofpopulation increases appropriate, to reflect any new weighs the environmental effects of the attributable to the proposed project on information or significant proposed action; the environmental the public water supply. environmental change associated with (J) All applicants shall assess the impacts of alternatives to the proposed the applicant's proposed action; and alternatives available for impact of the proposed project on local decommissioning activities or with the mducing or avoiding adverse transportation during periods oflicense applicant's sed activities with environmental effects. Except for renewal refurbishment activities. respect to anned storage of spent (K) All applicants shall assess supplemental environmentalimpact fuel. Unless o erwise required by the statements for the operating license whether any historic or archaeological Commission,in accordance with the properties will be affected by the renewal stage prepared pursuant to generic determination in $ 51.23(a) and 6 51.95(c), draft environmental impact probed

( projectthe stafflias not previously the epp [rovisions in $address cant shall only 51.23(b),the the statements should also include considered severe accident mitigation consideration of the ecqnomic, envimnmentalimpact of spent fuel technical, and other benefits and costs alternatives for the applicant a plant in an environmental impact statement or stora8e for the term of the license of the proposed action and alternatives related supplement or in an . applied for. ne " Supplement to and indicate what other interests and environmental assessment, a Applicant's Environmental Report- considerations of Federal policy, musideration of alternatives to mitigate post Operating IJcense Stage"may including factors not related to incorporate by reference any severe accidents must be p ed environmental quali if applicable, are information contained in " Applicants relevant to the consi eration of transp rtat on e and waste shall be Envimnmental Report-Construction environmental effects of the proposed There e ofI s sh 11 als uss

, Pangraph (a)is revised

"8-og .", a 3 ppfe'n n 8 888 the generic and cumulative impacts environmentalimpact statements associated with transportation operation $51.56 Environmentalreport-cumberof Prepared at the license renewal stage in the vicinity of a high-level waste copaea; distribution. Pursuant to 6 51.95(c) need not discuss ,

repository site. The candidate site at (a) Each applicant for a license to the economic or technical benefits and Yucca Mountain should be used for the construct and operate a production or costs of either the proposed action or purpose ofimpact shalysis as long as utilization facility covered by alternatives except insofar as such that site is under consideration for paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) benefits and costs are either essential for licensing. of 6 51.20, each applicant for renewal of a determination regarding the inclusion (111) The report must contain a an operating license for a nuclear power of an alternative in the range of considention of alternatives for plant, each applicant for a license alternatives considered or relevant to reducing adverse impacts, as equired amendment authorizing the mitigation. In addition, the by $ 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license decommissioning of a production or supplemental environmentalimpact renewal issues in Appendix 3 to subpart utilization facility covered by $ 51.20, statement prepared at the bcense A of this part. No such consideration is and each applicant for a license or renewal stage need not discuss other required for Category 1 issues in license amendment to store spent fuel at issues not related to the environmental pendix B to subpart A of this part. a nuclear power plant after expiration of effects of the pmposed action and Ap(iv) The environmental report must the operating license for the nuclear associated alternatives. The draft contain any new and splificant power plant shall submit to the Director supplemental emironmentalimpact information regarding me of the Office of Nuclear Reactor statement for license renewal prepared environmentalimpacts oflicense Regulation or the Director of the Office Pursuant to $ 51.95(c) will rely on renewal of which the applicant is aware. of Nuclear Material Safety and conclusions as amplified by the (d) Postopemting license stage. Each cpplicant for a license amendment Safeguards, as appropriate,41 copies of supporting information in the GEIS for an environmental report or any issues designated as Category 1 in cuthorizing decommissioning activities supplement to an environmental report. Appendix B to subpart A of this part.

for a production or utilization facility The applicant shall retain an additional The draft supplemental emdrunmental (ither for unrestricted use or based on 109 copies of the environmental report impact statement must contain an continuing use restrictions applicable to or any supplement to the envimamental analysis of thoseissuesidentified as the site; and each applicant for a license report for distribution to parties and Category 2 in Appendix B to subpart A amendment approving a license Boards in the NRC proceedings; Federal, of this part that are open for the termination plan or decommissioning State, and local officials; and any PmPosed action. The analysis for all plan under S 50.82 of this chapter either affected' Indian tribes, in accordance draft environmental impact statements for unrestricted use or based on with written instructions issued by the will, to the fullest extent practicable, continuing use restrictions applicable to Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor quantify the various factors considered.

the site; and each applicant for a license Regulation or the Director of the Office To the extent that there are important er license amendment to store spent fuel Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, qualitative considerations or factors that at a nuclear power reactor after as appropriate. cannot be quantified, these expiration of the operating license for . . . . . considerations or factors will be the nuclear power reactor shall submit discussed in qualitative terms. Due with its spplication the number of 6. In $ 51.71, paragraphs (d) and (e) are revised to read as follows: consideration will be given to copies, as speciSed in 5 51.55, of a compliance with emironmental quality separate document, entitled 5 51.71 Draft environmentalimpact standards and requirements that have

" Supplement to Applicant's statement-contenta. been imposed by Federal, State, Environmental Report- post Operating * * * *

• regional, and local agencies having

\

l Federal Register / V21. 61 Ns. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 66545

. I responsibility for environmental supplemental environmentalimpact in acx;ordance with $ 51.23(b), and will protection, including applicable zoning statements for the operating license only be prepared in connection with the and land-use regulations and water renewal stage prepand pursuant to first licensing action authorizing full-pollution limitations or requirements $ 51.95(c), after weighing the costs and power operation.

promulgated or imposed pursuant to the benefits of the proposed action. In lieu (c) Operating license renewol stage. In Federal Water Pollution Control Act. of a recommendation, the NRC staff may connection with the renewal of an The environmentalimpact of the indicate in the draft statement that two operating license for a nuclear power proposed action will be considered in or more altematives remain under plant under part 54 of this chapter, the the analysis with respect to matters consideration. Commission shall prepare an EIS, which covered by such standards and 5. In Section 51.75, redesignate is a supplement to the Commission's requirements irrespective of whether a footnote 4 as footnote 5. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental certification or license from the 7. Section 51.95 is revised to read as impact Statement for License Renewal appropriate authority has been follows: of Nuclear Plants" (May 1996) which is obtained.5 While satisfaction of available in the NRC Public Document Commission standards and criteria 85 m m en*on e Room. 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower ,

pertaining to radiological effects will be (*) Geneml ADY 8UPplement to a final level) Washinkton, DC..environmental necessary to meet the licensing envimnmental impact statement or any (1) The supp emental I requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, impact statement for the operating envir nmental assessment prepared license renewal stage shall address the analysis will, for the purposes of NEPA, consider the radiological effects under the provisions of this section may those issues as required by 5 51.71. In incorporate by reference any addition, the NRC staff must comply

