80 FR 53266 - Rescinding Spent Fuel Pool Exclusion Regulations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 171 (September 3, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 171 (September 3, 2015)
| Page Range | 53266-53272 | |
| FR Document | 2015-21834 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 171 (Thursday, September 3, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 53266-53272] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-21834] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 [Docket Nos. PRM-51-29; NRC-2012-0215] Rescinding Spent Fuel Pool Exclusion Regulations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM-51-29, submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the Commonwealth or the petitioner). The petitioner requested that, in light of information gained from the Fukushima Dai- ichi accident, the NRC rescind its regulations that make a generic determination that spent fuel pool storage does not have a significant environmental impact for nuclear power plant license renewal actions. The NRC is denying the petition because the NRC finds no basis to consider a rulemaking to revise such regulations. DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-51-29, is closed on September 3, 2015. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0215 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0215. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in Section IV, Availability of Documents. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; telephone: 301-415-2328; email: Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. The Petition II. Reasons for Denial III. Conclusion IV. Availability of Documents I. The Petition On June 2, 2011, before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney General, Environmental Protection Division, requested a waiver of the NRC's generic determination regarding spent fuel pool (SFP) storage impacts in the Pilgrim nuclear power plant (NPP) license renewal proceeding. The petitioner also requested that, if the ASLB rejected the Commonwealth's waiver, then the NRC should consider the waiver request to be a PRM. Specifically, the petitioner requested that the NRC's regulations in Sec. 51.71(d) \1\ of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) and table B-1 \2\ in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 be revised because these regulations, according to the petitioner, incorrectly [[Page 53267]] ``generically classify the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage of spent fuel as insignificant and thereby permit their exclusion from consideration in environmental impact statements (EISs) for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 10 CFR 51.71 is entitled, ``Draft environmental impact statement- contents''; Sec. 51.71(d) describes the analysis required to be included in the draft EIS. For license renewal, the draft supplemental EIS (1) relies on supporting information in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS] for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' for generic issues and (2) provides an analysis for the site-specific issues. \2\ Table B-1 is entitled, ``Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' and is the codification of the GEIS. In table B-1, generic issues are designated as ``Category 1'' issues and site-specific issues are designated as ``Category 2'' issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioner asserted that the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident provides ``new and significant'' information that would affect the NRC's impact analysis for SFPs in license renewal. The petitioner contends that this event provides the justification for its request that the NRC revise 10 CFR 51.71(d) and table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. The petitioner made the following three claims: 1. The impacts from the onsite storage of spent fuel are understated in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS] for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' because the Fukushima Dai-ichi event indicates that the probability-weighted consequences of a spent fuel pool accident are greater than what was considered in the GEIS. 2. The impacts from the onsite storage of spent fuel are understated in the license renewal GEIS analysis because the mitigation measures implemented at NPPs after the September 11, 2001 (9/11), terrorist attacks will not effectively mitigate the impacts of SFP accidents, given the new information gained from the Fukushima accident along with the NRC's policy of imposing secrecy on the mitigation measures, and the mitigation measures were improperly relied upon in the denial of PRM-51-10.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The request presented in the petition is essentially identical to the request presented in another PRM submitted by the Commonwealth on August 25, 2006, PRM-51-10 (ADAMS Accession No. ML081890124) (although the basis for the request in each case is unique). The State of California also submitted a petition, PRM-51- 12, in 2007 that was nearly identical to PRM-51-10. The NRC denied PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12 on August 8, 2008 (73 FR 46204). The NRC's denials of these two petitions were upheld. New York v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 589 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir. 2009). The arguments presented in support of PRM-51-10 are similar to those presented in support of this petition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The license renewal GEIS impact analysis must address spent fuel storage impacts on a site-specific, rather than generic basis. On December 13, 2011, the ASLB denied the Commonwealth's waiver petition (LBP-11-35). On March 8, 2012, in Memorandum and Order CLI-12- 06, the Commission affirmed the ASLB's denial of the waiver request and granted the Commonwealth's alternative request that its waiver request be treated as a PRM; the petition was referred to the NRC staff. The NRC assigned the petition Docket No. PRM-51-29. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the petition in the Federal Register (FR) on December 19, 2012 (77 FR 75065), and supplemented the notice on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76952). The NRC did not request public comment on the petition because sufficient information was available for the NRC staff to form a technical opinion regarding the merits of the petition, which is similar to the Commonwealth's previous petition (PRM-51-10). For the purposes of this review, the issues that the petitioner raised about the Pilgrim NPP licensing proceeding were considered generically, to the extent practicable. Other statements concerning the Pilgrim NPP license renewal proceeding, including those concerns related to the risk of severe reactor accidents, are beyond the scope of this PRM. II. Reasons for Denial The NRC complies with Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in its consideration of NPP license renewal applications through the implementation of its environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC relies upon its environmental impact statement, NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS] for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' as the basis for environmental reviews of NPP license renewal actions. The NRC published the GEIS in May 1996 (1996 GEIS) and then revised and updated it in June 2013 (2013 GEIS).\4\ The GEIS reflects lessons learned and knowledge gained during previous license renewal environmental reviews and describes the potential environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a NPP for up to an additional 20 years. The findings of the GEIS have been codified into table B-1, ``Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 51.95(c) require, for the consideration of potential environmental impacts of renewing a NPP's operating license under 10 CFR part 54, that the NRC prepare an environmental impact statement, which is a supplement to the 2013 GEIS. At the time the petition was filed in 2011, 10 CFR 51.95(c) referred to the initial 1996 GEIS. The NRC published a notice of issuance for the updated 2013 GEIS on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37325). \5\ See Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 100- 01, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983) (upholds use of generic environmental analyses) and Massachusetts v. NRC, 708 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir. 2013) (``the Supreme Court has held that the NRC is permitted to make generic determinations to meet its NEPA obligations''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The NRC classifies the license renewal issues described in the GEIS as either generic or site-specific. Generic issues (i.e., environmental impacts common to all nuclear power plants) are addressed in the GEIS. Site-specific issues are addressed initially by the license renewal applicant (i.e., a nuclear power plant licensee seeking a renewal of its operating license under the NRC's license renewal regulations in 10 CFR part 54) in its environmental report, which is required by 10 CFR 51.45, and then by the NRC in a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) prepared for each license renewal application. The plant-specific SEIS and the GEIS, together, constitute the NRC's NEPA analysis for any given NPP license renewal action. In table B-1, the ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' issue has been classified as a Category 1, or generic, issue with an impact level finding of ``small.'' The ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' finding states ``[t]he expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants.'' The designation of an issue as a Category 1 (generic resolution) issue in the GEIS does not mean that potential impacts cannot be considered in a license renewal SEIS. If there are changes in plant operating parameters or new and significant information pertinent to an evaluation of impacts, these are considered during preparation of plant-specific supplements to the NRC's license renewal GEIS. Under 10 CFR part 51, neither the applicant's environmental report nor the NRC's SEIS is required to address issues previously resolved generically, as set forth in the GEIS and table B-1, absent new and significant information. Section 51.92(a)(2) requires a supplement to an EIS if there is new and significant information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the license renewal or its impacts. The NRC standard for the evaluation of ``new and significant'' information is that the information must present ``a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned.'' \6\ Therefore, to be [[Page 53268]] ``significant,'' any information must lead to a conclusion seriously different than that currently set forth in the GEIS.