Vol. 78 Friday, No. 178 September 13, 2013

Part II

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

10 CFR Part 51 Waste Confidence—Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:51 Sep 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 56776 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

NUCLEAR REGULATORY email: [email protected]. For 10 CFR 51.23 to satisfy the agency’s COMMISSION technical questions, contact the obligations under the National individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with 10 CFR Part 51 INFORMATION CONTACT section of this respect to the narrow area of the [NRC–2012–0246] document. environmental impacts of continued • Email comments to: storage. If this proposed rule is adopted RIN 3150–AJ20 [email protected]. If you as a final rule, the NEPA analyses for do not receive an automatic email reply future reactor and spent-fuel-storage Waste Confidence—Continued Storage confirming receipt, then contact us at facility licensing actions would not of Spent Nuclear Fuel 301–415–1677. need to consider the environmental • AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. impacts of continued storage on a site Commission. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– specific basis. ACTION: Proposed rule. 415–1101. • Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Summary of the Major Rule Changes SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The major proposed changes to the Commission (NRC) proposes revising its Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: rule are summarized as follows: generic determination on the Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. • The title of 10 CFR 51.23 would be environmental impacts of the continued • Hand deliver comments to: 11555 revised to ‘‘Environmental impacts of storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the reactor’s licensed life for operation and 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. licensed life for operation of a reactor.’’ prior to ultimate disposal. The NRC has (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; • Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.23 prepared a draft generic environmental telephone: 301–415–1677. would be revised to provide the impact statement to support this For additional direction on accessing Commission’s generic determination on proposed rule. The Commission information and submitting comments, continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. proposes to conclude that the analysis see ‘‘Accessing Information and The proposed amendments would state generically addresses the environmental Submitting Comments’’ in the that the Commission has concluded that impacts of continued storage of spent SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the analysis in NUREG–2157, ‘‘Waste nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for this document. Confidence Generic Environmental operation of a reactor and supports the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Impact Statement’’ (DGEIS) generically determinations that it is feasible to Merri Horn, Office of Nuclear Material supports the environmental impacts of safely store spent nuclear fuel beyond Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear continued storage of spent nuclear fuel the licensed life for operation of a Regulatory Commission, Washington, beyond the licensed life for operation of reactor and to have a mined geologic DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–287– a reactor and supports the Commission’s repository within 60 years following the 9167; email: [email protected]; or determinations that it is feasible to licensed life for operation of a reactor. Timothy McCartin, Office of Nuclear safely store spent nuclear fuel beyond The proposed rule also would clarify Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. the licensed life for operation of a that the generic determination applies to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reactor and to have a mined geologic a license renewal for an independent Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: repository within 60 years following the spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). In 301–287–9259; email: licensed life for operation of a reactor. • addition, the proposed rule would make [email protected]. Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.23 conforming amendments to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: would be revised to clarify that license Commission’s 2013 findings on the renewals for an ISFSI are included in Executive Summary environmental effects of renewing the the scope of the generic determination. • operating license of a nuclear power Purpose of the Regulatory Action Conforming changes would be made to 10 CFR 51.61, 51.80(b), and plant to address issues related to the The purpose of this proposed rule is storage of spent nuclear fuel after a 51.97(a) to clarify that ISFSI license to improve the efficiency of the NRC’s renewals are included in the scope of reactor’s licensed life for operation and licensing process by adopting into the the offsite radiological impacts of spent the generic determination. NRC’s regulations an analysis of the • The ‘‘Offsite radiological impacts of nuclear fuel and high-level waste generic environmental impacts of the disposal. spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste continued storage of spent nuclear fuel disposal’’ issue would be reclassified as DATES: Submit comments on the beyond the licensed life for operations a Category 1 impact in Table B–1 of proposed rule by November 27, 2013. of a reactor (continued storage). The appendix B of 10 CFR part 51, Comments received after this date will NRC has prepared a draft generic ‘‘Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues be considered if it is practical to do so, environmental impact statement of the for License Renewal of Nuclear Power but the NRC is able to assure environmental impacts of continued Plants,’’ and the finding column entry consideration only for comments storage, which provides a regulatory would be revised to address continued received on or before this date. basis for the rule. This proposed rule storage. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments would codify the results of the analyses • The finding column entry for the related to this proposed rule by any of from the generic environmental impact ‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’ the following methods (unless this statement in § 51.23 of Title 10 of the issue’’ in Table B–1 appendix B of document describes a different method Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 would be for submitting comments on a specific ‘‘Temporary storage of spent nuclear revised to include the period of subject): fuel after cessation of reactor operation- continued storage beyond the licensed • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to generic determination of no significant life for operation of a reactor. http://www.regulations.gov and search environmental impact.’’ The NRC’s for Docket ID NRC–2012–0246. Address licensing proceedings for nuclear Table of Contents questions about NRC dockets to Carol reactors and ISFSIs have historically I. Accessing Information and Submitting Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; relied upon the generic determination in Comments

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:51 Sep 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 56777

A. Accessing Information B8. How will the proposed rule address the I. Accessing Information and B. Submitting Comments impacts from continued storage of spent Submitting Comments II. Background nuclear fuel? III. Discussion B9. What are the key assumptions used in A. Accessing Information A. General Information the DGEIS? Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012– A1. What action is the NRC taking? B10. What did the NRC assume regarding 0246 when contacting the NRC about A2. What is the Waste Confidence the continuation of institutional controls the availability of information for this proceeding? and why? A3. Why is the NRC doing this now? proposed rule. You may access B11. How would significant changes in A4. Whom would this action affect? information related to this proposed A5. Why is the NRC generically addressing these assumptions be addressed under rule, which the NRC possesses and is the environmental impacts of continued the NRC’s regulatory framework? publicly-available, by any of the storage? B12. What is the technical basis for following methods: A6. What types of waste are addressed by concluding that continued storage can • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Waste Confidence? occur safely? http://www.regulations.gov and search A7. What activities are not covered by the B13. If the NRC is considering extending for Docket ID NRC–2012–0246. Waste Confidence DGEIS and proposed the timeframe of safe storage, how is that • NRC’s Agencywide Documents rule? not de facto on site disposal? Access and Management System A8. How is spent nuclear fuel stored? B14. Does the U.S. Department of Energy’s (ADAMS): You may access publicly- A9. How can the NRC conduct a generic motion to withdraw its Yucca Mountain available documents online in the NRC review when spent nuclear fuel is stored application affect the NRC’s conclusion at specific sites? Why has a site-specific Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- that geologic disposal is technically rm/adams.html. To begin the search, review not been conducted? feasible? select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and A10. Would the waste confidence B15. What changes are being proposed for rulemaking authorize the storage of the timing of a geologic repository? then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS spent nuclear fuel at the operating B16. Why does the NRC think it is feasible Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, reactor site near me? that a repository can be available in 60 please contact the NRC’s Public A11. What environmental reviews would be years? Document Room (PDR) reference staff at precluded from a site-specific licensing 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by action after the waste confidence B17. How does this rulemaking relate to the licensing of future away-from-reactor email to [email protected]. The rulemaking is complete? ADAMS accession number for each A12. Why