ML23158A160
| ML23158A160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/23/1990 |
| From: | Beckjord E Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-051, 55FR29967 | |
| Download: ML23158A160 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 07/23/1990 PR-051 - 55FR29967 - RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES PR-051 55FR29967 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF 1
PROPOSED RULE:
PR-051 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:
RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:
55FR29967 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
07/23/90 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 10/21/90 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE:
FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
NOTES ON: FILE LOCATED ON P-1.
TATUS F RULE:
PRESS PAGE DOWN OR ENTER TO SEE RULE HISTORY OR STAFF CONTACT 7
I I
PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY PAGE 2 OF 2 HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-051 RULE TITLE:
RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES DATE PROPOSED RULE ROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:
PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:
I I
SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
07/16/90 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 93-032 FINAL RULE SRM DATE:
I I
DATE FINAL RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE I
I CONTACTl: DONALD P. CLEARY CONTACT2:
MAIL STOP: NLS-134 PHONE: 492-3936 MAIL STOP:
PHONE:
PRESS PAGEUP TO SEE STATUS OF RULEMAKING PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY
DOCKET NO. PR-051 (55FR29967)
In the Matter of RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES DATE DOCKETED DATE OF TITLE OR DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07 /24/90 07/16/90 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 10/15/90 10/12/90 COMMENT OF DOE (WILLIAM H. YOUNG) (
- 1) 10/15/90 10/01/90 COMMENT OF JACQUELYN C. WHEELER (
- 2) 10/24/90 10/09/90 COMMENT OF ROBERTS. WOLF, PH.D. (
- 3) 10/24/90 10/22/90 COMMENT OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS & NECNP (DIANE CURRAN & DEAN TOUSLEY) (
- 4) 10/24/90 10/20/90 COMMENT OF OCRE (SUSAN L. HIATT) (
- 5) 10/29/90 10/22/90 COMMENT OF EPA (RICHARD E. SANDERSON, DIRECTOR) (
- 6) 11/30/90 11/06/90 COMMENT OF U.S. EPA (SUSAN OFFEROAL) (
- 7)
w t1 i, :zo 0 6 *s [. l [
DOCKET NUMBER" -
PROPOSED RULE 5"-f -, ;../ 55 Fl!.&qq(;, rJ)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460 l J ll'\i_~[.Q U':>Ni~C NOV 6 1990*90 NOV 30 P 3 :18 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT :
F TO:
Comments on t he Propos~d Rulemaking for 10 CFR 54 ~
Generic nvironmental Impact Sta tements for Relicensing Power Plants.
~
8 of Water Enforcement a nd Permits (EN-335 )
Richard Sanderson, Director Office of Federal Activities (A-104)
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits staff attended t he September 21, 1990 Nuclear Regulatory Commission bri efing and have reviewed the document a tion transmitted with t he
~September 12, 19go m~morandu*
h@ proposed rulemaking for Title i-10 Parts ~land 54.
While tfie basic process o f developing a generic environmental impact statement f o r nuclear power p l ant life eye xt n ion is s ound, we ha v~ t he following c ommonts.
d requirements of t he d r a ft g~neric statem!nt (DCEIS) is to 11 address every typ pact and environment al issue wh i ch could y be expected to be of conce rn under NEPA in relicensing power plant 11 (quote from page 8 f the briefing docum nt).
Considering the lack of standar ize(
nt design ctnd the variety in receiving waters, there is a pos 1l ity t hat t hQ size of the data field will preclude an ac~urate assessment with respect to wat r quality impacts. one a l t ernative i s to limit he DGEIS to those environm@ntal impacts which lend the mselves t o generic treatm.nt and a ddress t hose potential e nvironment 1 issues which are uniquely ite specific {e.g. i r tream wa t eI quality standards) on a case-by-case basis.
Thi s a lternative method would be particularly appropriate wh e n a ttempting to project water quality impact s for the rec e iving body var t he n xt twenty years (exte nded operation and decomm; s ioning).