' of the proposed action and alternetives. ini rmation contained in a final with 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3) in conducting (e) Preliminary tecommendation. The envir nmental document previously the additional scoping process as draft environmentalimpact statement normally willinclude a preliminary Prepared by the NRC staff that relates to reauired by 5 51.71(a).

the same production or utilization (2) The supplemental environmental recommendation by the NRC staff facility. Documents that may be impact statement for license renewal is respecting the proposed action. This referenced include, but are not limited not required to includo discussion of breliminary recommendation will be to,the final environmentalimpact need for power or the economic costs sed on the information and anal sis statement; supplements to the final and economic benefits of the proposed described in parab$ 51.75,51.76,phs (a) througk (d) of this section an envimnmental impact statement, action or of asternatives to the proposed including supplements prepared at the action except insofar as such benefits 51.80,51.85, and 51.95, as app priate, and costs are either essential for a and will be reached after consiYering Pera license stage: NRC staff- e j Prep final generic environmental determination regarding the inclusion of the environmental effects of the impact statements; environmental an alternative in the range of l

oposed action and reasonable alternatives considered or relevant to assessments and records of decisions altematives.* and, except for mitigation. In addition, the prepared in connection with the

,com liance with the environmanial quality construction permit, the operating supplemental environmentalimpact standar[. and requirements of the Feder.1 waterlicense, and any license amendment for statement prepared at the license Pollution Control Act (imposed by EPA or that facility. A supplement to a final renewal stage need not discuss other designated permitting states) is not a substitute for environmental impact statement will issues not related to the environmental

• we$s IlUnv talYff e pro aj include a request for comments as effects of the proposed action and the action. including the degredation. if any, of weter Provided in 5 51.73. alternstives, cr any aspect of the storage quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposou (b) Initial operofing llCense stage. In of spent fuel for the facility within the action that are available for reducing adverse Connection with the issuance of an scope of the generic determination in enects. wb- an environmental annument of operating license for a production or 6 51.23(a) and in accordance with Yo"m i$. pe"rmitIn*g u .# Ih$rftNhN$1l utilization facility, the NRC staff will 5 51.23(b). The analysis of alternatives consider the assessment in its determination of the prepare a supplement to the final in the supplemental environmental rusnitude of environmental impacts for striking an environmental impact statement on the impact statement should be limited to ovnall cost-benent balance et the construcuen construction permit for that facility, the environmentalimpacts of such StNto$" Nets'eTe$d'"la'" which will update the prior alternatives and should otherwise be envimamental impacts of ticense renewal m so environmental review. The supplement prepared in accordance with 6 51.71 and great that preserving the opuon of license renewal will only cover matters dat differ from Pendix A to subpart A of this part.

for energy planning declaionmakers would be the final environmentalimpact Ap(3) The supplemental environmental l

" ' statement or that reflect significant new impact statement shall beissued as a

."uIa"s="s$$t oI.I'u*a"Un7c [s'aiS*e information concerning matters final impact statement in accordance tram the permitting authority. NRC will estabhsh on its own or in conjunction with the permitting discussed in the final environmental with $$ 51.91 and 51.93 after authortry and other agendes having relevant impact statement. Unless otherwise considering any significant new Eingan rvElcYb *$f f'r t 'e' determined by the Commission, a information relevant to the proposed action contained in the supplement or sacility at the construccon permit and operating supplement on the operation of a ticanse stages and in its determination of whether nuclear power plant will not include a incorporated by reference.

the adserse environmental impacts of limn" discussion of need for power, or of (4) The supplemental environmental IIcInIre"e"o5eNr'gy En'gIcis$oYIm alternative energy sources, or of impact statement must contain the NRC would be unreasonable at the licana renewal stage. altemative sites, or of any aspect of the staff's recommendati6n regarding the

• The consideration of reasonable ehernatives to storage of spent fuel for me nuclear environmental acceptability of the a proposed action involving nuclear power reactors power plant within the scope of the license renewal action. In order 1o make

' e

[*;sggegaeney,g, l,gsint,egedt its recommendation and m I' al

, tn A, t or a and Eeneric determination in S 51.23(a) and conclusion on the proposed action, the does not preclude any $tste authority from mabng separate determinations with respect to these affects the authority of States or other Federal NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and alternatives and in no way preempts, disp l aces, or egencies to address these issues. Commission shallintegrate the

96548 Federal Register / V;1, 61 No. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Rules and Regul:tions

. conclusions, as amplified by the for comments as pmvided in $ 51.73.

supporting information in the generic Appendix A to Subpart A-Format for Unless other wise required by the Presentetion of Materialin environmentalimpact statement for

? Commtenton in accordance with the EnvironamentalImpact Statements issues designated Category 1 (with the generic determination in 551.23(a) and . . . . .

exception of offsite radiological impacts the provisions of $ 51.23(b), a for collective effects and the disposal of supplemental environmentalimpact 4. Purpose of and need for action.

spent fuel and high level waste) or The statement will brie 0y describe and statement for the post operating license resolved Category 2,information a fy the need for the proposed action. The stage or an environmental assessment, developed for those open Category 2 as appropriate, will addreas the tornative of no action will be discuned. In issues applicable to the plant in the ceae of nuclear power plant mostruction environmentalimpacts of spent fuel or siting. consideration will be given to the somrdance with $ 5153(c)(3)(ii), and storage only for the term of the limase, Potentialimpact of conewvation measures in any significant new information. Given this information. the NEC staff, license amendment or license renewal determining the demand for power and applied for. Con **quent need for auditional senwating adjudicatory officers, and Commission

8. In 5 51.103, paragraph (a)(3)is P*'*'I' shall determine whether or not the * * *

• adverse environmentalimpacts of revised and paragraph (a)(5)is added to *

~

license renewal are so great that read as follows:

11. Appendix B to subpart A of to preserving the option of!! cense renewal I51.103 Record of -._x ,2. .

CFR part 51 is revised to read as for energy planning decisionmakers g,3g,,,

w:uld be unreasonable.