is there not a separate Waste ISFSIs? Confidence Decision document? B18. How does this rulemaking relate to document referenced in this proposed A13. How can the NRC complete the the certification of spent fuel storage rule (if that document is available in environmental impact statement and casks and use of the 10 CFR part 72 ADAMS) is provided the first time that rulemaking in 24 months? general storage license to store spent a document is referenced. In addition, A14. What is the status of the extended nuclear fuel at operating or for the convenience of the reader, the storage effort? decommissioned reactor facilities that ADAMS accession numbers are A15. How can the NRC proceed with this are licensed under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 provided in a table in Section VI, rulemaking while research on the by the NRC? Availability of Documents, of this extended storage of spent nuclear fuel is B19. How can a future site-specific reactor document. ongoing? EIS or supplement that references the • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and A16. Did the NRC factor in information GEIS be used to understand the purchase copies of public documents at from the Spent Fuel Pool Study in the environmental impacts of the no-action the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One DGEIS? alternative of not approving nuclear A17. Did the NRC address accidents in the White Flint North, 11555 Rockville power operations at a proposed site? DGEIS? Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B20. What changes are being proposed to A18. Does the NRC plan to hold public B. Submitting Comments meetings on the Waste Confidence address continued storage for license DGEIS and proposed rule? renewal? Please include Docket ID NRC–2012– A19. How can I stay informed of Waste C. Decision 0246 in the subject line of your Confidence activities? C1. Introduction comment submission, in order to ensure A20. How frequently does the NRC plan to C2. Geologic Repository—Technical that the NRC is able to make your revisit the Waste Confidence GEIS and Feasibility and Availability comment submission available to the rule? C3. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel public in this docket. A21. What should I consider as I prepare C3.a. Regulatory Framework The NRC cautions you not to include to submit my comments to the NRC? C3.b. Safe Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel identifying or contact information that B. Waste Confidence Rulemaking C3.b.i. Technical Feasibility of Wet Storage you do not want to be publicly B1. What is the purpose of this Waste C3.b.ii. Technical Feasibility of Dry Storage disclosed in your comment submission. Confidence Rulemaking? C.3.b.iii. Summary of Technical Feasibility B2. What is meant by the phrase ‘‘Licensed of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage The NRC will post all comment Life for Operation of a Reactor?’’ IV. Additional Issues for Public Comment submissions at http:// B3. What timeframes are being considered V. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by www.regulations.gov as well as enter the in the DGEIS? Section comment submissions into ADAMS and B4. What is the significance of the levels VI. Availability of Documents the NRC does not routinely edit of impact in the DGEIS (SMALL, VII. Agreement State Compatibility comment submissions to remove MODERATE, LARGE)? identifying or contact information. B5. What are the environmental impacts of VIII. Plain Writing IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards If you are requesting or aggregating at-reactor continued storage? comments from other persons for B6. What are the environmental impacts of X. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: away-from-reactor continued storage? Availability submission to the NRC, then you should B7. Does a potentially LARGE impact on XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement inform those persons not to include historic and cultural resources affect the XII. Regulatory Analysis identifying or contact information that generic determination in the waste XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification they do not want to be publicly confidence DGEIS? XIV. Backfitting and Issue Finality disclosed in their comment submission.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:51 Sep 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 56778 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Your request should state that the NRC until offsite disposal or storage is a repository was likely to be available by does not routinely edit comment available’’ (44 FR 61372, 61373; October 2007–2009. The rule also stated that, as submissions to remove such information 25, 1979). On August 31, 1984, the a result of this generic determination, before making the comment Commission published the Waste the agency did not need to assess the submissions available to the public or Confidence Decision (Decision) (49 FR site-specific impacts of continuing to entering the comment into ADAMS. 