The projected water quality impacts r esulting rom s olid ~nd l iquid radwaste processing and disposal did not a p pea to oe c omple tely considered in the DGEIS outline.
JAN 2 8 1991 Acknowledged by car.d..................................
.':!O-Vd3
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C 4 111 DOCKETING & SERVICE SE Tl OFFICE OF THE SECRET Y OF THE COMMISSI Document Statiiitlc
£!mark Date-~,'!---~ - --=-----
pies Received __
/ _
_.......,==-
. d'I Copies Reproduced c.~- -==-,-.,
p ciat Distribution f2tDS1 PDR.~
Ed Wd 1, : zo 06 El 11 If a maj ority of the more exotic alternative energy sources are to be deleted from the DGEIS, heightened attention 5hould be given to the water quality impacts (both direct and indirect) associa~ed with either cohstruction of new fossil fuel generation plants or life cycle e xt ension of existing facilities.
If thare are any questions related to these comments, please have your staff ccntact Mr, Brad Mahanes of my staff at (202) 475-9530.
V~O-Vd3
0
- s l. l l P.
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG&NCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER WASHINGTON. DC :20460 FACSIMILE REQUEST AND COVER SHEET PLEASE PRINT IN BLACI( /NI( ONLY TO
....,. --~-*---------1 OFFICE/ PHONE
~/
?.J - L-f 0 '2 - ?1 ~) ~.) l.,.*
GION LAB FR
-***nu.* ).1-1-" ) 't',;'rt.-;\-, -*- *fu
()tt ~- <-11.-r,,;..,, '*tu.c.*{(.r~~ L.,)Li
) fti ~)P.
{,,, (,: (
< t
/l,r--L.+--
---~ - --------.--------..::,;......"""-"--"-'-"...... -'-',*~!J. __
HONE MAIL CODE 0 f CE 0.ATE' NUMBER OF PAGES TO INCLUDE THIS COVE:A SHEU Plesse numbt,r all pagBs
- -*********w******M**** *******~*-***~** * * ** * ************************ ******************,*,,********N***~********* ********* ~ ******
INFORMATION FOR SENDING FACSIMILE MESSAGES TO EPA HEADQUARTERS FACSIMILE NUMBER VERll'ICATION EQUIPMENT NUMBER NUMBER RAPICOM (202) 382-7883 (auto)
(202) 382-2078 PANAFAX (202) 382-7884 (a 1.1101 (202) 382-2078 PANAFAX (202) 382-7888 (a1.1to)
(202) 382-2078 MANUAL (202) 382-2078 The EPA Communications CAnter has the capabilit for sending and receiving facsimile messaqes to CCITT Group I, II, and Ill Equipment.
EPA Form 6040-5 (Rev,12-831 Replaces EPA Form !i040.5A s1nd the pre11iou9 edition"' GPA ~orm 5040-5, which are obsult11 t1.
100~
V~O-Vd3
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR s I
( 55 F/C.. 2'196 7)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTl~M'f~Y
'./
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 11<:.Ni)r, ncr 2 2 ism
- 90 OCT 29 P 4 :02 Mr. Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Chilk,
,-r: I **
J OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT In accordance with its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ~ NRC) 10 CFR Parts 51, License Renewal for Nuclear Power Plants Scope of Environmental Effects, advance notice of proposed rulemaking; and Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, notice of intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement (EIS), detailed in the Federal Register, July 23, 1990.
We believe that a comprehensive generic EIS is a feasible approach and first step toward analyzing the environmental impacts of license renewal.
However, we believe it is very important that this approach not obscure or omit critical environmental impacts, health and safety issues and potential mitigation.
The bounding of issues and impacts must be done very broadly so that all site specific impacts are addressed.
Our general comments are enclosed for your use.
EPA would welcome the opportunity to review the prepublication draft and fi1ial GEIS.