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), et al, CLI-11-05, 74 NRC 141, 167-68 (2011) quoting Hydro Resources, Inc., CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (alteration in the original) (supporting citations omitted) (``To merit this additional review, information must be both `new' and `significant,' and it must bear on the proposed action or its impacts. As we have explained, `[t]he new information must present a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned'.''); see also Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir. 1987) (alteration added) (supporting citations omitted) (``In making its determination whether to supplement an existing EIS because of new information, the [United States Army, Corps of Engineers] should consider `the extent to which the new information presents a picture of the likely environmental consequences associated with the proposed action not envisioned by the original EIS'.''); Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 412, 418 (7th Cir.1984) (supplementation required where new information ``provides a seriously different picture of the environmental landscape.''). \7\ See Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Chapter 5 (September 2000), and Revision 1 published June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37324). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioner claimed that the Fukushima nuclear accident, including possible damage to the SFP, provides new and significant information that requires the NRC to reconsider its impact findings in the license renewal GEIS. With respect to the March 2011 Fukushima accident, a Japanese government report, issued in June 2011, found that the Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4 spent fuel pool, the one believed to have sustained the most serious damage, actually remained ``nearly undamaged.'' \8\ The report noted that visual inspections found no water leaks or serious damage to the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. Additionally, on April 25, 2014, the NRC issued a report entitled, ``NRC Overview of the Structural Integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4.'' The results indicated that the structural integrity of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool was sound. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See ``Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety-The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations,'' IV-91. English version available at http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/iaea_houkokusho_e.html, last visited on July 15, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to the Fukushima event, the Commission has taken action to mitigate beyond design basis external events, including imposing new requirements to develop mitigating strategies for beyond design basis external events, to install hardened severe accident capable vents for boiling water reactors with Mark I and II containments, to install reliable SFP water level instrumentation, to re-evaluate seismic and flooding hazards, and to enhance emergency preparedness capabilities.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Order EA-12-051, ``NRC Order on Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation,'' dated March 12, 2012; Order EA-12-049, ``NRC Order on Mitigating Strategies,'' dated March 12, 2012; Order EA-13- 109, ``NRC Order on Severe Accident Capable Hardened Vents,'' dated June 6, 2013; 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters were issued on March 12, 2012, to NPP licensees for seismic/flooding re-evaluations and assessing emergency response capabilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP in Japan led to additional questions about the safe storage of spent fuel and whether the NRC should require the expedited transfer of spent fuel from spent fuel pools to dry cask storage at nuclear power plants in the United States. This issue was identified by the NRC staff subsequent to the ``Near-Term Task Force [NTTF] Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident'' report. At the time this issue was identified, the NRC staff recognized that further study was needed to determine if regulatory action was warranted. On October 9, 2013, the NRC released a report, NUREG-2161, ``Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor'' (the ``Spent Fuel Pool Study''). Additionally, the NRC conducted a regulatory analysis in COMSECY-13-0030, ``Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel,'' dated November 12, 2013. This study and the regulatory analysis concluded that SFPs are very robust structures with large safety margins, and that regulatory actions to reduce the amount of fuel in the spent fuel pool were not warranted. The Commission subsequently concluded in SRM-COMSECY-13-0030, issued on May 23, 2014, that further regulatory action need not be pursued in light of the low risk of accident for SFP storage. As will be discussed in more detail in response to Issues 1 and 2, the event at Fukushima Dai-ichi does not provide any new and significant information that would have materially altered the conclusions in the GEIS, or in its underlying assumptions.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ While the ASLB and Commission were principally concerned with the petitioner's claims regarding reactor accidents, not SFP accidents (both were held to be out of scope of the Pilgrim NPP license renewal process), the condition of the SFP at Fukushima Dai- ichi, Unit 4, did not support the petitioner's position that impacts from the earthquake constituted new and significant information. In LBP-11-35, the ASLB observed that the event at Fukushima did not demonstrate new and significant information in the Pilgrim NPP license renewal proceeding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the petition, the Commonwealth raises three principal arguments; each is summarized and evaluated in the subsequent discussion. Issue 1: The Petitioner Asserts That the Impacts From the Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel Are Understated in the License Renewal GEIS Analysis Because the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Event Indicates That the Probability-Weighted Consequences of a Spent Fuel Pool Accident Are Greater Than What Was Considered in the GEIS The petitioner argued that the Fukushima event provided new and significant information challenging the generic conclusions in the license renewal GEIS. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that ``the Fukushima accident shows . . . there is a substantial conditional probability of a pool fire during or following a reactor accident'' and that ``[t]his relationship between a pool fire and a core melt accident is not addressed in the License Renewal GEIS'' or the denial of PRM 51- 10 (73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008).\11\ Further, the petitioner referenced a report by Dr. Gordon Thompson, ``New and Significant Information from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident in the Context of Future Operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant'' (the ``Thompson Report''), to support its argument that the GEIS understates the probability and impacts of an SFP accident. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ PRM at 27. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NRC Response to Issue 1 The evaluation of the environmental impacts of the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the license renewal term, including potential spent fuel pool accidents, was documented in the 1996 GEIS and reaffirmed in the 2013 GEIS. Based on this evaluation, the ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' NEPA issue in table B-1 has been classified as a Category 1 issue, or as a generic issue, with a probability-weighted impact level finding of ``small.'' \12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ For most table B-1 NEPA issues, the NRC determined whether the impacts of license renewal would have a small, moderate, or large environmental impact. The statements of consideration for the June 20, 2013, rulemaking note that ``[a] small impact means that the environmental effects are not detectable, or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. A moderate impact means that the environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, important attributes of the resource. A large impact means that the environmental effects would be clearly noticeable and would be sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource'' (78 FR 37285). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, the petitioners' assertion that the Fukushima event revealed a previously unconsidered aspect of spent fuel storage is incorrect. In response to PRM-51-10, the Commission rejected a similar argument regarding the probability ``that a severe accident at the [[Page 53269]] adjacent reactor would result in a SFP zirconium fire.'' \13\ The Commission noted that a series of unlikely events must occur for a severe reactor accident to lead to a spent fuel pool fire, including the accident itself, ``[c]ontainment failure or bypass,'' ``[l]oss of SFP cooling,'' ``[e]xtreme radiation levels precluding personnel access,'' ``[i]nability to restart cooling or makeup systems due to extreme radiation doses,'' ``[l]oss of most or all pool water through evaporation,'' and ``[i]nitiation of a zirconium fire in the SFP.'' \14\ As a result, the Commission concluded that ``the probability of a SFP zirconium fire due to a severe reactor accident and subsequent containment failure would be well below the Petitioners' 2E-5 per year estimate.'' \15\ The agency cited the denial of the PRM in the 2013 update to the GEIS.