34658) and a final rule (49 FR 34688), store the spent nuclear fuel in either an onsite or offsite storage facility in new II. Background codified at 10 CFR 51.23. This Decision provided an Environmental Assessment reactor licensing environmental impact In the late 1970s, a number of (EA) and Finding of No Significant statements (EIS) or EAs beyond the environmental groups and States Impact (FONSI) to support the rule. In expiration dates of reactor licenses (10 challenged the NRC regarding issues the 1984 Decision the Commission CFR 51.23(b)). The rule also amended related to the storage and disposal of made five Findings: 10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic licensing of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor’s 1. The Commission finds reasonable production and utilization facilities,’’ to licensed life for operation. In 1977, the assurance that safe disposal of require operating nuclear power reactor Commission denied a petition for radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel licensees to submit their plans for rulemaking (PRM), PRM–50–18, filed by in a mined geologic repository is managing spent nuclear fuel at their site the Natural Resources Defense Council technically feasible; until the fuel is transferred to the U.S. (NRDC) that asked the NRC to determine 2. The Commission finds reasonable Department of Energy (DOE) for whether radioactive wastes generated in assurance that one or more mined disposal (see 10 CFR 50.54(bb)). nuclear power reactors can be disposed geologic repositories for commercial The Commission conducted its first of without undue risk to public health high-level radioactive waste and spent review of the Decision and rule in 1989– and safety and to refrain from granting nuclear fuel will be available by the 1990. This review resulted in the pending or future requests for reactor years 2007–2009 1 and that sufficient revision of the second and fourth operating licenses until the NRC made repository capacity will be available Findings to reflect revised expectations such a determination. The Commission within 30 years beyond the expiration of for the date of availability of the first stated in its denial that, as a matter of any reactor operating license to dispose repository, and to clarify that the policy, it ‘‘. . . would not continue to of existing commercial high-level expiration of a reactor’s licensed life for license reactors if it did not have radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel operation referred to the full 40-year reasonable confidence that the wastes originating in such reactor and initial license for operation and any can and will in due course be disposed generated up to that time; additional term of a revised or renewed of safely’’ (42 FR 34391, 34393; July 5, 3. The Commission finds reasonable license. On September 18, 1990, the 1977, pet. for rev. dismissed sub nom., assurance that high-level radioactive Commission published the revised NRDC v. NRC, 582 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. waste and spent nuclear fuel will be Decision (55 FR 38474) and the 1978)). managed in a safe manner until associated final rule (55 FR 38472). The At about the same time, interested sufficient repository capacity is revised Findings 2 and 4 in the 1990 parties challenged license amendments available to assure the safe disposal of revised Decision were: that permitted expansion of the capacity all high-level radioactive waste and Finding 2: The Commission finds of spent fuel pools at two nuclear power spent nuclear fuel; reasonable assurance that at least one plants, Vermont Yankee and Prairie 4. The Commission finds reasonable mined geologic repository will be Island. In 1979, the U.S. Court of assurance that, if necessary, spent available within the first quarter of the Appeals for the District of Columbia nuclear fuel generated in any reactor twenty-first century, and sufficient Circuit, in Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d can be stored safely and without repository capacity will be available 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979), did not stay or within 30 years beyond the licensed life significant environmental impacts for at vacate the license amendments, but did for operation (which may include the least 30 years beyond the expiration of remand to the Commission the question term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor’s operating license at that of whether an offsite storage or disposal any reactor to dispose of the commercial reactor’s spent fuel storage basin or at solution would be available for the high-level radioactive waste and spent either onsite or offsite ISFSIs; and spent nuclear fuel at the two facilities at nuclear fuel originating in such reactor the expiration of their licenses—at that 5. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe independent onsite and generated up until that time. time scheduled for 2007 and 2009—and, Finding 4: The Commission finds or offsite spent fuel storage will be made if not, whether the spent nuclear fuel reasonable assurance that, if necessary, available if such storage capacity is could be stored safely at those reactor spent nuclear fuel generated at any needed. sites until an offsite solution became reactor can be stored safely and without The rule, 10 CFR 51.23, codified the available. significant environmental impacts for at analysis in the Decision and found that In 1979, the NRC initiated a generic least 30 years beyond the licensed life for at least 30 years beyond the rulemaking proceeding that stemmed for operation (which may include the expiration of a reactor operating license, from these challenges and the Court’s term of a revised or renewed license) of no significant environmental impacts remand in Minnesota v. NRC. The that reactor at its spent fuel storage will result from the storage of spent purpose of the Waste Confidence basin or at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs. rulemaking was to generically assess nuclear fuel and expressed the The Commission also amended 10 whether the Commission could have Commission’s reasonable assurance that CFR 51.23(a) to reflect the revised reasonable assurance that radioactive timing of the availability of a geologic 1 Under the court remand that precipitated the wastes produced by nuclear power initial waste confidence review, the NRC was repository to the first quarter of the plants ‘‘can be safely disposed of, to required to consider whether there was reasonable twenty-first century. The rule was also determine when such disposal or offsite assurance that an offsite storage solution would be revised to reflect that the licensed life storage will be available, and to available by the years 2007–2009 and, if not, for operation may include the term of a whether there was reasonable assurance that the determine whether radioactive wastes spent fuel could be stored safely at those sites revised or renewed license. can be safely stored onsite past the beyond those dates. See State of Minnesota v. NRC, The Commission conducted its expiration of existing facility licenses 602 F.2d 412, 418 (D.C. Cir. 1979). second review of the Decision and rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:51 Sep 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 56779

in 1999 and concluded that experience and remanded the Decision and rule meeting with a live Webcast and one and developments after 1990 had (New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Webcast-only meeting in November confirmed the Findings and made a Cir. 2012) 2). The Court concluded that 2012, and two Webinars in December comprehensive reevaluation of the the Waste Confidence rulemaking is a 2012 to obtain public input on the scope Decision and rule unnecessary (64 FR major federal action necessitating either of the environmental review.3 The 68005; December 6, 1999). an EIS or an EA that results in a FONSI. transcripts for each of these meetings In 2008, the Commission decided to In vacating the 2010 Decision and rule, are available in ADAMS under conduct its third review of the Decision the Court identified three specific Accession Nos. ML12331A347, and rule as part of an effort to enhance deficiencies in the analysis: ML12331A353, ML12355A174, and the efficiency of upcoming combined 1. Related to the Commission’s ML12355A187, respectively. The operating license application conclusion that permanent disposal will scoping period ended on January 2, proceedings. The Commission be available ‘‘when necessary,’’ the 2013. Starting in January 2013, the NRC determined that it would be more Court held that the Commission needed Waste Confidence Directorate has held efficient to resolve certain combined- to include an evaluation of the monthly public teleconferences to license-proceeding issues generically, environmental effects of failing to provide updates on the status of Waste including those related to Waste secure permanent disposal since there Confidence activities. Confidence. This review resulted in a was a degree of uncertainty regarding The ‘‘Waste Confidence Generic revision of the second and fourth whether a repository would be built; Environmental Impact Statement Findings to reflect revised expectations 2. Related to continued storage of Scoping Process Summary Report,’’ for the date of availability of the first spent nuclear fuel, the Court concluded which is available in ADAMS under repository and that spent nuclear fuel that the Commission had not adequately Accession No. ML13060A128, provides can be stored safely for at least 60 years examined the risk of spent fuel pool a summary of the determinations and beyond the licensed life for operation. leaks in a forward-looking fashion; and conclusions reached during the NRC’s In December 2010, the Commission 3. Also related to the continued environmental scoping process. The published its revised Decision (75 FR storage of spent nuclear fuel, the Court Summary Report also contains a 81032; December 23, 2010) and concluded that the Commission had not summary of comments received during associated final rule (75 FR 81037; adequately examined the consequences the public scoping period and the NRC’s December 23, 2010). The revised of potential spent fuel pool fires. responses. A separate document, Findings 2 and 4 in the 2010 Decision In response to the Court’s decision, on ‘‘Scoping Comments on the Waste were: August 7, 2012, the Commission stated Confidence Generic Environmental Finding 2: The Commission finds in Commission Order CLI–12–16 Impact Statement,’’ lists the scoping reasonable assurance that sufficient (ADAMS Accession No. ML12220A094) comments, organized by