If the NRC is interested, we could develop a cooperating agency agreement defining EPA's role.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking and GEIS.
If you have any questions concerning our comments please call me or have your staff contact Ms. Susan Offerdal (202-382-5059).
Sincerefy, Rich/0f:.Sanderson Director Office of Federal Activities cc:
EPA Regional Environmental Review Coordinators J~N 2, s '\991---..
ed""' cafd,..................
Ac~now\edg u'
Prinled on R,cycud Paper
U.S. NUCLtAR REGULA TORY COMMISSIO~
DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date _/~~,1....,1/f-:;__.3 ____ _
Co~esReceived,-4-_____
Add'I Copies Reproduced _ 3..;;;.._-- -
S~
lion /?IO
- ttJR,
2
GENERAL COMMENT
S:
- 1.
The GEIS should address all technological/methodical changes and plant operational activities/characteristics that have the potential to impact the environment and are of concern under NEPA.
It should demonstrate compliance with all pertinent regulations, including those regulating radiation emissions, spent fuel disposal, hazardous wastes, and treatment and discharge of cooling water.
- 2.
It may be beneficial to compare the impacts of extended operation of the plants with the impacts from new generating capacity of the same type.
More specifically, when a safety issue is identified in an old plant during normal operation, NRC will require a modification in the plant to bring it up to standard.
This should make old plants essentially equivalent to new plants in terms of normal operation.
- 3.
The GEIS will also address the potential for emergency releases of radioactive material.
There is now an effort underway to design nuclear power plants that are "intrinsically safe".
These new designs are not depend on extensive backup systems for safety.
They are designed in a way that no active pumps are needed to remove the heat.
All that is necessary for safety is to shut down the chain reaction.
It would be important to determine where replacement of an old plant with an "intrinsically safe" design would result in a significant reduction of the need for redundant heat removal systems.
A TMI-type accident is impossible in these plants.
We believe that there would not be a big difference in risk to the public since the risks with today's plants is quite small however, it could be included in the technological alternatives.
- 4.
Prepare separate sections within the GEIS or separate GEISS for each of the various types of reactors.
- 5.
The GEIS should also address indirect and secondary impacts such as impacts associated with disposal of waste material, and cumulative impacts concerning global warming and historical and foreseeable future radiation releases.
EPA is developing guidance to our regions on global climate change considerations in EISs.
We will send you a copy as soon as it is signed.
- 6.
The GEIS will describe the need for generating capacity, including conservation and the assessment of alternative generating capacity other than nuclear.
How will the GEIS assess the need for generating capacity and alternatives? It may be that the proposed GEIS will so generally, or obliquely, handle these issues as to be useless to any environmental decision process absent a national energy policy choice in this regard.
To avoid this NRC could document both the need and alternatives during subsequent license renewal for that particular locality.
3 The GEIS could assess the utilities' efforts for compliance with the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) for financial assistance to private co-generation facilities within the community or State.
It could also assess the utilities' efforts to comply with State and local energy conservation efforts.
Newly emerging electric use patterns could be addressed including expanding use for electric vehicles or possible reduction in per capita energy use which may result from altered work schedules or telecommuting in lieu of meeting current office energy demands.
7.
As part of the rulemaking suggest that tiering (see NEPA regulations, sections 1502.20 and 1508.28) be used in the license renewal process.
The GEIS could be followed by tiered EISs or environmental assessments (EAs) for individual plants.
The site specific EISs/EAs would reference all applicable information in the GEIS and then discuss site specific issues such as compliance with all pertinent regulations, endangered species, wetlands, historic/archeological impacts, traffic, and transportation.
If a power plant is located in an agricultural community, there may be small doses of radiation entering the food supply through cropland irrigation and livestock grazing, and this information should be gathered and quantified.
If a power plant is located in a seismically active area, the EIS/EA could contain data on regional geophysical inspections/surveys to determine any changes since original licensing regarding susceptibility to detrimental effects from seismic activity.