\16\ Therefore, the Commission has previously considered the probability of a severe reactor accident causing a spent fuel pool fire and found it to be low. Petitioners have not demonstrated how information regarding the Fukushima accident provides a seriously different picture of this issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 73 FR at 46210. \14\ Id. \15\ Id. \16\ 2013 GEIS at E-38. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moreover, the NRC has completed several studies of SFP safety, including NUREG-1353, ``Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue 82, `Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools';'' NUREG-1738, ``Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants;'' and NUREG-2161, ``Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling-Water Reactor.'' These studies have all concluded that SFPs continue to provide adequate protection of public health and safety and are consistent with the findings in the 2013 GEIS that onsite storage of spent fuel during the license renewal term would have a small impact on the environment. On September 19, 2014, the Commission published the ``continued storage'' final rule (formerly known as the ``waste confidence rule,'' 79 FR 56238) and its associated generic environmental impact statement (NUREG-2157, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel''), amending 10 CFR 51.23 to revise the generic determination on the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. The final rule also makes conforming changes to the ``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' issue finding under the ``Waste Management'' section in table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. The final rule revises the finding to address both the impacts of onsite storage during the license renewal term and adds generic determinations of the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's licensed life (i.e., those impacts that could occur as a result of the storage of spent nuclear fuel at at-reactor or away-from-reactor sites after a reactor has permanently shut down and until a permanent repository becomes available). The continued storage final rule affirms that the environmental impacts from the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, including potential spent fuel pool accidents, are small during the short-term storage timeframe (i.e., 60 years of continued storage after permanent shut down, after which the continued storage rule assumes that spent fuel will be moved to dry storage). This finding is consistent with the finding of the license renewal GEIS. Further, the Commission stated in the final rule that the direct and indirect environmental impacts of continued storage can be analyzed generically and that the impact determinations are not expected to differ from those that would result from individual site-specific reviews for the continued storage period. In reaching this result, the agency responded to a comment that suggested that the underlying analyses did not appropriately account for the possibility of a severe reactor accident leading to a spent fuel pool accident.\17\ The NRC disagreed with this comment, in part, based on the conservative aspects of the agency's previous studies of SFP accidents.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ NUREG-2161 at D-438 to D-440. \18\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As previously discussed, a report issued by the Japanese government in June 2011 found that the SFP at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, the SFP which presented the highest safety concern among the SFPs, remained nearly undamaged. This report notes that from the analysis of nuclides in the water extracted from the spent fuel pool, it appears that no extensive damage occurred to the fuel rods. No serious damage to the pool, including water leaks, was found from visual inspections of the pool's condition. Additionally, on April 25, 2014, the NRC issued a report entitled, ``NRC Overview of the Structural Integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4.'' The results indicated that the structural integrity of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool was sound. Consequently, the petitioners have not shown that the Fukushima event constitutes new and significant information regarding the probability of a SFP fire. For the reasons discussed previously, the PRM does not provide a seriously different picture of the agency's previous analyses of a spent fuel pool accident, which have all concluded that despite the potential for large consequences of a severe spent fuel pool accident, the probability-weighted consequences are small due to the low probability of such an event. Issue 2: The Petitioner Asserts That the Impacts From the Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel Are Understated in the License Renewal GEIS Analysis Because the Mitigation Measures Implemented After the September 11, 2001 (9/11), Terrorist Attacks Will Not Effectively Mitigate the Impacts of SFP Accidents, Given the New Information Gained From the Fukushima Accident Along With the NRC's Policy of Imposing Secrecy on the Mitigation Measures, and the Mitigation Measures Were Improperly Relied Upon in the Denial of PRM-51-10 (73 FR 46204) The petitioner claimed that information about the Fukushima accident undermines the following two conclusions from the Commission's denial of PRM-51-10 (73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008): (1) Post-9/11 mitigation measures relied upon by the NRC would permit recovery of lost water from spent fuel pools, and (2) the NRC's policy of imposing secrecy on these mitigation measures would not impair their effectiveness. With regard to the first claim, the petitioner argued that lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi event undermine the Commission's reliance on post-9/11 mitigation measures that enable recovery of lost water from SFPs to prevent the onset of fire or other accidents, and that therefore, the Commission's denial of PRM-51-10 must be reconsidered. With regard to the second claim, the petitioner referenced statements in a declaration provided by Dr. Gordon Thompson that the ``NRC's excessive secrecy degrades the licensee's capability to mitigate an accident.'' The petitioner asserted that by keeping the post-9/11 mitigation measures secret, ``the NRC also raises the risk that first-responders from the surrounding community, who may be called upon to assist in the implementation of [the mitigation measures], will not have sufficient understanding of them to implement them effectively.'' [[Page 53270]] The petitioner's 2006 petition (PRM-51-10) requested changes to the Commission's generic findings regarding the environmental impacts from onsite spent fuel pool storage during the license renewal period of an operating NPP. In its denial (73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008), the NRC noted that spent fuel pools are ``massive, extremely-robust structures designed to safely contain the spent fuel discharged from a nuclear reactor under a variety of normal, off-normal, and hypothetical accident conditions (e.g., loss of electrical power, floods, earthquakes, or tornadoes).'' The petitioner asserted that the Fukushima accident demonstrates that the conclusions in the denial of PRM-51-10 were incorrect, and that in light of the new information about the Fukushima event, the NRC should reevaluate its impact analysis in the license renewal GEIS because the new information undermines the staff's position that the post-9/11 mitigation measures would prevent the onset of a spent fuel pool fire following an attack or other severe accident by permitting recovery of lost water. NRC Response to Issue 2 The petitioner's fundamental claim is that new and significant information from the Fukushima accident undermines the conclusions the Commission reached in denying PRM-51-10. As previously discussed, a report issued by the Japanese government in June 2011 found that the SFP at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, which presented the most safety concern, remained nearly undamaged. This report notes that no extensive damage in the fuel rods appears to have occurred, based on an analysis of SFP water. No serious damage to the pool, including water leaks, was found from visual inspections of the pool's condition. Additionally, on April 25, 2014, the NRC issued a report entitled, ``NRC Overview of the Structural Integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4.'' The results indicated that the structural integrity of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool was sound. As the Commission noted in its 2008 denial of PRM-51-10, and as demonstrated by NUREG-1738 and subsequent SFP studies: (1) Spent fuel pools are robust structures capable of withstanding numerous hazards, (2) additional mitigation strategies are available to maintain cooling in the event of an incident that results in a loss of cooling water, and (3) the risk of SFP accidents is very low. Indeed, subsequent studies, such as NUREG-2161, conclude that spent fuel risks at the reference plant are very low. The Spent Fuel Pool Study also found that for the specific reference plant and earthquake analyzed, SFPs are likely to withstand severe earthquakes without leaking. The NRC's regulatory approach for maintaining the safety and security of power reactors, and therefore SFPs, is based upon robust designs that are coupled with a strategic triad of preventive/ protective systems, mitigative systems, and emergency-preparedness and response. Licensees develop protective strategies in order to meet the NRC design-basis threat. As noted in the Commission's denial of PRM-51- 10 and PRM-51-12 (73 FR 46204), studies conducted by Sandia National Laboratories also confirmed the effectiveness of additional mitigation strategies to maintain spent fuel cooling in the event the pool is drained and its initial water inventory is reduced or lost entirely. Based on this more recent information, and the implementation of additional strategies following September 11, 2001, the probability, and accordingly, the risk, of a SFP zirconium fire initiation is expected to be less than reported in NUREG-1738 and previous studies. Taken as a whole, these systems, personnel, and procedures provide reasonable assurance that public health and safety, the environment, and the common defense and security will be adequately protected. In addition, following the Fukushima Dai-ichi event, the NRC issued Order EA-12-049, which requires, in part, that licensees establish plans and procedures associated with restoring and maintaining SFP cooling capability following a beyond-design-basis external event. These enhancements will provide additional capability for mitigating events that result in SFP draining, beyond those already required. Therefore, as discussed previously, the NRC does not simply rely on the post September 11, 2001, mitigating strategies to conclude the probability of an SFP accident is small. Rather, the NRC relies on the robust nature of the SFPs, the low probability of a SFP fire, and other mitigating measures, as well. Moreover, petitioners concede that measures to add water were ultimately successful at Fukushima, and observations to date have not revealed any cladding damage.