(a) * * *

(3) Discuss preferences among Appendix B to Subpart A-(d) Posfopemtinglicense stage. In alternatives based on relevant factors, Environmental Effect of Renewing the connection with the amendment of an including economic and technical operating license authorizing P[antating License of a Nuclear Power decommissioning activities at a considerations where appropriate, the production or utilization facility NRC's statutory mission, and any The Commission has esensed the covered by $ 51.20, either for essential considerations of national environmentalimpacts anociated with unrestricted use or based on continuing policy, which were balanced by the srunting a anewed opasting license for a use restrictions ap Commission in making the decision and nuclear power plant to a licensee who holds with the issuance,plicable amendment orto the site, or state how these considerations entered either an opwating license or construction renew 11 of a license to store spent fuel into the decision Permit as of June 30.1995. Table B-2

. . . . . summarizes the Commission's findings on at a nuclear ower reactor after the scope and magnitude of environmental cxpiration o the operating license for (5)1n making a final decision on a impacts of renewing the opwating license for the nucjear power reactor, the NRC staff license renewal action pursuant to Part a nuclear power plant as required by section ,

i will prepare a supplemental 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy  !

environmental irnpact statement for the determine whether or not the adverse Act of 1969, as amended. Table B-1, subject im acts o post operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as (n [ gre g p g to an evaluation of those issues identified in Category 2 u requiring further analysis and possible sign 16 cant new information, cppropriate, which will update the prior cavironmental review. The supplement pfanning decisionmakers would beo tlon the reprwents oflicense analysis ofrenewal for energy the environrnental unreasonable, impacts unociated with renewal of any cr assessment may incorporate by operating license and is to be used in ref;r'nce any information contained in * * * *

• the final environmentalimpact 9.In Appendix A to subpart A of10 ace cycle,rdance with 5 51.95(ch the Commission intends toon a tefar review the statem:nt-operating license stage, or in CFR part 51 redesignate footnotes 5 **'",*a n this ap nd and e it if the records of decision prepared in c 3, op e, through B as footnotes 1 through 4.

connection with the construction permit 10. Paragraph 4 of Appendix A to published in the Federal Register indicating i or the cperating license for that facility. subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 is revised the results of the NRC's review and inviting Thi supplement will include a request public comments and proposals for other to read as follows: areas that should be updated.

TABLE B-1.-

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCL lasue l Category 2 l Findengs 5 sur'soe watn ouanty, Hydrology, and use flor au piants) -

ingmets of returtnshment on surface water 1 (Nairty. SMALL trrpacts are expected to be negligble during refurtishment because best management practross are expected to be errpioyed to control soil erosion and spills.

Irtpacts of refurtnshment on surface water 1 use. SMALL. Water use dunng refurbishment will not increase apprecambly or will be re-duced dJring plant outage.

Ahered current pattems at intake and cks- 1 charge structures. SMALL. Afte ed current pettoms have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected b be a problem dunng the heense re-nowal term.

Anored anknity gradierits 1 SMALL. Sahnity gradients have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem charing the hcense renewat term.

\

Federal Register / Val. 61. No. 244 / Wednesday, Dec:tnber 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 66547 TAaLE B-1.-

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 3-C0f1tiliued I leeue Category 8 Findmos' Ahered 9termal steelhoshon of lehos 1 SMALL Generally, lake stratinceton has not been found to be a problem at operet- )

ing nuclear power plants and is not espected to be a problem dunng the hcense j eenewel term.  !

Tenporature sNects on sediment transport 1 SMALL These eReds have not been found to be a probism at operstmg nuclear cepecity power plants and are not espected to be a problem during the hoense renewal

]

term. ,

Scouring caused tr/ teacharged cochng 1 SMALL Scourbig has not been found to be a problem at most operstmg nuclear I water. power plants and has ceuesd only oNecas at a few plants. It is not ex.

pected to be a problem during the hoones term.

Europhioston - 1 SMALL EWrophoshon has not been found to be a probism at operating nuclear power plante and is not espected to be a problem during the hoenee renewal term.

Descharge of chionne or other blacides 1 SMALL Ellects are not e concem among reguistory and resource agencies and are riot espected to be a problem during Wie hoense renewal term.

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor 1 SMALL Esects are readily contched through NPDES permit and periode modifca-chemical aplies. None. If needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Dacharge of other motels in weste water .. 1 SMALL These esecharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nu-deer power plants wth cochng-tower.bened heat rem =Pahrwi systems and have been esteleolortly mingsted at other plants. They are not e=pareati to be a prot >

lem dunng the hoenas renewat term.

Water use confhets (plants wHh once- 1 SMALL These connets have not been found to be a problem at operstmg nuclear l teough cochng systems). power plants wnh once-through heat decipation systems i Water use conIhets (pients with cochng 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concem at nuclear power plants ponds or coohng towers using make.up with cooing ponds and at plants wah cochng towers. impacts on instream and n- 1 water from a amen river with low now). parten communites near these plants could be of moderate sgrwicance in some j eilustlons. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(li)(A). i

. l Agustic Ecology teor all plants) l 1

Returtmewnent . 1 SMALL Dunne plant shutdown and refurtmshment there we be noghgible effects on I aqualc biots because of a ratkarean of entrainment and impongement of orge.

nisms or a reduced reisees of chemmels Accumulebon of contamments in mediments 1 SMALL. Accumuistion of contaminants has been a concem at a few nuc6 ear power or biota. plants but has been aststector#y megated by replacmo copper alloy condenser habes wnh thces of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem dunng the le

. conee renewal term.

Entainment of phytopienkton and 1 SMALL Entrainment of phytoplankton and scopiankton has not been found to be a zoopienkton. problem at operstmg nunteer power plants and is not == par

• art to be a problem during the hoonee renewal term.

cold shock _ 1 SMALL cold shock has been eenstectorWy megated at operstmo nuclear plants with ,

once-through cocirg systerra, has not endangered feh populebons or been found I to be a problem at operseng nuoleer power pients wNh coohng towers or cooling j ponde. and is not a= par *ari to be a problem charing the boonse rerwvat term.

Thermal piume bemer to rrugrating fish .. 1 SMALL Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operst ng nuclear power plants and are not == par *ari to be a problem during the hcorse renewal term. j Dettbution of aquenc orgenoms 1 SMALL Thermal checharge may have looshred oflects but is not expecte:I to offect tio larger geographcel castibuhon of aquete orgerusms Promsture emergence of aquele insects . 1 SMALL Promsture emergence has been found to be a locekred effect at some op-erating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem ard is not expected to be a problem during the hoense renewal term.

Gas am (ges taehle steense) 1 SMALL Gas supernaturomon was a concern at a emas number of operstmg nuciear Foyer plants wth once4hrough coohng systems but has been satstectonly miti.

gated. It has not been found to be a problem at operstmg nucteer power plants i weh oootng towers or coolmo ponds and is not expeded to be a problem during the hoones sensuel term. ,

Low desolved oxygen in 9 e decharge .. 1 SMALL Low desolved oxygen has been a concem at one nuclear power plant with  !

e onoo-through cochng system but has been oNectvely mhgated. It has not been ,

found to be a problem et operstmo nuclear power plants with coohng towers or cochng ponde and is not expected to be a problem dunne tne icense renewal term.