comment mined geologic repository capacity will that it would not issue reactor or ISFSI category (ADAMS Accession No. be available to dispose of the licenses dependent upon the Waste ML13060A130). The NRC is issuing this commercial high-level radioactive waste Confidence Decision and rule until the proposed rule and the draft NUREG– and spent nuclear fuel generated by any Court’s remand is appropriately 2157, ‘‘Waste Confidence Generic reactor when necessary. addressed. The Commission stated, Environmental Impact Statement’’ Finding 4: The Commission finds however, that this determination (DGEIS) (ADAMS Accession No. reasonable assurance that, if necessary, extends only to final license issuance ML13224A106) for public comment. spent nuclear fuel generated in any and that all licensing reviews and reactor can be stored safely and without III. Discussion proceedings should continue to move significant environmental impacts for at forward. This discussion section has been least 60 years beyond the licensed life In the September 6, 2012, Staff divided into three subsections to better for operation (which may include the Requirements Memorandum, ‘‘Staff present information on the proposed term of a revised or renewed license) of Requirements—COMSECY–12–0016— rule and the Waste Confidence that reactor in a combination of storage Approach for Addressing Policy Issues proceeding. Section A provides general in its spent fuel storage basin and either Resulting from Court Decision to Vacate information related to the Waste onsite or offsite ISFSIs. Waste Confidence Decision and Rule’’ Confidence proceeding. Section B Section 51.23(a) of 10 CFR was provides information related to the amended to reflect revised Findings 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12250A032), the Commission directed the staff to proposed rule changes. Sections A and and 4. The changes reflected that spent B are in a question and answer format. nuclear fuel could be safely stored for at develop a generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision and Lastly, Section C ‘‘Decision’’ provides a least 60 years beyond the licensed life discussion of the issues and conclusions for operation of a reactor and that rule. In response, the NRC formed the Waste Confidence Directorate in the addressed in the DGEIS that had sufficient mined geologic repository previously appeared in the Findings capacity would be available when Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) to oversee the discussions of prior Waste Confidence necessary. decisions. In response to the 2010 Decision and development of the generic EIS and an rule, the States of New York, New update that would replace the previous A. General Information Waste Confidence Decision and rule. Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont; A1. What action is the NRC taking? several public interest groups; and the The NRC began the environmental Prairie Island Indian Community filed a review process by publishing a Notice of The NRC is proposing to issue a rule lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct to codify its generic determination on the District of Columbia Circuit that scoping (77 FR 65137; October 25, the environmental impacts of continued challenged the Commission’s 2012). The NRC held one public storage of spent nuclear fuel at, or away compliance with NEPA. On June 8, 2 The Court’s ruling is available at: http:// 3 A Webcast is an Internet-based meeting that 2012, the Court ruled that some aspects www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ includes both audio and video feeds. A Webinar is of the 2010 Decision did not satisfy the 57ACA94A8FFAD8AF85257A1700502AA4/$file/ an Internet-based meeting that does not include NRC’s NEPA obligations and vacated 11-1045-1377720.pdf. video.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:51 Sep 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP2.SGM 13SEP2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 56780 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 178 / Friday, September 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

from, reactor sites beyond a reactor’s license under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52. commercially operated: Fort Saint licensed life for operation. The analysis This proposed rule would also affect the Vrain. The spent nuclear fuel from in the DGEIS provides a regulatory basis issuance of an initial, amended, or Peach Bottom Unit 1 is not covered for the proposed rule. renewed license for storage of spent because its fuel has been removed from nuclear fuel at an ISFSI under 10 CFR the site and transferred to the control of A2. What is the Waste Confidence DOE, and the fuel is no longer regulated proceeding? part 72, ‘‘Licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear by the NRC (see Section 2.1.1.3 of the Historically, the Commission’s Waste fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and DGEIS). Confidence proceeding represented the reactor-related greater than Class C A7. What activities are not covered by Commission’s generic determination waste.’’ The proposed rule could also and generic environmental analysis that the Waste Confidence DGEIS and affect participants in any proceeding proposed rule? spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely addressing these licensing actions. and without significant environmental Waste Confidence does not consider impacts for a period of time past the A5. Why is the NRC generically transportation of spent nuclear fuel licensed life for operation of a reactor. addressing the environmental impacts during reactor operation, disposal of This generic environmental analysis of continued storage? spent nuclear fuel, or storage of spent was reflected in 10 CFR 51.23, which Since 1984, the NRC has generically nuclear fuel during the licensed life for addresses the NRC’s NEPA obligations addressed the environmental impacts of operation of the power reactor. with respect to the continued storage of continued storage though a generic Additionally, Waste Confidence does spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed NEPA analysis and rule. Without a not address foreign spent nuclear fuel, life for operation of a reactor but before generic environmental impact analysis, non-power reactor spent fuel (e.g., fuel ultimate disposal. site-specific consideration of the from research and test reactors), defense This proposed rule and the DGEIS environmental impacts of continued waste, Greater-than-Class C low-level represent a change in the format of the storage would be necessary. The NRC’s waste, reprocessing of commercial spent Commission’s Waste Confidence proposed reliance on a GEIS and rule to nuclear fuel, and the need for nuclear proceeding. As discussed in more detail address environmental impacts of power. in Question A.12, because the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel The NRC is participating in pre- Commission is preparing a DGEIS, will enhance the NRC’s efficiency in application reviews of the DOE’s Next which provides a detailed analysis of individual licensing reviews by Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The the environmental impacts associated addressing a set of issues that are the NGNP would use nuclear fuel with continued storage, it is no longer same or largely similar or can be comprised of Tristructural-Isotopic- necessary to make a ‘‘finding of no reasonably predicted based on a well coated fuel particles contained in either fuel pebbles or prismatic fuel significant impact,’’ as that term is used understood range of operating assemblies. However, because this fuel in NEPA, associated with continued experience at each power reactor or type has not completed fuel storage. This proposed rule then storage site and codifying them. The qualification testing, continued storage codifies the environmental impacts generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23 of spent nuclear fuel from the NGNP reflected in the DGEIS. would satisfy the NRC’s NEPA program is not within the scope of the obligations with respect to the A3. Why is the NRC doing this now? DGEIS and this proposed rule. environmental impacts of continued On June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Additionally, the continued storage of storage. Appeals for the District of Columbia future HTGR spent nuclear fuels is not Circuit vacated the Commission’s 2010 A6. What types of waste are addressed within the scope of the DGEIS or this Waste Confidence rulemaking, and by Waste Confidence? proposed rule. remanded the rulemaking to the NRC to The environmental analysis in the A8. How is spent nuclear fuel stored? address deficiencies related to the DGEIS and in this proposed rule covers Spent nuclear fuel is stored in either NRC’s NEPA analysis. On September 6, low and high burn-up spent nuclear fuel 2012, the Commission instructed NRC spent fuel pools or in dry cask storage. generated in light-water nuclear power Spent fuel pools are designed to store staff to proceed with a generic EIS to reactors. It also covers mixed oxide analyze the environmental impacts of 4 and cool the spent nuclear fuel (MOX) fuel, since the MOX fuel would following removal from the reactor. continued storage and address the be substantially similar to existing light- issues raised in the Court’s decision and Spent fuel pools are massive, water reactor fuel and is, in fact, being seismically-designed structures that are to update the Waste Confidence rule in considered for use in existing light- accordance with the analysis in the EIS. constructed from thick, reinforced water reactors in the United States. It concrete walls and slabs that vary The DGEIS and this proposed rule also covers spent nuclear fuel from implement the Commission’s direction. between 0.7 and 3 meters (2 and 10 feet) small modular reactors. Small modular thick. All spent fuel pools currently in A4. Whom would this action affect? light-water reactors being developed operation are lined with stainless steel This proposed rule would affect any will use fuel very similar in form and liners that vary in thickness between 6 nuclear power reactor applicant and materials to the existing operating and 13 millimeters (0.25 and 0.5 licensee undergoing issuance or renewal reactors and will not, therefore, inches); spent fuel pools have either a of an operating license for a nuclear introduce new technical challenges to leak detection system or administrative power reactor under 1