ML20211D194
| ML20211D194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/20/1999 |
| From: | Dicus G, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211D168 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-202-C, NUDOCS 9908260191 | |
| Download: ML20211D194 (9) | |
Text
.
AFFIRM ATION j RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission FROM: CHAIRMAN DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-202, FINAL RULE " CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES (10 CFR PART 51)" ,
Approved X Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
~
I approve publishing the final rule as proposed by staff and release of the supporting addendum to the GEIS, subject to the attached changes to the FRN, draft press release, and letters to congress.
1 1
hhu r e.ars NATQW d M 520 /??7
/
dMTE Entered on "AS" Yes X No 9908260191 990824 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
@iq13N )
/ .
VLD G:\DPR\ PARTS 1 July 30,1999 (3:15PM)
OPA DRAFT _
(Source: SECY )
)
I NRC AMENDS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS TO RENEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERA TING LICENSES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is arr iding its regulations goveming environmental reviews of applications for renewal of nuclear power plant licenses.
The amendment to Part 51 of the NRC's regulations would make two changes:
(1) It eliminates the requirement that individual license renewal applications address one specific type of environmental impact caused by spent nuclear fuel generated by the plant during the term of the renewed license - the impact of moving that fuel from a specific plant to a permanent high level-waste repository, such as the one proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The amendment also accounts for the environmental impacts of transporting fuel with higher uranium enrichment and higher 'bumup," which provides rnore power production per metric ton of fuel than has previously been the case, k
g.7/
o c ,
(2) It adds a requirement that a license renewal application address the impact of transportation on local services in the vicinity of the plant during the license renewal term.
@,, /U + 4 77 vshlt Regarding the first change, ne j dies have given the NRC confidence f/
thaf, the ,
l , , , , - ,
expected/ d,pnvironmentalimpact of transporting spent fuel from all plant sites to a repository,can
.i. M es g,la.t M L. ;,__ $ _, A generically- that is,in af 4tt.;; - tohe whole nuclear industrf ;i.es ;l.er % cd,-
__f, wa.km aputo '" elN f -: c -- -d. specific site,at :t,e 1;rae its license renewal application P e-2. gig NP,0
- 4 pwh swelen- These new studies, which also deal with the use of more highly enriched fuel and 4+
- r- Gir higher bumup fuel, are described in a final addendum to the generic environmental impact statement for license renewal which is also being issued. Because more nuclear power plants are beginning to use fuel with higher enrichment and higher burnup, it was necessary for NRC to evaluate this change at these higher levels. The NRC believes it likely that many plants seeking license renewal will be following that practice.
The second change is consistent with the findings in NUREG-1437, " Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," issued in May 1996, to address local traffic impacts attributable to continued operation of the plant during the license renewal term. This issue was identified in the NUREG document for inclusion in the rule, but was inadvertently omitted from the 1996 version.
Although the public comment period on the proposed rule officially ended on April 27, in response to concems raised about the length of the 60-day comment period, NRC considered comments received as late as July in prepa' ring the final rule.
O M
s' p* Wu 5 UNITED STATES j
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001 5.,...../
The Honorable Joe Barton Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washingtonp0515 i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
)
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to publish in the Federa/ Registerthe final I rule
- Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Ope, rating Licenses," that amends requirements to the Commission's rule in 10 CFR Part 51 - -
Environmental Prot'ection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
The final rule amends requirements that were published in the Federal Registeron December 18,1996 (61 FR 66537),
- Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," by eliminating from 10 CFR Part 51 the requirement that license renewal applicants address the gencHc and cumulative environmentalimpacts appociated with transportation operations in the vidqity of a high-level waste repository siteJThis final rule also considers the potential impacts of higher enriched and higher burnup fuel fh'an is currently covered in 10 CFR 51.52 and is supported by the generic analysis in the final report of NUREG-1437, Vol.1, Addendum 1, titled " Generic Environmental impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3-Transportation, Table 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants."
Also, this amendment incorporates rule language to be consistent with the findings in NUREG-1437," Generic Environmental impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (May 1996), to address local traffic impacts attributable to continued operation of the plant during the license renewal term. This issue was identified in NUREG-1437 for inclusion in the rule.
However, the issue was inadvertently omitted from the 1996 rule. The net effect of this action will be to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without compromising environmental protection.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federa/RegistorNotice -
cc w/ enclosure: Representative Ralph M. Hall y 'P'
,1 4, ,
k Because the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada currently represents the most likely candidate for a repository, the NRC has used that site as a basis for its analysis in lieu of considering l transportation to an unspeedied, hypothetical site. The decision to use Yucca Mountain for the purposes of the current analysis does not affect the likelihood that Yucca Mountain will in fact be licensed es a repository for the nation's high-level waste. Rather, it simply provides the NRC with the information it needs to gauge the potential impacts for licensing nuclear power plants for an additional 20-year period, if an application is ever filed by the Department of Energy (DOE),
the licensing process for a repository in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain will constitute an entirely separate regulatory action from the proposed final rule. Any NRC decision on a repository license will be accompanied by separate safety and environmental analyses that will include a thorough examination of the environmentalimpacts stemming from the construction and operation of the repository.
[
L 1
F .
I renewal term. This issue was identified as a Category 2 issue in NUREG-1437, Section 4.7.3.2 and the overall issue of transportation was designated as Category 2 in the rule (see 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B Table B-1,"Public Services, Transportation"). However, the specific issue of local transportation impacts during the renewal term was inadvertently omitted from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and its inclusion in Table B-1 is not explicitly stated. The basic transportation concem identified in NUREG-1437 is the potential adverse contribution of a larger plant work force to traffic flow in the vicinity of the power plant.