Losses from predecon, pareamsm. and do. 1 SMALL These types of losses have not been found to be a problem et operating I ease among orgerusms exposed to sut> nucteer power plants and are not expected to be a problem duri ig the Icense re-lethat stresses. nowal term.

l

88548 Federal Register / Vol. 61 No. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulations '

TA8LE B-1.-

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR l.lCENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLA Continued issue l ColoW Findmps 8 ,

Semulaten of numance orgerusms (e.g., 1 SMALL Semidaten of numance organisms has been estatectorey trutsgated at the shipworms).

single nuclear power plant with e once-through cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operstmg nuclear power plants with coolin0 lowers or cooling ponds and is not espected to be a problem charing me licerse renewal term.

Aguanc Ecology (for plante with oneo Wirough and cooling pond heet elleelpegon systW Entramment of Ash and shouseh in eTrty 2 SMALL MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of entramment are small at many ble stages.

plants but may be modorets or even large et a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cochnD systems Further, ongomg efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore Seh paruMaris may increase the tvumbers of fish susceptible to bitehe ellects durin0 the lloonee renewal period, such that entreinment studies conducted in support of the original license may no longer be voted. See

$ 51.53(c)(3)(H)(B). l

%# nt of thsh and sheNfish . .. 2 SMALL MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of impingement are smelt et many '

plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with onos-through and' Nc:-,w 4 rooing systems. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

Heat shock .. 2 SMALL, MODERATE. OR LARGE. Because of contmung concomo about heat shock and me poneitWn need to modify thermet decharges in response to chang-in0 erwhenmental conc $ tons, the irrgects may be of moderate or large signife canoe et some plants. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

I Aquenc Ecology por plants utet cooling toweressed heet elleelpation systems)

Entreinment of Ash and sheWheh in earty 1 SMALL Erwemment of floh has not been found to be a problem et operating nu-Hle stages.

clear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a pmblem chmn0 the license renewal term.

irtyngement of feh and shepflsh 1 SMALL The irrpngertient has not been found to be a probiom et operating nuclear power plants with the type of ecoern0 system and a not expected to be a problem dunng me bcense renewal term.

Heat shock ._

1 SMALL Heat shocic has not been found to be o problem et operstmg nuclear power plants with this type of coolmg system and is not expected to be a problem during the lioones renewal term.

Grounemester Use and Quelley ,

lopects of refurteshment on youreweier 1 SMALL Extensive deue.ortng during the onginal constructen on some altes wiH not use and quainy.

be repeated during refurtnehment on any elles. Any plant westos produced during returtushment wlH be hentSed in the same menner as in current operating prac-tions and are not supected to be a protWom charing the boones renewal term.

Gronedweser use conthces (potable and 1 SMALL Plants usin0 nes I then 100 gpm are not aupartart to cause any ground-servloe ,weier; plants that use <100 gpm). weler use conActs Grourewster use conthets (potable and 2 SMALL MODERATE, OR LARGE. Pteres that use more than 100 gpm may cause senace weler, and i 1..e. 96 ants grourewster use conects unh nearby yourewster users. See that use >100 gpm). 5 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(c).

Ground water use conActs (plants using 2 SMALL MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conthets may result from surface necemg towers wnherevnng make-ip water wnhdreweis from emen water bodies during low Aow concetons which may water trom a emot river), aflect espaller recharge, ampaalasy N other yourewster or upstream surtece water users come on ime before the time of heense renewet See 551.53(c)(3)(li)(A).

Groureweler une coneices (Renney wohs) 2 SMALL, MODERATE OR LARGE. Renney wolle een result in potenbal groure water depression beyond me site boundary, trypects of largo yourewster weh-drawal for ecogn0 tower makeup at nucteer power plants uom0 Renney woes must be evolueled et the time of apr*=*ir-i for license renewal. See

$51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).

Groureweier quanty depredaton (Rannoy 1 SMALL Groun: Hunter quality at river sites may be degraded by indwood infutretion wohs). of poor-spaably river water into an equiler that supphes large quantrbes of reactor oocang water. Howower, the low quably inRNretng water would not preclude the aunern uses of yound water ano is not espected to to a protnem during the b-cones renerSal term.

Grourewster quatty degrm (eelt. 1 SMALL Nuoleer power plants do not ooreibute segniecently to saltweler entrusion.

weler 4reusson).

Ground-water quatPy depedeten (cochng 1 SMALL Sites wNh closedcycle occhng ponds may doyede groun6 water quality.

ponds in sett marshes) , 8ecesse water in een marshes is breakien, this is not a conoom for plante locateo in emit marshes

__~~ -- = - . - - - . . - _ _ - - .

t Federal Regiatir / Vcl. 61, No. 244 / Wedn:sday, Deccmber 18, 1996 / Rul:s and Regulations 66549

, TABLE B-1.hRY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 8-Continued l lasue Category 2 Finchngs 8 Ground-water quality degradaten (cochng 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Snes with closed cycle cooling ponds may de-ponds at inland shes). . grade ground-weter quality. For plants located inland, the quehty of the ground water 6n the vicinNy of the ponds must be shown to be adequate to allow continu-i seen of current uses. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D).

Terrestrial Resourcea 4 Refurbishmentirrpacts . 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Refurbishment impacts are insignifcant if no loss of important plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known wheth-

.t er important plant and animal communthes may be affected until the specific pro-

. posal is presented with the hcense renewal afvivahan. See 3 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).

l Coohng tower impacts on crops and oms- 1 SMALL trrpaces frorp salt cktft, idng, loggmg. or increased humiday associated with i mental vegetat on. coollng tower opersion have not boon found to be a problem at operetng nuclear j power plants and are not erftadad to be a problem during the iconse renewal

, term, j Coohng tower impacts on nonve plants . . 1 SMALL impacts from salt dnft, icing, togging. or increased humidity associated with I coolme tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operatng nuclear 1

power plants and are not expected to be a problem chJring the licensa renewal l term.

Bird colhelons with coolmg towers 1 SMALL These colhoons have not been found to be a problem at operatng nuclear

{ power plants and are not expected to be a problem dunng the Icense renewal i term.

Coohng pond irrpacts on terrestrial re- 1 SMALL Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial ecologcal resources are considered sources, to be of amen signrhcance at aN enes.

j Power hne right-of-way management (cut- 1 SMALL. The impacts of right-of way maintenance on wiksife are expected to be of a ting and hertmeide appicaton). amen segrw6cance at aN sites.