\19\ Consequently, the petitioner's information in PRM-51-29 regarding the effectiveness of measures does not present a seriously different picture of this issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ COMSECY-13-0030 at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioner also asserted that treating the mitigation measures as sensitive information impacts their effectiveness. Certain aspects of the enhancements are security-related and not publicly available, but in general include the following: (1) Significant reinforcement of the defense capabilities for nuclear facilities; (2) better control of sensitive information; (3) enhancements in emergency preparedness to further strengthen the NRC's nuclear facility security program; and (4) implementation of mitigating strategies to deal with postulated events potentially causing loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fires, including those that an aircraft impact might create. These measures are outlined in greater detail in a memorandum to the Commission entitled, ``Documentation of Evolution of Security Requirements at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants with Respect to Mitigation Measures for Large Fires and Explosions,'' dated February 4, 2010. Plant-specific mitigation strategies are designated as security related information in accordance with the Commission's guidance in SECY-04-0191, ``Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors from Public Disclosure.'' However, there is publicly-available, industry-developed guidance on implementing these requirements. Specifically, the NRC endorsed NEI 06- 12, ``B.5.b Phase 2 & 3 Submittal Guideline,'' in a letter from the NRC to NEI dated December 22, 2006. The NRC found NEI-06-12 is a generally acceptable means for licensees to meet the NRC's requirements associated with mitigating potential loss of large areas due to fires or explosions, as explained in SECY-11-0125, ``Issuance of Bulletin 2011-01, `Mitigating Strategies'.'' Therefore, the agency has made sufficient information available to the public regarding mitigation strategies. Moreover, petitioners have not alleged that the measures used to restore cooling to the SFPs during the Fukushima accident were developed under similar secret conditions or indicated how any such secrecy hindered the effectiveness of those measures.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ E.g., Thompson Report at 21-23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because the petitioner has not provided new and significant information about the 9/11 mitigation measures with respect to the effectiveness of the measures to provide water to the SFPs, there is no need to supplement the GEIS. [[Page 53271]] Issue 3: The License Renewal GEIS Impact Analysis Must Address Spent Fuel Storage Impacts on a Site-Specific, Rather Than Generic Basis The petitioner asserted that the NRC's generic findings in table B- 1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 with respect to the Category 1 onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel issue would not be supportable where the Fukushima accident otherwise demonstrates that the environmental impacts could be significant and argued that these impacts must be evaluated on a plant-specific Category 2 basis. The petitioner specifically argued that the NRC has not considered the new information previously presented by the petitioner in PRM-51-10 that contradicts the NRC's conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel. NRC Response to Issue 3 Spent fuel storage impacts during the license renewal term were evaluated in the 1996 GEIS. The NRC staff concluded that the impacts would be small for all plants and, therefore, the onsite storage of spent fuel during the license renewal term was designated a Category 1 issue. Specifically, the Commission concluded in the 1996 GEIS that continued storage of existing spent fuel and storage of spent fuel generated during the license renewal term can be accomplished safely and without significant environmental impacts, and that radiation doses will be well within regulatory limits. The 2013 update to the GEIS confirmed the 1996 evaluation. Further, the Commission affirmed the treatment of SFP storage impacts as Category 1 in 2008 upon denying the two petitions for rulemaking (PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12). The two petitions requested that the NRC initiate a rulemaking concerning the environmental impacts of the high-density storage of spent nuclear fuel in SFPs. The two petitions asserted that ``new and significant information'' shows that the NRC incorrectly characterized the environmental impacts of high- density spent fuel storage as ``insignificant'' in the 1996 GEIS for the renewal of nuclear power plant licenses. Specifically, the petitioner at that time asserted that spent fuel stored in high-density SFPs is more vulnerable to a zirconium fire than the NRC concluded in its analysis in the 1996 GEIS. On August 8, 2008, the Commission denied the petitions, stating: Based upon its review of the petitions, the NRC has determined that the studies upon which the Petitioners rely do not constitute new and significant information. The NRC has further determined that its findings related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel in pools, as set forth in NUREG-1437 and in Table B-1, of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, remain valid. Thus, the NRC has met and continues to meet its obligations under NEPA. For the reasons discussed previously, the Commission denies PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12. Likewise here, because the impacts from SFP storage have been consistently demonstrated to be small and because the events in Japan do not challenge the NRC's assumptions or conclusions as to the applicability of its generic impact determination for spent fuel storage during license renewal, the NRC has determined that the petitioner's assertions do not present an adequate basis for the NRC to forego using a generic environmental analysis. III. Conclusion For the reasons described in Section II of this document, the NRC is denying the petition under 10 CFR 2.803. The petitioner did not present any information that would contradict conclusions reached by the Commission when it established or updated the license renewal rule, nor did the petitioner provide new and significant information to demonstrate that sufficient reason exists to revise the current regulations. The NRC elected not to request public comments on PRM-51- 29 because it had sufficient information to make a determination. The events at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant have and will continue to inform improvements to the NRC's regulation of nuclear energy. Building upon the conclusions of the NTTF, the NRC is actively implementing significant enhancements through orders, rulemaking, and other regulatory initiatives. With regard to the petitioner's arguments that the events in Japan demonstrate that post-9/11 enhancements that enable the recovery of lost cooling water in SFPs will be ineffective, the petitioner did not provide sufficient information to support this claim, especially in light of the Commission's experiences and other studies noted previously. Therefore, the NRC denies the petitioner's request to revise regulations that make generic determinations about the environmental impacts of onsite spent fuel storage in license renewal environmental reviews. IV. Availability of Documents The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated. For more information on accessing ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ADAMS Accession Number/ Document Federal Register Citation/ URL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CLI-11-05, Union Electric Company d/b/a http://www.nrc.gov/reading- Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), rm/doc-collections/ September 9, 2011. commission/orders/2011/ 2011-05cli.pdf. CLI-99-22, Hydro Resources, Inc., July 23, http://www.nrc.gov/reading- 1999. rm/doc-collections/ commission/orders/1999/ 1999-022cli.pdf. COMSECY-13-0030, ``Staff Evaluation and ML13329A918. Recommendation for Japan Lessons Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel,'' November 12, 2013. Declaration of Dr. Gordon R. Thompson in ML111530345. Support of Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Contention and Related Petitions and Motions, June 1, 2011. Documentation of Evolution of Security ML092990438. Requirements at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants with Respect to Mitigation Measures for Large Fires and Explosions, February 4, 2010. Federal Register notice--Continued Storage 79 FR 56238. of Spent Nuclear Fuel, September 19, 2014. Federal Register notice--Environmental 61 FR 28467. Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses Final Rule, June 5, 1996. Federal Register notice--License Renewal of 78 FR 37325. Nuclear Power Plants; Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews, Issuance of NUREG-1437 and NUREG- 1555, June 20, 2013. Federal Register notice--PRM-51-10, NRC 73 FR 46204. denial of Petition for Rulemaking, August 8, 2008. Federal Register notice--PRM-51-29, 77 FR 75065. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Notice of Receipt, December 19, 2012. [[Page 53272]] Federal Register notice--PRM-51-29, 77 FR 76952. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Supplemental Information, December 31, 2012. Federal Register notice--Revisions to 78 FR 37282. Environmental Review of Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses Final Rule, June 20, 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for ML13107A023. License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG- 1437, Revision 1 (Volumes 1-3), June 21, 2013. LBP-11-35, Memorandum and Order, denial of ML11332A152. waiver in Pilgrim adjudicatory proceeding, December 13, 2011. NEI 06-12, ``B.5.b Phases 2 & 3 Submittal ML070090060. Guideline, Revision 2,'' Project 689, December 14, 2006. NRC Overview of the Structural Integrity of ML14111A099. the Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, April 25, 2014. NUREG-1353, ``Regulatory Analysis for the ML082330232. Resolution of Generic Issue 82, `Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools,' '' April 30, 1989. NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact ML13107A023. Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (2013 GEIS), June 20, 2013. NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact ML040690705, ML040690738. Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (1996 GEIS; Volumes 1 and 2), May 31, 1996. NUREG-1738, ``Technical Study of Spent Fuel ML010430066. Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants,'' S102686, February 28, 2001. NUREG-2157, ``Generic Environmental Impact ML14196A105, ML14196A107. Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel''. NUREG-2161, ``Consequence Study of a Beyond- ML14255A365. Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling- Water Reactor'' (Spent Fuel Pool Study), October 9, 2013. Order EA-12-049, NRC Order on Mitigating ML12054A735. Strategies, March 12, 2012. Order EA-12-051, NRC Order on Spent Fuel ML12056A044. Pool Instrumentation, March 12, 2012. Order EA-13-109, NRC Order on Severe ML13143A321. Accident Capable Hardened Vents, June 6, 2013. PRM-51-10, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ML062640409. August 25, 2006. PRM-51-29, from Mathew Brock, Commonwealth ML12254A005. Of Mass. Petition for Waiver of C.F.R. Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B or In Alternative Petition For Rulemaking to Rescind Regulations Excluding Consideration Of Spent Fuel Storage Impacts, June 2, 2011. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, ML13067A354. Revision 1, ``Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications,'' June 20, 2013. Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA http://www.kantei.go.jp/ Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety-- foreign/kan/topics/201106/ The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Nuclear iaea_houkokusho_e.html. Power Stations, June 2011. Sandia Letter Report, Revision 2, ML120970086. Mitigation of Spent Fuel Pool Loss-of- Coolant Inventory Accidents And Extension of Reference Plant Analyses to Other Spent Fuel Pools, November 30, 2006. Sandia Report: MELCOR 1.8.5 Separate Effect ML062290362. Analysis of Spent Fuel Assembly Accident Response, June 30, 2003. SECY-04-0191, ``Withholding Sensitive ML042310663. Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors From Public Disclosure,'' October 19, 2004. SECY-11-0125, ``Issuance of Bulletin 2011- ML111250360. 01, ``Mitigating Strategies,'' September 12, 2011. SRM-COMSECY-13-0030, Staff Evaluation and ML14143A360. Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel, May 23, 2014. The Thompson Report, ``New And Significant ML12094A183. Information From The Fukushima Daiichi Accident In The Context Of Future Operation Of The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant,'' June 1, 2011. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015-21834 Filed 9-2-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![53266 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 171 / Thursday, September 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Upland cotton is $0.690 per pound or adopted, should be implemented as select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
$1.521 per kg. ($0.690 × 2.2046). soon as possible. Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
Five tenths of one percent of the Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2101–2118. please contact the NRC’s Public
average price equals $0.007604 per kg. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
Dated: August 28, 2015.
(1.521 × 0.005). 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
Rex A. Barnes, email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
Total Assessment Associate Administrator. ADAMS accession number for each
The total assessment per kilogram of [FR Doc. 2015–21865 Filed 9–2–15; 8:45 am] document referenced (if it is available in
raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 BILLING CODE 3410–02–P ADAMS) is provided the first time that
per bale equivalent assessment of it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
$0.004409 per kg. and the supplemental INFORMATION section. For the
assessment $0.007604 per kg., which NUCLEAR REGULATORY convenience of the reader, instructions
equals $0.012013 per kg. COMMISSION about obtaining materials referenced in
The current assessment on imported this document are provided in Section
cotton is $0.012728 per kilogram of 10 CFR Part 51 IV, Availability of Documents.
imported cotton. The revised • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
[Docket Nos. PRM–51–29; NRC–2012–0215] purchase copies of public documents at
assessment in this direct final rule is
$0.012013, a decrease of $0.000715 per the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
Rescinding Spent Fuel Pool Exclusion
kilogram. This decrease reflects the White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Regulations
decrease in the average weighted price Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
of Upland cotton received by U.S. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Farmers during the period January Commission. Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor
through December 2014. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Import Assessment Table in section Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
1205.510(b)(3) indicates the total SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 0001; telephone: 301–415–2328; email:
assessment rate ($ per kilogram) due for Commission (NRC) is denying a petition Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov.
each Harmonized Tariff Schedule for rulemaking (PRM), PRM–51–29, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
number that is subject to assessment. submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (the Commonwealth or Table of Contents
This table must be revised each year to
reflect changes in supplemental the petitioner). The petitioner requested I. The Petition
that, in light of information gained from II. Reasons for Denial
assessment rates and any changes to the
the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, the III. Conclusion
HTS numbers. In this direct final rule, IV. Availability of Documents
AMS is amending the Import NRC rescind its regulations that make a
Assessment Table. generic determination that spent fuel I. The Petition
AMS believes that these amendments pool storage does not have a significant On June 2, 2011, before the NRC’s
are necessary to ensure that assessments environmental impact for nuclear power Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
collected on imported cotton and the plant license renewal actions. The NRC (ASLB), the Commonwealth of
cotton content of imported products are is denying the petition because the NRC Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney
the same as those paid on domestically finds no basis to consider a rulemaking General, Environmental Protection
produced cotton. Accordingly, changes to revise such regulations. Division, requested a waiver of the
reflected in this rule should be adopted DATES: The docket for the petition for NRC’s generic determination regarding
and implemented as soon as possible rulemaking, PRM–51–29, is closed on spent fuel pool (SFP) storage impacts in
since it is required by regulation. September 3, 2015. the Pilgrim nuclear power plant (NPP)
The amendment proposed by this ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID license renewal proceeding. The
document is the same as the amendment NRC–2012–0215 when contacting the petitioner also requested that, if the
contained in the direct final rule. Please NRC about the availability of ASLB rejected the Commonwealth’s
refer to the preamble and regulatory text information for this action. You may waiver, then the NRC should consider
of the direct final rule for further obtain publicly-available information the waiver request to be a PRM.
information and the actual text of the related to this action by any of the Specifically, the petitioner requested
amendment. Statutory review and following methods: that the NRC’s regulations in § 51.71(d) 1
Executive Orders for this proposed rule • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
can be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY http://www.regulations.gov and search Regulations (10 CFR) and table B–1 2 in
INFORMATION section of the direct final for Docket ID NRC–2012–0215. Address appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part
rule. questions about NRC dockets to Carol 51 be revised because these regulations,
A 30-day comment period is provided Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; according to the petitioner, incorrectly
to comment on the changes to the email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
1 10 CFR 51.71 is entitled, ‘‘Draft environmental
Cotton Board Rules and Regulations technical questions, contact the
impact statement- contents’’; § 51.71(d) describes
proposed herein. This period is deemed individual listed in the FOR FURTHER the analysis required to be included in the draft EIS.