It could also identify any measures that would need to be taken to prevent potential seismic damage of the plant.
- 8.
EPA is currently developing a research program on the effects of Electromagnetic Frequency Radiation but it will be a considerable time before the results of this program produce data which can be used as the basis for regulations or guidance.
Oc+.:ober 20, 1990 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR -s I (ss-FR ;Jo/°lu~
- 90
- oCK[1ED
- 1. ustmc OCT 24 P3 :52 COMMENTS OF OHIO CiiIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC~'.P.tlf.~t~~i-J;[~:t1fi}_
ON ADt...>ANCED NOT I CE OF PROPOSED RULEHA KI NG,
- LICENSE Rf!.. WAM{ffi~R NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS,* 55 FED.
REG. 2996~ AND "NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SlATEMENT,
- 55 FED. REG. 29967 (JULY 23, 1990:,
The basic purpose of this rulemaking is to generically categorize the potential environmental impacts gr a license renewal decision such that they need not be addressed in any specific license renewal actio~.
The avoidance of litigation of such effects in specific license renewal hearings is an especially strong motive for this proposal.
It is OCRE's posi+.:ion that this goal is impossible to achieve, both as a matter of law and of fact.
The environmental effects associated with license renewal are by their very nature highly site-specific, An examination of the proposed outline of the GEIS (55 FR 29965) reveals subjects such as land use, ter-restric1l ecology, c,quc,tic ecology, socioeconomics, air q,.;ality, water quality, se*.,1ere accidents, need for generating capacity, and alternative generating capacity, These factors will be different for every nuclear power plant site.
No two nuclear po~er plant sites will have the some terrestrial and aquatic ecology, for example. Different regions of the country have differing needs for electricity, Alternative generating technologies which may be feasible or economical in one region of the cpuntry may not be feasible or economical in another-.
seve~~ accident risks differ from plant to plant as well, due to the variability in custom-designed Plants and the site-specific variation in severe external events as accident initiators. The consequences of severe accidents will vary at e v er y si+.:e due to population density and meteorological conditions.
For example, the very low early fatality risk found in NUREG-1150 for Grand Gulf was largely due to the low population density around the Plant. NUREG-1150, second Draft, P, 6-23.
License renewal is quite unlike other NEPA topics where generic treatment is possible.
An example or the latter is the environmental impact cf the nuclear ruel cycle, which is a true generic issue affecting all nuclear plants in the same way, But license renewal invariably involves site-speciric factors which cannot be determined generically, Being site-specific, it is e,peciallY important that persons in the vicinity of the site be afforded a meaningful oppor*tunitY to comment upon and litigate these matters.
And, since NEPA findings are material to the ultimate license renewal decision, it is imperative that participants in the proc@eding have a right to contest these 1
Fle o 1 1991 Acknowledged by card *--*-
H E ULA I '"'101 l TING & SERVICE SE(;TION FFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Po 1mark Oat
/0 -;)d -9'0 Copies Received OIVL Add'I Coptes Reproduced __
3_--=-.,..,_
Sp 1a Distribution_...~ 0:-.=S+--_,__~
findings in on evidentiary hearing, see Union of concerned Scient-ists v. NRC, 735 F,2d 1437 (D.C. Cir, 1984-),
The proposed approach suffers as well from the fallacy that one can predict these matters decades into the future, How will we know now what species will be endang~red in the year 2030?
How will we predict the need for generating capacity at that time?
How can a determination be made now that renewable energy technologies will not be viable alternatives at that time?
The fact is that these factors cannot be predicted far into the
- future, Rather, they ~ust be determined in a plant-specific analysis to be performed at the time of the license renewal pr*oceed i ng
- The need for generating capacity and alternative generating capacity are matters which must be considered under the law, NEPA requi r es consideratio n of.alternatives to a proposed oction.