. Bird oolks.on with power knes - ____ 1 SMALL 1rrpacts are expected to be of small sigrwfcance at all sites.

Irrpacts of electromagnetic folds on flora 1 SMALL No sigrufcant impacts of electromagnetc fields on terrestrial flora and fauna i and launa (plants. agncultural crops, have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem dunng the h-l honeybees, w6ksife, livestock). conne renewal term.

3 Flaadramans and wetland on power line right 1 SMALL Penode vegetaton control is necessary in forested wetlands undemeath

. of way. power knes and can be achieved with monomal damage to the wetland. No segnift.

cant impact.is expected at any nuclear power plant during the Icense renewal term.

j Threstoned or Endangered Speelee (for all plants)

. Threatened or endangered species 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generapy . plant refurbishment and continued op-erston are not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species.

However, consultaten with appropriate agencies would be needed at the bme of I hoense renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).

Air Quauty Air quakty during refurbishment (non-attain- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Air quality irnpacts from plant refurbishment as-ment and annentenance areas). sooisted with hcense renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emosons could be cause for concem at locatons in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The signifcanoe of the potenbal impact cannot be determined without considenng the comphance status of each site and the numbers of work-ers expected to be employed during the outage. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F).

Ar quakty effects of transmeseon hnes . 1 SMALL. Pradr*an of orono and oxides of nitrogen is insignifcant and does not contribute measurably to arrtment levels of these gases.

Land Use Onsne land use . 1 SMALL Projected onsite land use changes required charing refurbishment and the renewal period would be a small fracton of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is controlled by the apphcant.

Power kne right of way . 1 SMALL Ongomo use of power hne nght of ways would continue with no change in restrictons. The effects of these resticbons are of sman signifcance.

Human Health l

Red. ton exposures to ine poc dunng i suALL ounng r.furbisnment, ine - .fnu.nis wouid r. suit in doses inat are refurtxshment. similar to those from current operaten. Apphcable reguietory dose hmits to the public are not expected to be exceeded

1 .

i 885$0 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 244 / Wednesday, Dec:mber 18, 1996 / Rulzs and Regulations i

i TABLE B-1.-

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS l-l Continued -

i leeue Category 2 Findings 3 M =hanal T redebon exposures during 1 SMALL. harupahnrial doses from refurblehment are expected to be within the range returtmshment. .

of annual average collective doses exponenced for pressurued-water reactors j and boihng-water reactors. Mdanel mortanty nok from au causes including redobon is in the mid-range for trukastrial setengs

! Micratnologeal orgerusms (occ@ atonal 1 SMALL Ormpatinnel heann irgents are expected to be controlled by cominued ap-l health). pbcahon of moospeed industrial hygene prececes to mirumize worker exposures.

i Merobiologeal organisms (public 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. These orgenoms are not expected to be a prob-i health)(plants using lakes or canale, or lem et most operahng plants except poselbly at plants using cooling ponds, laises, j oooling towers or cooling ponds that de- or canals that decharge to amas rivers. Wuhout alte-specific data, it is not pos-t charge to a smalt ther). shie to predict the aflects generically. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).

i Noise - . 1 SMALL Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not espected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.

Electromagnetc fleids, acute seems (eloc- 2 ShMLL, MODERATE OR LARGE. Elodrical shock resuleng from direct access to

{ tte shock). energized conductore or from iruhaced charges in motsNc structures have not i been found to be a problem at most opereeng plants and generally are not ex.

pected to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, site-specrfc re-j view is regired Jo determine the signrfcance of the elodric shock potential at the j ,

. elle. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(W)(H).

j Electomagnetc needs, chronic effects 8 *NA UNCERTAIN. Ihrdatar'ai and physical studes of 60-Hz electromagnenc Seids have not found cons.ctent evidence knking harmful effects with field arpneores. How-over, resserch is contnuing in tiis ares and a consensus scientric view has not bggn gggched,s Radetion exposures to pubhc (hcense re- 1 SMALL Radebon doses to the p@lic wiu congnus at current levels associated with newal term). normal operstons hq=hanal radiaton exposures (hoense 1 SMALL Propected maximum occ@stonal doses during the license renewal term are renewal term). within the range of doses expertenced dunng normal operatens and normal main-tenance outages, and would be we8 below reguistory hmits.

Seeleesonomies -

Housing irgects 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Housing impacts are expected to be of small sig-nilkumos at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. Mod-erste or isrge housing impacts of the workforce assocated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located in aparsely pngwdatart areas or in areas whh growth control measures vist tmit housing development. See

$ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(t).

P2ic services: psic safety, social serv- 1 SMALL impacts to p@lic selety, social servces, and tourism and recreation are ex.

Icos. and tounsm and recresson. pected to be of emaN signincance at all stes.

Putic senaces: pelic utstes .- 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may imed to impacts of moderate signiscence on peic water ogply availability.

See $51.53(c)(3)(u)(t).

Pelic sonnees, educaton (retarbishment) 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Most sites would expertence impacts of small egnlAcance but larger irgects are poselbio depending on site- and project-spe-clAc factors. See $51.53(c)(3)(li)(1).

P2hc sonnces, education (hoense renewal 1 SMALL Only irgects of emeR signinconce are expected term).

Oneite land une (refurbishment) . 2 SMALL OR MODERATE. Irgects may be of moderate egnencance at plants in low parudahan areas. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(1).

Ollette innd use (hoense renewal term) ., 2 SMALL, MODERAM, OP LARGE. Signifcent changes in land use may be assoch sted with pnrudaman and tex revenue changes resulung from license renewal See

$51.53(c)(3)(H)(1).

Putic sennoes, Transporteson 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transporteson impacts are generapy expected to be of emeN ognihcence. However, the increase in trafhe maarWatart with the addi-4 tonal workers and the local road and traffic control conditons may lead to impacts of rnoderste or large signiacance et some altos. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).

Historic and archaeological resources .. 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LAl%GE. Generemy, plant refurtnehment and continued op-areton are expeded to have no more tien omaN adverse impacts on hetonc and archesologual resources. However, wie Negonal Historic Preservaton Act re-pires thn Federal agency to consult wHh the State Hutonc Preservation Oftcer to determine whether there are proportes present tiet require .protechon. See

$51.53(c)(3)(R)(K).

Aselhetc impacts (returbishment) . 1 SMALL No sigillicant impacts are avg = read during refurtuohment.

Aesthotc impacts (hoones renewal term) 1 SMALL No signiteent kgaces are anpaceed during the boenes renewal term.