appropriate because this rule would INFORMATION CONTACT section of this For license renewal, the draft supplemental EIS (1)
decrease the assessments paid by document. relies on supporting information in NUREG–1437,
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
importers under the Cotton Research • NRC’s Agencywide Documents ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS]
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ for generic
and Promotion Order. An amendment is Access and Management System issues and (2) provides an analysis for the site-
required to adjust the assessments (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- specific issues.
collected on imported cotton and the available documents online in the 2 Table B–1 is entitled, ‘‘Summary of Findings on
cotton content of imported products to ADAMS Public Documents collection at NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power
Plants,’’ and is the codification of the GEIS. In table
be the same as those paid on http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ B–1, generic issues are designated as ‘‘Category 1’’
domestically produced cotton. adams.html. To begin the search, select issues and site-specific issues are designated as
Accordingly, the change in this rule, if ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then ‘‘Category 2’’ issues.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:54 Sep 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM 03SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_53437/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 171 / Thursday, September 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 53267
‘‘generically classify the environmental petition in the Federal Register (FR) on either generic or site-specific. Generic
impacts of high-density pool storage of December 19, 2012 (77 FR 75065), and issues (i.e., environmental impacts
spent fuel as insignificant and thereby supplemented the notice on December common to all nuclear power plants) are
permit their exclusion from 31, 2012 (77 FR 76952). The NRC did addressed in the GEIS. Site-specific
consideration in environmental impact not request public comment on the issues are addressed initially by the
statements (EISs) for renewal of nuclear petition because sufficient information license renewal applicant (i.e., a nuclear
power plant operating licenses.’’ was available for the NRC staff to form power plant licensee seeking a renewal
The petitioner asserted that the a technical opinion regarding the merits of its operating license under the NRC’s
Fukushima Dai-ichi accident provides of the petition, which is similar to the license renewal regulations in 10 CFR
‘‘new and significant’’ information that Commonwealth’s previous petition part 54) in its environmental report,
would affect the NRC’s impact analysis (PRM–51–10). which is required by 10 CFR 51.45, and
for SFPs in license renewal. The For the purposes of this review, the then by the NRC in a supplemental
petitioner contends that this event issues that the petitioner raised about environmental impact statement (SEIS)
provides the justification for its request the Pilgrim NPP licensing proceeding prepared for each license renewal
that the NRC revise 10 CFR 51.71(d) and were considered generically, to the application. The plant-specific SEIS and
table B–1 in appendix B to subpart A of extent practicable. Other statements the GEIS, together, constitute the NRC’s
10 CFR part 51. The petitioner made the concerning the Pilgrim NPP license NEPA analysis for any given NPP
following three claims: renewal proceeding, including those license renewal action. In table B–1, the
1. The impacts from the onsite storage concerns related to the risk of severe ‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’
of spent fuel are understated in reactor accidents, are beyond the scope issue has been classified as a Category
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental of this PRM. 1, or generic, issue with an impact level
Impact Statement [GEIS] for License finding of ‘‘small.’’ The ‘‘Onsite storage
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ because the II. Reasons for Denial
of spent nuclear fuel’’ finding states
Fukushima Dai-ichi event indicates that The NRC complies with Section ‘‘[t]he expected increase in the volume
the probability-weighted consequences 102(2) of the National Environmental of spent fuel from an additional 20 years
of a spent fuel pool accident are greater Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in its of operation can be safely
than what was considered in the GEIS. consideration of NPP license renewal accommodated onsite during the license
2. The impacts from the onsite storage applications through the renewal term with small environmental
of spent fuel are understated in the implementation of its environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all
license renewal GEIS analysis because protection regulations in 10 CFR part plants.’’ The designation of an issue as
the mitigation measures implemented at 51. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), a Category 1 (generic resolution) issue in
NPPs after the September 11, 2001 (9/ the NRC relies upon its environmental the GEIS does not mean that potential
11), terrorist attacks will not effectively impact statement, NUREG–1437, impacts cannot be considered in a
mitigate the impacts of SFP accidents, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact license renewal SEIS. If there are
given the new information gained from Statement [GEIS] for License Renewal of changes in plant operating parameters
the Fukushima accident along with the Nuclear Plants,’’ as the basis for or new and significant information
NRC’s policy of imposing secrecy on the environmental reviews of NPP license pertinent to an evaluation of impacts,
mitigation measures, and the mitigation renewal actions. The NRC published the these are considered during preparation
measures were improperly relied upon GEIS in May 1996 (1996 GEIS) and then of plant-specific supplements to the
in the denial of PRM–51–10.3 revised and updated it in June 2013 NRC’s license renewal GEIS.
3. The license renewal GEIS impact (2013 GEIS).4 The GEIS reflects lessons Under 10 CFR part 51, neither the
analysis must address spent fuel storage learned and knowledge gained during applicant’s environmental report nor the
impacts on a site-specific, rather than previous license renewal environmental NRC’s SEIS is required to address issues
generic basis. reviews and describes the potential previously resolved generically, as set
On December 13, 2011, the ASLB environmental impacts of renewing the forth in the GEIS and table B–1, absent
denied the Commonwealth’s waiver operating license of a NPP for up to an new and significant information.
petition (LBP–11–35). On March 8, additional 20 years. The findings of the Section 51.92(a)(2) requires a
2012, in Memorandum and Order CLI– GEIS have been codified into table B–1, supplement to an EIS if there is new and
12–06, the Commission affirmed the ‘‘Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues significant information relevant to
ASLB’s denial of the waiver request and for License Renewal of Nuclear Power environmental concerns and bearing on
granted the Commonwealth’s alternative Plants,’’ in appendix B to subpart A of the license renewal or its impacts. The
request that its waiver request be treated 10 CFR part 51.5 NRC standard for the evaluation of
as a PRM; the petition was referred to The NRC classifies the license ‘‘new and significant’’ information is
the NRC staff. The NRC assigned the renewal issues described in the GEIS as that the information must present ‘‘a
petition Docket No. PRM–51–29. The seriously different picture of the
NRC published a notice of receipt of the 4 The NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 51.95(c)
environmental impact of the proposed
require, for the consideration of potential
3 The request presented in the petition is environmental impacts of renewing a NPP’s
project from what was previously
essentially identical to the request presented in operating license under 10 CFR part 54, that the envisioned.’’ 6 Therefore, to be
another PRM submitted by the Commonwealth on NRC prepare an environmental impact statement,
August 25, 2006, PRM–51–10 (ADAMS Accession which is a supplement to the 2013 GEIS. At the 6 Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri
No. ML081890124) (although the basis for the time the petition was filed in 2011, 10 CFR 51.95(c) (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), et al, CLI–11–05, 74 NRC
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
request in each case is unique). The State of referred to the initial 1996 GEIS. The NRC 141, 167–68 (2011) quoting Hydro Resources, Inc.,
California also submitted a petition, PRM–51–12, in published a notice of issuance for the updated 2013 CLI–99–22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (alteration in the
2007 that was nearly identical to PRM–51–10. The GEIS on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37325). original) (supporting citations omitted) (‘‘To merit
NRC denied PRM–51–10 and PRM–51–12 on 5 See Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 this additional review, information must be both
August 8, 2008 (73 FR 46204). The NRC’s denials U.S. 87, 100–01, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983) (upholds ‘new’ and ‘significant,’ and it must bear on the
of these two petitions were upheld. New York v. use of generic environmental analyses) and proposed action or its impacts. As we have
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 589 F.3d 551 Massachusetts v. NRC, 708 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir. explained, ‘[t]he new information must present a