42 USC 4332(2) (C) ( iii); see also 42 USC 4332(2) <E).
The NRC in the Federal Register notice states that *011 reosonable alternatives to the proposed action would be bounded by the action or denying the renewal application, Denial would lead to decommissioning of the nuclear systems of a plant and replacement of the generating capacity with either alternative generating capacity, alternative forms of energy or conservation. Decision on these matters will be made by utilities on the basis of their understanding of future requirements for generating capacity and the economics of technically vieible c,lternatives.
- APPClrently, the NRC would consider the "bounding* case of denial of a license renewal application in the GEIS, and leave it to the licensee to select replacement generati~g capacity. But this is an evasion of the NRC's**~.;*sponsibilities under NEPA.
An environmental impact statement is not a rubber-stamp of a licensee's decisions, but rother is an independent analysis by the regulator of the pros and cons or a proposed action.
The NRC's NEPA analysis should enable reasoned decisionmaking in a case where the licensee seeks license renewal, but there are safer, economically viable alternatives available, An independent regulator's analysis of this situation, factoring in environmental impacts as well as economics, may well find that license renewal is not the best option.
The approach proposed in this advanced notice or proposed rulemaking is inconsistent with the court's decision in Limerick Ecology AcHon v, NRC, 869 F,2d 719 (3d Cir, 1989).
Therein the court stated that "it is axiomatic that the generic approach of Baltimore Gas twhich concerned fuel cycle issuesJ will not suffice where the underlying issues are not generic.*
869 F.2d at 738.
The court specifically found that NEPA required case-specific consideration of severe accident mitigation design alternatives, These matter$ cannot be considered generic~lly, but must be considered on a case-by-case basis, as both plant design variation and local 2
conditions such as population density will arfect severe accide n t risk on a plant-specific basis, Id, It is important to realize that in a renewal proceeding, alternatives regarding severe occident risks will invariably include an assessment o f alternatives such as building a new nuclear power plant of ad v anced, safer design or a nonnuclear plant which poses no risk of severe accidents, A decision to renew an operating license is a decision not to build a new nuclear plant or to use alternative generating technologies.
Thus, it is essential to consider in a renewal decision severe accident risks and alternative generating technologies.
In conclusion, OCRE finds the generic approach proposed by the NRC for considering environmental i~pocts or lic~nse renewal decisions to be inherently flaw~d.
The proposal should be abandoned in favor of site-specific reviews, as ore performed r or initial licensing, Given the importance of the action, and the t ime which hos p a ssed since. ~nitial licensing, a license renewal proceeding must include on essentially de novo en v ironmental re v iew, Respectfully submitted, Su *;i.1 n L. Hiatt OCRE Rep r esentative 8275 Mu nson Ro a d Men to r-,
OH 44-06 0 3
(
C DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE
.5 /
~Sr. 2,q9~7)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Scope of Environmental Effects
)
)
)
)
)
55 Fed. Reg. 29,96,W OC1 24 p 3 :S 1 55 Fed. Reg. 29,967
-- ~**"Rt l Ah'
- c:~ I ' Ur :.;t L *,.,.* 1(*c
!Jf
.v~
('
r, \1~
~ocKi. i IN) t,. ),-
Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution u
PRP-Nl)*i On July 23, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Fed-eral Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement on the scope of environmental effects of nuclear power plant license renewal, 55 Fed. Reg. 29,964, 29,967. Follow-ing are the comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution on these issuances.1 The Commission proposes to prepare a generic environmental impact state-ment (GEIS) to identify the types of environmental impacts which may occur due to renewal of an individual nuclear power plant operating license, to assess if and under what conditions each type of impact would be significant, and to summarize these findings in a manner which can be codified in the agency's environmen-tal protection regulations.
55 Fed. Reg. 29,965.
- *
- So~e generic consideration of environmental impacts from license renewal is appropriate. However, as is true of the Commission's proposed rule on license The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit educational foundation whose work in issues related to nuclear safety, energy policy and arms control is supported by the contributions of some 100,000 citizen sponsors. With offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., UCS has long been a very active participant in nuclear regulatory affairs, including rulemakings, enforce-ment actions, and adjudications involving individual plants.