Aselhetc irgads of transmineion knes (b- 1 SMALL No ognancent impacts are ==paread during the Noonee renewal term.

conee renewal term).

Federal Register / Vcl. 61, No. 244 / Wedn:sday, Decimber 18, 1996 / Rul s and Regulations 66551

. TABLE B-1.-

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS l-Continued inue . Category l Finsngs:

Possuieted Accidente Doesgn beeis accidents - 1 SMALL The NRC staff has corduded that the erMronmental impacts of design beeis aoo, dents are of smalt signrncance for su plants.

Severe accidents . 2 SMALL. The probabHity weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodes of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic legacts from severe accidents are small for al piants. However, ahematives to mitgete severe accidents must be coneadored for mR plants that have not consid-ered such allematives. See $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Weste Management Ollene radmiogcol impacts (individual of- 1 SMALL Off-elle impacts of the uraniurn fuel cycle have been consdered by the facts from other than wie rempanat of Comnussion in Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts spent fuel and high level waste). on ineviduals from radoective gaseous and hquid releases including redon 222 and technstum 90 are emet.

1 Ollene radiological wnpacts (conectrve of- 1 The 100 year environmental dose commament to the U.S. populebon from the fuel

, facts). cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal is calculated to be about 14,800

! person rom, or 12 cancer 1stalities, for each addebonal 20-year power reactor op-eroting term. Much of this, aamany the contnbution of redon releases from mines and talbng piles, consists of tny doses summed over large populations. .

This name does taMahno can theoretiCaNy be extended to include many tiny doses over arHhanal thousands of years as wen as doses outside the U. S. The resWt of such a cahulalon would be thousands of cancer fatahties from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even Wny doses have some stabstcal adverse health effect which wiu not ever be mitigated (for exargie no cancer cure in the next tiousand years), and that these dosas projected over thousands of years are mearunghsl. However, these assurgtsons are e_ %=t in partcular, science cannot rule out the pamahinty that there win be no cancer fatalitses from these tiny 4 doses. For perspectve, the doses are very aman frachons of regulatory Emits, and even smaNor fractions of natural bediground exposure to the same populations.

Nevertheless, deepNe all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory j

NEPA implications of these matters should be made and N makes no sense to re. '

peat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into ac.

count, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these i irgacts would not be sufhciently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the opbon of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be elknineted Amordngly, while the Commisoson has not assigned a single level of esgnificance for the conective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Cat.

egory 1.

OffsNe radiologeal irgacts (opent fuel and 1 For the high level waste and spent fuel rempnant component of the fuel cycle, there high level waste disposal). are no current reguistory limits for offsNe releases of radionuchdes for the current condidate repository site. However, if we assume that brnits are developed along the hnes of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, "Techncal Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," and that in accordance with the Commis-sion's Waste Contdence Decision,10 CFR 51.23, a repoeNory can and hkely will be devainpad at some eine which wl1 corgly with such limits, peak doses to vir.

tuaNy aN Ineviduals wiu be 100 millirem per year or loss. However, while the Com-mineion has reasonable contdence that these assumphons win prove correct, fiere is considerable uncertainly since the limits are yet to be developed, no re.

poellory apren=han has been corgisted or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in tie models used to evaluate posetite pathways to the human env6ronment. The NAS report Indicated tiet 100 rninwom per year should be considered as a starting poirt for limits for indvidual doses, but notes that some measure of consensus sidets amon0 nelonel and intomatonal bodies tiet the limits should be a fraction

, of tis 100 milbrem per year. The lilotmo individual risk from 100 mehrem annual does limit is about 310-8 A

4

+

4 9

I 08552 Federal Register / Val. 61. No. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Ruhs and Reguhtions j

TABLE B-1.-- *-L?r.RY OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR LJCENSE RENEWAL CS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 8-

! Continued leeue Colegory 2 Findingss Esemoung oumuissve doses to populalons over thousands of years is more prob-immenc. The meshood and consequences of ownes that could seriousy com.

premme the inleytty of a deep geolaye repoenary were evaluated by the Depart-ment of E in the " Final Environmental irripact Statement Management of Commerciesy Redoeceve Wests," Octater 1900. The evaluation esti-rnated tie 70-year i M does commitment to the maximum individual and to tie regionsi pned= man reedung from several modes of toeschmg a reference 4

repoellory in to year of closure, efter 1,000 years, eher 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. "W ;- "i, the NRC and other ledere! agencies have ex.

pended considerable ellert to develop models for the design and tor the licensing il of a high level weste repossory, especiasy for the condidate repository at Yucca i Mountam. More meaningful seemetes of dosee to popuiston may be possible in i~ Wie tWise as more is understood about tio performance of tio proposed Yuoca Mountain repoohory. Such seemstes wedd erwolve very great uncertainty, espe-cinny wah respect to aumulenve poputomon doses over thousands of years. The 4

standard proposed by tie NAS is a tmit on maximum indmndual does. The reia-tonship of potential new regulatory requirements, beoed on the NAS report, and l cumulothe pnp dahari irtpaces has not been determned, aNhough the report ar.

i liculeles Wie view that protecton of indviduals will adequately protect the popu-

lemon for a repository at Yucca Mounteen. However. EPA's generic repository standerde in 40 CFR part 191 genereby provide an indmahan of the order of rneg-a nitude of cumulatve risk to populebon that could result from tio licensing of a 4

Yuoan Mountam repoeltory, aneuming tie ulemale standards wiH be wem the sange of standards now under consideraton. The standards in 40 CFR part 191 protect Die nnedshari by irripceing " containment requirements" that limit the cu-muineve amount of resoeceve metonal reisesed over 10,000 years. Reportmg j performanos standards that wiu be rocasired by EPA are expected to result in re-f losses and mamarentatt health consecasences in the range between 10 and 100 a

premature cancer doeths wNh an igiper hmn of 1,000 premature cancer deaths l work $ wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repoeNory.

j Neverthelses, deepte aN tie uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be friede and it makes no sense to re-

} poet to aame judgement in overy case. Even taking the uncertamtes into ac-4

' count, the Commiseson concludes Wet these impacts are arwardahA* in that these impacts would not be sufilcienth large to require the NEPA concluseon, for any j plant, that the cpten of extended operanon under 10 CFR part 54 should be elime-

l noted. Accordngly, while the Commseen has not easigned a single level of sig-i nMoence for the irtpacts of spent fini and high level weets depa==l. the issue is -

4

' considered Category 1.