To address the above issues, the Commission issued proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 on February 26,1999 (64 FR 9884), and provided a public comment period of 60 days.
The supplemental analysis, which supports this rule, is reported in NUREG-1437, Vol.1, Addendum 1, " Generic Environrrental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Main Report Section 6.3 ' Transportation,' Table 9.1 ' Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,' Final Report." The draft for comment was published in February 1999 and the final report is expected to be published in August 1999.
The public comment period closed on April 27,1999. Extensive public comments were received, including concems by some commentors about the length of the comment period.
A Se 4. We tv,v kL n.4 u kk 4k @ t:e u a J ge k,
{ hhe NRCf di owe r comments dated as late as June 25,1999, and received as late as early July 1999. The NRC staff's responses to the comments are provided below. As explained in more detail below, the comments have led to both the use of more conservative assumptions in the analysis reported in Addendum 1 and a fuller explanation of the analysis.
The regulatory text has been edited for clarification but there is no material change from the proposed rule.
g to - W 5
A y 'e s
t Response: The analysis encompasses members of the public residing, working, or estitutionally confined at locations near shipping routes by assuming that the resident population along the transportation routes is exposed to every shipment. The text of Sect. 2.3 of Addendum 1, has been revised to state this assumption and its effects on the revised
~
analysis more clearly. In addition, more conservative assumptions of truck speed have been used in the revised RADTRAN analysis thus extending the exposure time to individuals along the transportation route. These assumptions further ensure that members of the public cited by the commentors would be encompassed by the dose and risk assessments. As expected, the use of these more conservative assumptions leads to higher estimates of radiation dose to the
- p. w2 , -
public. However, these revised dose estimates hmall compared to natural and other [
sources of radiation exposure.
Several commentors indicated that Aodendum 1 should focus on unique and location-specific circumstances of the transportation routes and population centers. However, the analysis in Addendum 1 is generic and was designed to support only the limited scope of the decision regarding this rule change. The NRC believes that the routes chosen represent a conservative analysis due to the higher number of people who live along these routes.
Because the purposh of this rule is to provide a generic analysis for the limited purpose of determining the likely impact of transportation during the license renewal term, the large analytical effort required for the identification of specific population locations and traffic circumstances is not warranted within the context of the current rule. Although the comments raise valid issues, those concems should be resolved within the context of studying, and making decisions conceming, the suitability of the candidate repository site at Yucca Mountain and regulatory requirements goveming transportation of spent fuel. .
g.2eA 17
-_ )
. <2 i
shipment of SNF, demonstrate that the overall risk associated with severe accidents of SNF j shipping casks is very low. The results of the modal study were factored into the analysis for -
this rulemaking, as an input to the RADTRAN computer code. Additional analyses were performed to address the possible impacts of accidents involving higher burnup fuel.
The consequences associated with an individual SNF shipment have an upper bound, based on the amount of material in the package, the availability of mechanisms to disperse the radioactive contents, the locations and number of receptors, and post-event intervention than would occur. Further, this upper bound in transit might reasonably be expected to be less than that at the origin or destination points (where more SNF would be stored), and some events themselves might be expected to have greater consequences than the damage they cause to the SNF cask. The NRC recognin s that there are some conceivable events (not necessarily traditional ' transportation accidents'), that might be hypothesized to occur to a SNF cask while in transport. Even though these events might have an extremely low probability of occurring, they might result in high consequences if they were to occur. The NRC considers these events lative and ti to be remote and spegMA- %ps, dogs b not
pall
- for Y detailed
- ~M *consideration. Because the phag C-- .
r K NRC considers risk to be the,p&t et the probability of an event and its resultant 54th consequences, events with such low probability of occurring have a negligible contribution to the overall risk. In addition, as the probabilities of the events become very low, the value of insights to be' gained, for use in regulatory decisions, is not apparent.
Comment: The study underestimates Clark County's residential population and growth rate, in addition, the study does not account for the large nonresident population, resulting in underestimates of risk and impacts.
20
Response: If the proposed SNF storage facility is licensed and built, some SNF may go 5
$e through Clark County on the way to Skull Valley, Otah. The NRC staff has not analyzed this possible impact because it is not clear at this time that the proposed Skull Valley facility will be licensed or that the SNF would go through Las Vegas if the facility were built. In addition, SNF from California makes up only a small fraction of the SNF that would be stiipped. The NRC staff concludes that the conservative assumptions used in the analysis more than compensate for minor changes in transportation plans that may develop for that fraction of the total SNF.
Comment: The NRC should provide affected parties with some statement of the regulatory effect of the interrelationships between the numerous other similar analyses.
Response: As a general matter, the National Environmental Pc! icy Act (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to perform an environmental review for certain actions they pepose to conduct. In the context of nuclear waste management, several agencies have regulatory and operational responsibilities which may involve various proposed actions that, in tum, require the preparation of environmental impact statements (EISs). Inevitably, there may be a degree of overlap in the types of impacts discussed in these various EISs. . Iowever, the analysis developed by the NRC for the purposes of license renewal is not binding on future actions and associated environmental impact analyses.
j The NRC proposed action that has triggered tha preparation of this rulemaking and the I
associated analysis of environmental impact is the agency's responsibility to review applications for the renewal of nuclear power plant licenses. In light of the discrete purpose of this rulemaking, e NRC has sought to gauge th'eimpacts of license renewal given the information currently available on those impacts including the transportation of spent fuel. Even though 30 gW j