The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) is a nonprofit educa-tional association based in Vermont, with members throughout the New England states. Its purpose is to inform and educate the public concerning the hazards of nuclear power and the availability and benefits of safer and more efficient energy sources. NECNP has been an active participant in many licensing and enforce-ment proceedings regarding the safety of nuclear power plants in New England.
81301 cknowtedQed b " rd.... -*****"***** ***********
J.S NUCLEArl EGULA ORY cm ~ISSIO, DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Doeument tatistics Postmark Date - ~~::::,.__, J.,L.. __
Copies Received. __
...:.o.:....,=-----
Add'I Copies Reproduced - =3- --~
S e al Distrrbution :K(O S. (!.f} f!...
I renewal,2 the apparent primary purpose of this present endeavor is to curtail the scope of individual license renewal proceedings and public participation in them.
There is thus considerable danger that the effort to dispose of issues generically will be carried too far.
For example, it is difficult to see how issues such as need for power and alternatives can be considered generically. Regional and local differences in power demand and in opportunities for implementation of alternatives would almost certainly overwhelm any possible generic treatment. In addition, environmental impacts from refurbishment and continued operation, including risk of severe acci-dents, could vary widely depending on site characteristics and plant design.
The attempt to deal with some environmental issues on a generic basis is not inherently objectionable, but it must not be used as an absolute prohibition on plant-specific consideration in the context of a license renewal proceeding. Where either the NRC Staff or an intervenor develops plant-specific environmental impacts or issues that are not adequately covered by the Commission's generic treatment, those issues must be subject to litigation in the license renewal proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, u~c_
Diane Curran
~12.~
Dean R. Tousley Harmon, Curran & Tousley 2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 Attorneys for Union of Concerned Scientists and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Dated: October 22, 1990 2
UCS and NECNP submitted comments on the proposed license renewal rule on October 15, 1990.
"90 OCT 24 1\10 :57 C/7:Jl.fo<,
Oct:.~
<t 1 1190.
S'e..~d of' ~ ~~~ 1 NR..C lJcv,/4.ld~ J oc
- 2. 0 ~s-S A -rJ.,,,,.d ""'-
!J'"" u~ -..,,1._.f e-..,.,i c.....
g,._ oL.
To lJ ~ Zc-110
~
evi..1,t_ :
I
......._, d eu-. ~ ~
- J """"--
fry o ser,l
- , G--<MVU c.
E << M u,.......,;t,Jl I"," cl:
S +J: ~
" 1-1-""" -f<>-L
,u,- £.: c,..., r 'cJ h<< J',u,.,._
f ~
- ,f C<M/4,., 1 ~
I o.-
~
- e;__
~~~,a~
rt..,,._,_
C<A-<
f.,, ""d
~,,.;;f, J_
,{._ "o,.,..,J.,_
<M,
,u.,.__
"u ~
,,,,e,,,...;t;__ ;
-ft..,
AL -
{;_ ~
f' h> cJb'<-<.
J/4..J.,J ~ 4-e,
_sf,.,.~ -/i..,_
vf._,;l Z.I:
lA.
u-,w--,
To
/4 Jo ~
un<sR:t <<Yi, "'
"d ~ ~
-h
-f1._.. I~
C. /
~
0
-f;,,_ ~
a,;a..J;,_;,._,
s*~~,
(<_~ S. Wof+
f{. D.
I Ckn WIR,
IEB O 1 199i
U.S. NUCLEAR REµULA
,..,., ' ISSION OOCKETING & SERVIC;E: ~EG TION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Poanart<Date
/()- I S-70 Co,-Recehed DILL Add1 Coples~ _3~ ~ ~ -
~
Distributlon __
~ _t o_s_~_
~
DOCKET NUMBER PR,5 /
ROPOSE~ ULE...!...;;-~~:-l S.5 F~ Z-99to u LulkUti.:
- 90 OCT 15 P 4 : 1 4 October 1, 1990 OF~ !C~ OF $EC~ETA11Y OOCKl TIN~,\ S[ilVlf.f.