Nonradelogscalirrpacts of the uranium fuel 1 SMALL. The rionradologcelimpacts of tie uranium fuel cycle resulting from the re-4 cycle. newal of an operating license for any plant are found to be smalt.

i Low-levet waste storage and deposal . .. 1 SMALL The cortprehenolve reguietc'ry controis met are in piece and the low public doses being edisewed at resolors ensure that the radological irfgects to the envi-l ronment wH roman aman during the term of a renewed hoones. The snaximum

! adsstenal ornho land tiat may be required for low-level waste storage dunng the term of a renewed licones and ammaramad impeces win be small. Nonradelogicat impacts on air and water wiH be nogholbie. The radiological and nonradelogecal ,

i erwkonments' impacts of long-term t$sposal of low 4evel waste from any indvidual '

l plant at Rooneed elles are emeR. In edtSten, Wie Commesion concludes that there j  ;

is reasonable assurance that sufRcont lowlevel weste ranpnaal ospecty will be '

made evenshie when needed sor faommes to be decommmeiored conesient we l NRC -M-. ... ' .;. .u regierements  ;

Mixed weste storage and dapnant . - 1 SMALL The corrprehensive regulatory consols and the facibles and procedures '

tist are in piece ensure proper handing and storage, as weH as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for tio public and the erwironment at all plants. Li-osnee renewal will not incremos the smeN, conhnuing nok to human heetth and the envronment posed by mixed waste at al plants. The radologeal and nonrado-j logical erwironmental impacts of lorip-tetm deposal of truxed weste from any indi-t wichael plant at leoneed efte59ere email. In addebon, the Commesen concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficWent mixed waste deposal capacity will be made avaamhim when needed for tecihbes to be decommasioned consistent

with NRC decommmeionng requwements.

On-sne spent fuel . 1 SMALL The expected increase in the volume of opent fuel from an adetonal 20 i years of opersbon can be safely accommodated on she with small environmental 1

• effects through dry or pool storage at at plants if a permanent repository or mon-1 nored retrievable storage is not available.

, Nonra$ologcol waste 1 SMALL. No changes to generatng systems are antcipated for hcense renewal. Fa-

{ cahtes and procedures are in place to ensure conunrJ proper handling ano ds-posal at en plants.

i

4 i

1 Federal Register / Vcl. 61, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulati:ns 86553

! TABLE B-1.-

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSUES FOR l.JCENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1-

COnlinued i

j leeue Category 8 Findmps 8 1

j Transportellon _ - 2 Tellie S-4 of Wiis Part contams an assessment of impact parameters to be used in evolusting transporteten aflects in endi case. See 551.53(c)(3)(ii)(M).

4 Decommissioning i

l Radiaton doses . -. 1 SMALL Dcoes to me public win be wou below mMecaNa regulatory standards re-ger Sees of which b ._. ' ~_-as method is used. Occagiatonal doses would in-

crosse no more men 1 men rom caused by buildiga of long-hved redonuchdes 1 during me licones renewal term.

j Weste management - - 1 SMALL E__ ' .;.., at the end of a 20-year license renewat penod would

! generate to more echd westes than at the end of the cunent licones term. No in.

$ creses in me gaersites of Class C or grooter then Class C westos would be ex.

pected.

!j Air gashly 1 SMALL Air quably ingiscts of C+- ... -_ _ 44 are espected to be negligible either i et the end of #m current operegng term or at the end of Rio licenes renewal term.

, Water queNty ~ . 1 SMALL The potenmal for signmoent water quehty ingisces trom ercoon or spes is no t greater whether " _ , occurs after a 20. year hoonee renewat period or after the ortomet 40-year operston period, and measures are readily available to

. avoid such impacts.

{ Ecologmel resources - 1 SMALL t---- .._ i., after eNher the inital operahng period or after a 20-year toonse renewal period is not espected to hevo any dwoct ecologmal irrgiocts a=*=eanome impacts - ~ _ . - 1 SMALL Decomminaioning would have some short-term aaesaaeanome impacts. The

hginces would not be increased by delaying decommestonmg until the end of a

20. year rencense pered, tma they mght be decreened by riardman and eco.

nomic growth.

c.wonmental Justice i

! Erwronmental jushce' . *NA NONE. The need for and the content of an analysis of erwironmental justce will be

. addressed in piers-specEc revows.e 1

4

' Data engiportmg this table are contamed in NUREG-1437," Generic Erwironmental Impact Statement tor License Renewal of Nuclear Plants"

(May 1996).

• The numerical enties in this column are bened on the followng category definibons.

i Category 1: For the issue the snelysie pr in the Genorc Erwironmentet impact Statement has shown.

(1) une erwwonmentalingloots am with the issue have been determmed to apply either to aH piarts or, for some leeues, to plants hav.

] a speedc type of ' system or otter spec 6ed plant or site characteristic; 4 ing(2) A sm' gle mgndcanos (Le., small. moderate, has been toTie irrgiacts (except for collectsve off site radological im.

pacts from me fuel cycle and from high level weste and fuel deposal);

i (3) Mingston of adveres impacts manaciawl with has been considered in the analysis, and it has been detemuned that addibonel

plant-specec mitgeton measures are uhely not to be sufficienpy benoncial to warrart implementebon i The genene anssyse of me issue may be adarmad in each piern-specac review.

Category 2: For me issue, the analyse reported in the Genonc Erweronmoraal impact Statement has shown that one or more of the criteria of a 1 cannot be met, and morefore addeonal plant-speede review is required.

in this column are based on the deAnibons of three signdcanos levels. Unises the signincanos level is identded as bene.

I Scial, the is , or in tie case of "smal'

• may be . The detrutions of signmcenos follow:

SMALL or the issue, erwironmental oNeces are not or are so minor that they wiu neither destabilize nor noboeably alter any im.

, portant attnbute of me resource. For the purposes of assessing radological irrsisets, the Commason has concluded that those impacts that do l not encoed permeetsie levels in he Commiseson's regulebons are canadored smeM as me term is used in the table.

3 MODERATE-.For the issue, erwironmental eftects are sufficient to anor tw*==Ny, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE-- For the issue. s.1vironmental aflects are clearty tw*=aNa and are sufhcent to destatukze important attributes of the resource.

For issues where probabety le a key concederston (i.e., ecoident consequences), ' was a lector in determmmg signefcance.

4 NA (not mMecama). The cologortzston and impact Anchng definibons do not to tiees issues.

eti. h the future, the Commmeon ends that. coneary to current indicatons, a connenaus has been reached by appropnate Federal health opencies hat there are adverse healti eNetMs from electromagnebc fleida, the Commesion wW require appbcants to submit plant-specific revews os tisse hesith eflects as part of thest hoones renewal mMsenhaqg, Ungl gych time appbcants for boense renewal are not requwod to submit in.

lormaton on the issue.