(2nd Cir. 2009). The arguments presented in 2013) (‘‘the Supreme Court has held that the NRC seriously different picture of the environmental
support of PRM–51–10 are similar to those is permitted to make generic determinations to meet impact of the proposed project from what was
presented in support of this petition. its NEPA obligations’’). Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:54 Sep 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM 03SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_53437/page/2.svg)
![53268 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 171 / Thursday, September 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
‘‘significant,’’ any information must lead The accident at the Fukushima Dai- Issue 1: The Petitioner Asserts That the
to a conclusion seriously different than ichi NPP in Japan led to additional Impacts From the Onsite Storage of
that currently set forth in the GEIS.7 questions about the safe storage of spent Spent Fuel Are Understated in the
The petitioner claimed that the fuel and whether the NRC should License Renewal GEIS Analysis Because
Fukushima nuclear accident, including require the expedited transfer of spent the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Event Indicates
possible damage to the SFP, provides fuel from spent fuel pools to dry cask That the Probability-Weighted
new and significant information that storage at nuclear power plants in the Consequences of a Spent Fuel Pool
requires the NRC to reconsider its United States. This issue was identified Accident Are Greater Than What Was
impact findings in the license renewal Considered in the GEIS
by the NRC staff subsequent to the
GEIS. With respect to the March 2011 The petitioner argued that the
‘‘Near-Term Task Force [NTTF] Review
Fukushima accident, a Japanese Fukushima event provided new and
government report, issued in June 2011, of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident’’ report. At the time this issue significant information challenging the
found that the Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit generic conclusions in the license
4 spent fuel pool, the one believed to was identified, the NRC staff recognized
that further study was needed to renewal GEIS. Specifically, the
have sustained the most serious damage, petitioner claimed that ‘‘the Fukushima
actually remained ‘‘nearly determine if regulatory action was
warranted. On October 9, 2013, the NRC accident shows . . . there is a
undamaged.’’ 8 The report noted that substantial conditional probability of a
visual inspections found no water leaks released a report, NUREG–2161,
pool fire during or following a reactor
or serious damage to the Unit 4 spent ‘‘Consequence Study of a Beyond-
accident’’ and that ‘‘[t]his relationship
fuel pool. Additionally, on April 25, Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the between a pool fire and a core melt
2014, the NRC issued a report entitled, Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I accident is not addressed in the License
‘‘NRC Overview of the Structural Boiling Water Reactor’’ (the ‘‘Spent Fuel Renewal GEIS’’ or the denial of PRM
Integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool at Pool Study’’). Additionally, the NRC 51–10 (73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008).11
Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4.’’ The conducted a regulatory analysis in Further, the petitioner referenced a
results indicated that the structural COMSECY–13–0030, ‘‘Staff Evaluation report by Dr. Gordon Thompson, ‘‘New
integrity of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool and Recommendation for Japan Lessons and Significant Information from the
was sound. Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident in the
With respect to the Fukushima event,
Transfer of Spent Fuel,’’ dated Context of Future Operation of the
the Commission has taken action to
November 12, 2013. This study and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant’’ (the
mitigate beyond design basis external
regulatory analysis concluded that SFPs ‘‘Thompson Report’’), to support its
events, including imposing new
are very robust structures with large argument that the GEIS understates the
requirements to develop mitigating
safety margins, and that regulatory probability and impacts of an SFP
strategies for beyond design basis
actions to reduce the amount of fuel in accident.
external events, to install hardened
severe accident capable vents for boiling the spent fuel pool were not warranted. NRC Response to Issue 1
water reactors with Mark I and II The Commission subsequently
The evaluation of the environmental
containments, to install reliable SFP concluded in SRM–COMSECY–13– impacts of the onsite storage of spent
water level instrumentation, to re- 0030, issued on May 23, 2014, that nuclear fuel during the license renewal
evaluate seismic and flooding hazards, further regulatory action need not be term, including potential spent fuel pool
and to enhance emergency preparedness pursued in light of the low risk of accidents, was documented in the 1996
capabilities.9 accident for SFP storage. GEIS and reaffirmed in the 2013 GEIS.
As will be discussed in more detail in Based on this evaluation, the ‘‘Onsite
previously envisioned’.’’); see also Sierra Club v. storage of spent nuclear fuel’’ NEPA
Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir. 1987) response to Issues 1 and 2, the event at
(alteration added) (supporting citations omitted) Fukushima Dai-ichi does not provide issue in table B–1 has been classified as
(‘‘In making its determination whether to any new and significant information a Category 1 issue, or as a generic issue,
supplement an existing EIS because of new with a probability-weighted impact
information, the [United States Army, Corps of that would have materially altered the
Engineers] should consider ‘the extent to which the conclusions in the GEIS, or in its level finding of ‘‘small.’’ 12
new information presents a picture of the likely First, the petitioners’ assertion that
underlying assumptions.10
environmental consequences associated with the the Fukushima event revealed a
proposed action not envisioned by the original In the petition, the Commonwealth previously unconsidered aspect of spent
EIS’.’’); Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 412, 418 raises three principal arguments; each is fuel storage is incorrect. In response to
(7th Cir.1984) (supplementation required where
new information ‘‘provides a seriously different
summarized and evaluated in the PRM–51–10, the Commission rejected a
picture of the environmental landscape.’’). subsequent discussion. similar argument regarding the
7 See Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, probability ‘‘that a severe accident at the
Preparation of Supplemental Environmental
Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power 11 PRM at 27.
Plant Operating Licenses, Chapter 5 (September were issued on March 12, 2012, to NPP licensees
12 For most table B–1 NEPA issues, the NRC
2000), and Revision 1 published June 20, 2013 (78 for seismic/flooding re-evaluations and assessing
determined whether the impacts of license renewal
FR 37324). emergency response capabilities.
would have a small, moderate, or large
8 See ‘‘Report of Japanese Government to the 10 While the ASLB and Commission were
environmental impact. The statements of
IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety-The principally concerned with the petitioner’s claims consideration for the June 20, 2013, rulemaking
Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power regarding reactor accidents, not SFP accidents (both note that ‘‘[a] small impact means that the
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Stations,’’ IV–91. English version available at were held to be out of scope of the Pilgrim NPP environmental effects are not detectable, or are so
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/ license renewal process), the condition of the SFP minor that they would neither destabilize nor
iaea_houkokusho_e.html, last visited on July 15, noticeably alter any important attribute of the
at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, did not support the
2015. resource. A moderate impact means that the
9 Order EA–12–051, ‘‘NRC Order on Spent Fuel petitioner’s position that impacts from the
environmental effects are sufficient to alter
Pool Instrumentation,’’ dated March 12, 2012; Order earthquake constituted new and significant
noticeably, but not destabilize, important attributes
EA–12–049, ‘‘NRC Order on Mitigating Strategies,’’ information. In LBP–11–35, the ASLB observed that of the resource. A large impact means that the
dated March 12, 2012; Order EA–13–109, ‘‘NRC the event at Fukushima did not demonstrate new environmental effects would be clearly noticeable
Order on Severe Accident Capable Hardened and significant information in the Pilgrim NPP and would be sufficient to destabilize important
Vents,’’ dated June 6, 2013; 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters license renewal proceeding. attributes of the resource’’ (78 FR 37285).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:54 Sep 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM 03SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_53437/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 171 / Thursday, September 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 53269
adjacent reactor would result in a SFP also makes conforming changes to the the structural integrity of the Unit 4
zirconium fire.’’ 13 The Commission ‘‘Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’ spent fuel pool was sound.