Secretary of tlw Commission, NRC V*lashington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Dod:.eting and Service Branch:
I am strongly opposed to the Nu.clear Regulation Commission's BRANCH proposed Generic Environmental Impact Statement as a means of dealing Vv"itl1 the expected utility requests for plant relicensing. I am particularly concerned that such a short-sight.eel policy v.,ould l)e appliecl to tlie Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Considering PG&E's troubled design and construction history, it would be unconscionable to allow any relicensing vvithout a thorough site-specific: stud7T of environmental consequences of such an action. As you are a*v\mre, it is expected that a recent revie,;N by the USGS of PG&E's Long Term Seismic Program vvill 1*ield important ne,;,\7 information about the Hosgri Fault. If it is found that tlle Hosgri may l)e a thrust fault rather tl1an the strike slip fault tl1at PGtxE contends, major retrofitting may be necessary. Any request for relicensing of tlle Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pov-ler Plant TNould have to take this very important information into account as it may affect the health and safety of those citizens living near tlle plant.
Additionally_. both lov-1 level and high level radioactive wastes continue to be stored on site. The additional output ot waste from ten to twenty years of plant operation would impact this county significatantly, particularly as it is stored just 2 1/2 miles f ror.n an active earthquake fa ult.
<=;
Tf:,
~~~~
3303 Barranca Court San Lu.is Obispo, CA 9.3401 FEB o 1 1991
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI
~
DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTIOt OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date I() I~ 'r o __
. :ipies Received._.:...1 __ _
d'I Cop.as Reproduced (3""---_
~pec1al D1stribut1on~
1 D LUQ
DOCKET NUMBER p 5 /
PROPOSED RU(~ FIG 2.qcfZ 1)
Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 LJLKl i lD {!)
U~NRC October 12, 1990
- 90 OCT 15 P 3 :37 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Mr. Chilk:
The Department of Energy is pleased to submit comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule on nuclear powerplant license renewal (55 FR 29043, July 17, 1990); advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the scope of environmental effects for license renewals (55 FR 29964, July 23, 1990); and, notice of intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement on renewal of nuclear powerplant operating licenses (55 FR 29967, July 23, 1990).
The Department believes the proposed actions are important steps by the NRC toward estab-lishing a clear, practical, and predictable license renewal policy and regulatory framework for the nuclear power industry.
An adequate and reliable supply of electricity at reasonable prices is a prerequisite for the Nation's economic growth and international competitiveness.
As the United States prepares to enter the next century, it faces significant challenges in meeting the expected growth in electricity demand.
Nuclear-generated electricity is a vital part of America's current energy mix, and it is enormously important to the Nation's future energy security to preserve the valuable resource represented by the 112 nuclear powerplants licensed to operate today.
Continued operation under renewed licenses has the potential to avoid the need for construction of 100 gigawatts of replacement capacity at a fraction of the cost, reduce energy costs by over $100 billion, and provide a hedge against potential environmental restrictions placed on the use of fossil fuels.
If these potential benefits are realized through the establishment of a viable license renewal regulatory process, then the challenge to ensuring an adequate, secure, and environmentally acceptable supply of energy for the future can be more readily met, thereby enhancing the future energy and economic security of the Nation.
The central element of the proposed rule's philosophy is that the current license basis (CLB) for each reactor, augmented by steps necessary to manage aged-related degradation, provides an adequate level of safety for the renewal term.
The Department RB o 1 1991 Ac1mo
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR, COM ISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
/
OF THE COMMISSIO, Document Statistics
2 strongly supports this philosophy.