• Erwwnnmental Justee was not addressed in NUREG-1437, "Generte Erwironmental irnpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

!, Plants." because guidance for implemenhng Execumve Order 12098 issued on February 11, 1994, was not evenable pnor to complebon of j NUREG-1437. Tfus issue wel be addressed m indevidual hcense renewal revows

)

}

4 J

a 1

i i

,. y --, ._ . _ , _ . - _ - - - . . .- -

S6554 Federal Register / V:1. 61, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 18, 1996 / Rules and Regul:tions of Dated at Rockville, Decemtser,1998. Maryland, this 11th day to more effectively convey the standards interpreted the functional equivalency the OCC seeks to apply. requirement to mean that a Section 24 For the Nuclear Reguletory r'nmmission. As the OOCindicated in its notice of (Seventh) Lease must be a " net," " full.

John C, Hoyle, proposed rulemaking (proposal), the payout" lease and any unguaranteed Secretaryof the Commission. agency's experience suggests that, while portion of the estimated residuel value (FR Doc. 96-31945 Filed 12-17-96; 8:45 amj a wholesale substantive rewrite of part of the leased property must not exceed m,,,,,,,, 23 is not warranted.' changes to 25% of the original cost of the property.

improve clarity and to provide some The " net" lease r uirement means that additional flexibill'.y would be the lessor national may not be DEPARTh8ENT OF THE TREASURY appropriate. See 60 FR 46246 (Sept. 6, obligated to provide specified services 1995). Accordinb!y, the proposal such as repairs or maintenance, or Oh M h Cape M h shortened and streamlined part 23; purchase insurance on the lessee's hmnW re rganized many ofits provisions; behalfin connection with the leased added paragraph headings; and property. The " full-payout" requirement 12 CFR Port 23 conformed its style to that of the OCC's means that the bank must expect to other rules. In addition, the OCC

[Dochet No. 96-28] recover the full costs of acquiring the Identified and specifically requested property to be leased and financing the M 1867M comment on several areas where leasing transaction from sources that substantive changes to the regulation include rentals, estimated tax benefits, Laoning might be appropriate, depending on the and the estimated residual value of the responses received. property at the end of the lease. For a AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the The OCC received 11 comments in Currency Treasury. Section 24(Seventh) Lease, however, the response to the proposal, which the bank may rely on the unguaranteed ACTION: Final rule. OCC has carefully considered in portion of the estimated residual value i

Pr* Paring this final rule. The of the leased property only to a limited sueensARY:The Office of the Comptroller commenters included national banks, a of the Currency (OCC)is revising its extent-not more than 25% of the national bank subsidiary, and trade original cost of the property. There is no rules goveming the personal property associations representing both banks lease financing transactions of national percentage-of-assets limit on a national banks. This final rule, which is another and leasing companies. The commenters bank's investment in Section 24 generally supported the proposal, and a (Seventh) Leases.  ;

component of the OCC's Regulation few suggested further modifications or in 1987, Congress gave national banks Review Program, updates and improvements. The final rule l streamlines the rules. The final rulr is a second, explicit source of authority to 1 incorporates suggestions made by some engage in personal property lease substantively similar to the OCC's of the commenters, and the OCC has financing. The Competitive Equality proposal but incorporates modifications made additional changes to clarify and Banking Act (CEBA)8 amended 12 reflecting suggestions made by simplify the regulatory text. The final U.S.C. 24 by adding paragraph Tenth, commenters and further clarifies and rule also makes other minor technical simplifies the rule. which allows a national bank to invest changes. in tangible personal property, including EFFECTTVE DATE: January 17,1997. The Dscussion portion of this vehicles, manufactured homes, FOR FURTHER WORMATION CONTACT: Preamble contains a section-by-section machinery, equipment, and furniture.

Morris Morgan, Credit and Management description of the final rule and the for lease financing transactions (CEBA Policy, Chief National Bank Examiner's significant changes fmm the pmposed leases). Investment in personal property Office 202/874-5170; Jacqueline version. A derivation table showing to be leased under the authority of 12 Lussier, Senior Attorney,Irgislative modifications fmm the former part 23 U.S C. 24(Tenth) may not exceid to and Regulatory Activities 202/874- appears at the conclusion of this percent of a national bank s assets. A 5090, Aline J. Henderson, Senior Preamble. CEBA Lease also m,ust be a net,, lease Attomey, Bank Activities and Structure, Background Chief Counsel s OfBce 202/874-5300, h;" pct to Pga d at Office of the Comptroller of the National banks may engage in leasing residual value limit. Both Section Currency,250 E Street SW., activities pursuant to two independent 24(Seventh) Leases and CEBA leases Washington, DC 20219. sources of authority. First, under 12 are governed by standards set forth in U.S.C. 24 (Seventh), a national bank part 23.

suPPLEasENTARY N0nesATION: may acquire tangible and intangible Personal property for the purpose of, or Discussion W M ""

in connection with leasing that property Subpait A--GeneralProvisions The OCC is revising 12 CFR part 23, when the lease is the functional which governs personal property lease equivalent of a loan (Section 24 Authority, Purpose, and Scope ($ 23.1) financing transactions by national (Seventh) Leases).2 The OCX: has The proposal retained the authority banks.This final rule is another provision of the fortner regulation but component of the OCC's Regulation ' The OT nnt adopted part 2s in mid.seet. se added paragraphs describing the Review Program. 'Ibe principal goal of FR 24314 Uune 20.1991) Pad 23 mplaced an purpose of pa2t 23 and the scope ofits the Program is to review all of the OCC's "'h" N 5'*rpn$nuling n luu nnancing respective subparts. The final rule rules with a view toward eliminating or Y newch had b=n codined et 12 m retains the structure described in the revising provisions that do not is.,u sr unasing corp v. s aale n,,, scope section of the part 23 proposal.

contribute significantly to maintaining not onoi sani. saa F.2d s 377 teth cir. se77), cert.

the safety and soundy a s of nationa <fenmf. ne U.s. ess (s e7s) fupholdins national Pub. t. ioo-es. c. sos. sot stat. ss2. s7e banks or to accomph. s hing the s OCC.l banks' authority under 12 U.S C. 24(Seventh) to No eneas, a personal property ) namens (Aug c% set Soseas.

19s7). See7)(

o (sos also xps.a Rel' on ofmu.19.

purposef ooth other statutory responsibihties. Another tranucuans if the inn is the functional .guhalent of cmA's expansion of neuoul banks'lasins important goalis to clarify regulations of a loan)(MarM Laosmg). authority).