Given the continuing oversight by the NRC and the licensee, a reactor that is safe to operate in the last month of its initial license term should be equally safe to operate in the first month of its renewed license term.
Although we agree that the CLB provides the appropriate framework for the rule, we have several comments on the implementation of the CLB philosophy in the proposed rule. Under the proposal, the focus of license renewal reviews should be only on plant systems and structures that have both safety significance and significant age-related degradation potential.
We believe that the proposed Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA) in the rule is too broad and should be modified.
The IPA requires the applicant to evaluate all components that have potential age-related degradation even if there is no associated safety significance. This requirement would complicate the regulatory review by including matters not relevant to maintaining an adequate level of safety for the renewal term, and would place an unnecessary burden on the applicant and the NRC staff.
As part of the Lead Plant License Renewal Program sponsored by the Department and industry, methods have been developed for performing an IPA that will require identification of only those components necessary to be treated in the license renewal process.
The "Methodology to Evaluate Plant Systems, Structures, and Components for License Renewal" has been submitted to the NRC for review and comment.
Reports detailing its use and the results for both lead plants have been submitted to the NRC for review and comment.
This methodology is consistent with the CLB philosophy and the key principles in the rulemaking package and should be an acceptable means of completing the IPA.
We recommend its approval by the NRC and that it be referenced in Section 54.21 as an acceptable method of completing the IPA.
One final comment on the CLB philosophy deals with its definition.
Some of the supporting documents to the rule imply that the CLB should be broader than what is included in the written docket.
Only those requirements and commitments on the docket should form the basis for the CLB.
To go further will lead to confusion as to what is, and what is not, part of the CLB.
In addition, limiting the CLB to docketed co111T1itments will assure that only those which are properly reviewed, documented, and approved are included.
The definition for CLB should make this clear.
The Department supports NRC's effort to define all the alternatives, related environmental impacts, and cost benefits associated with the license renewal of individual reactors in a generic environmental impact statement.
Such generic considera-tion would allow the NRC to meet its obligations under the
3 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and at the same time, avoid unnecessary cost and delay in the review of individual renewal applications. However, should the NRC be able to generically envelop only some of the environmental issues for license renewal, we urge that the NRC publish those results as an environmental survey.
The Department believes that such an environmental survey could significantly streamline individual plant NEPA reviews.
In summary, the Department believes that the economic and energy security of the Nation is dependent on continued safe and reliable operation of the 112 currently licensed nuclear powerplants.
If the proposed renewal rule is modified according to our suggestions, we believe that greater certainty can be part of the regulatory process.
With these necessary steps, a substantial portion of today' s electrical capacity can be made available to meet the Nation ' s expected growth in electricity demand.
Sincerely,
~#~-
William H. Youn[
Q Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy
ncKET NUMBER OPOSED RULE PR 5 I copy to ~ecy--
Original sent to the Office of the Fed8$c11 Rt,gpr lJOCKLi LO USNRC
(?5 tor publication
- 90 Jll 24 A10 :36
[7950-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses AGENCY:
ACTION:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will prepare a generic environmental impact statement on the effects of renewing the operating licenses of individual nuclear power plants.
The intent of the NRC is to treat generically as many types of impacts as practical.
The findings in the impact statement would then be codified in NRC environmental protection regulations thereby limiting the scope of issues which need to be addressed in individual license renewal applications.
DATES:
Written comments on matters covered by this notice received by [add date 90 days from date of publication] will be considered in developing the generic environmental
2 ment, a proposed rule change, and a draft regulatory guide.
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Send written comments on this notice to: The Secretary of the commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver comments to: 11555 Rock-ville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received by the Commission may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
supplementary information on the generic environmental impact statement may be found in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 51 in the Proposed Rulemaking Section of this Federal Register issue.
That notice contains specific considerations on which NRC desires advice and recommendations.
SUBJECT:
RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES 3
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this Lfe.6{ day o~, 1990 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric s. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.