noted that a series of unlikely events issue finding under the ‘‘Waste Consequently, the petitioners have not
must occur for a severe reactor accident Management’’ section in table B–1 in shown that the Fukushima event
to lead to a spent fuel pool fire, appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part constitutes new and significant
including the accident itself, 51. The final rule revises the finding to information regarding the probability of
‘‘[c]ontainment failure or bypass,’’ address both the impacts of onsite a SFP fire. For the reasons discussed
‘‘[l]oss of SFP cooling,’’ ‘‘[e]xtreme storage during the license renewal term previously, the PRM does not provide a
radiation levels precluding personnel and adds generic determinations of the seriously different picture of the
access,’’ ‘‘[i]nability to restart cooling or environmental impacts of continued agency’s previous analyses of a spent
makeup systems due to extreme storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a fuel pool accident, which have all
radiation doses,’’ ‘‘[l]oss of most or all reactor’s licensed life (i.e., those impacts concluded that despite the potential for
pool water through evaporation,’’ and that could occur as a result of the large consequences of a severe spent
‘‘[i]nitiation of a zirconium fire in the storage of spent nuclear fuel at at-reactor fuel pool accident, the probability-
SFP.’’ 14 As a result, the Commission or away-from-reactor sites after a reactor weighted consequences are small due to
concluded that ‘‘the probability of a SFP has permanently shut down and until a the low probability of such an event.
zirconium fire due to a severe reactor permanent repository becomes
accident and subsequent containment available). The continued storage final Issue 2: The Petitioner Asserts That the
failure would be well below the rule affirms that the environmental Impacts From the Onsite Storage of
Petitioners’ 2E–5 per year estimate.’’ 15 impacts from the onsite storage of spent Spent Fuel Are Understated in the
The agency cited the denial of the PRM nuclear fuel, including potential spent License Renewal GEIS Analysis Because
in the 2013 update to the GEIS.16 fuel pool accidents, are small during the the Mitigation Measures Implemented
Therefore, the Commission has short-term storage timeframe (i.e., 60 After the September 11, 2001 (9/11),
previously considered the probability of years of continued storage after Terrorist Attacks Will Not Effectively
a severe reactor accident causing a spent permanent shut down, after which the Mitigate the Impacts of SFP Accidents,
fuel pool fire and found it to be low. continued storage rule assumes that Given the New Information Gained
Petitioners have not demonstrated how spent fuel will be moved to dry storage). From the Fukushima Accident Along
information regarding the Fukushima This finding is consistent with the With the NRC’s Policy of Imposing
accident provides a seriously different finding of the license renewal GEIS. Secrecy on the Mitigation Measures, and
picture of this issue. Further, the Commission stated in the the Mitigation Measures Were
Moreover, the NRC has completed final rule that the direct and indirect Improperly Relied Upon in the Denial of
several studies of SFP safety, including environmental impacts of continued PRM–51–10 (73 FR 46204)
NUREG–1353, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis for storage can be analyzed generically and
the Resolution of Generic Issue 82, The petitioner claimed that
that the impact determinations are not
‘Beyond Design Basis Accidents in information about the Fukushima
expected to differ from those that would
Spent Fuel Pools’;’’ NUREG–1738, accident undermines the following two
result from individual site-specific
‘‘Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool reviews for the continued storage conclusions from the Commission’s
Accident Risk at Decommissioning period. In reaching this result, the denial of PRM–51–10 (73 FR 46204;
Nuclear Power Plants;’’ and NUREG– agency responded to a comment that August 8, 2008): (1) Post-9/11 mitigation
2161, ‘‘Consequence Study of a Beyond- suggested that the underlying analyses measures relied upon by the NRC would
Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the did not appropriately account for the permit recovery of lost water from spent
Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I possibility of a severe reactor accident fuel pools, and (2) the NRC’s policy of
Boiling-Water Reactor.’’ These studies leading to a spent fuel pool accident.17 imposing secrecy on these mitigation
have all concluded that SFPs continue The NRC disagreed with this comment, measures would not impair their
to provide adequate protection of public in part, based on the conservative effectiveness. With regard to the first
health and safety and are consistent aspects of the agency’s previous studies claim, the petitioner argued that lessons
with the findings in the 2013 GEIS that of SFP accidents.18 learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
onsite storage of spent fuel during the As previously discussed, a report event undermine the Commission’s
license renewal term would have a issued by the Japanese government in reliance on post-9/11 mitigation
small impact on the environment. June 2011 found that the SFP at measures that enable recovery of lost
On September 19, 2014, the Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, the SFP water from SFPs to prevent the onset of
Commission published the ‘‘continued which presented the highest safety fire or other accidents, and that
storage’’ final rule (formerly known as concern among the SFPs, remained therefore, the Commission’s denial of
the ‘‘waste confidence rule,’’ 79 FR nearly undamaged. This report notes PRM–51–10 must be reconsidered. With
56238) and its associated generic that from the analysis of nuclides in the regard to the second claim, the
environmental impact statement water extracted from the spent fuel pool, petitioner referenced statements in a
(NUREG–2157, ‘‘Generic Environmental it appears that no extensive damage declaration provided by Dr. Gordon
Impact Statement for Continued Storage occurred to the fuel rods. No serious Thompson that the ‘‘NRC’s excessive
of Spent Nuclear Fuel’’), amending 10 damage to the pool, including water secrecy degrades the licensee’s
CFR 51.23 to revise the generic leaks, was found from visual capability to mitigate an accident.’’ The
determination on the environmental inspections of the pool’s condition. petitioner asserted that by keeping the
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
impacts of continued storage of spent Additionally, on April 25, 2014, the post-9/11 mitigation measures secret,
nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for NRC issued a report entitled, ‘‘NRC ‘‘the NRC also raises the risk that first-
operation of a reactor. The final rule Overview of the Structural Integrity of responders from the surrounding
the Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima Dai- community, who may be called upon to
13 73 FR at 46210. ichi, Unit 4.’’ The results indicated that assist in the implementation of [the
14 Id. mitigation measures], will not have
15 Id. 17 NUREG–2161 at D–438 to D–440. sufficient understanding of them to
16 2013 GEIS at E–38. 18 Id. implement them effectively.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:54 Sep 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM 03SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_53437/page/4.svg)
![53272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 171 / Thursday, September 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ADAMS Accession Number/Federal Register
Document Citation/URL
Federal Register notice—PRM–51–29, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Supplemental Infor- 77 FR 76952.
mation, December 31, 2012.
Federal Register notice—Revisions to Environmental Review of Renewal of Nuclear Power 78 FR 37282.
Plant Operating Licenses Final Rule, June 20, 2013.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG– ML13107A023.
1437, Revision 1 (Volumes 1–3), June 21, 2013.
LBP–11–35, Memorandum and Order, denial of waiver in Pilgrim adjudicatory proceeding, De- ML11332A152.
cember 13, 2011.
NEI 06–12, ‘‘B.5.b Phases 2 & 3 Submittal Guideline, Revision 2,’’ Project 689, December 14, ML070090060.
2006.
NRC Overview of the Structural Integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Unit 4, ML14111A099.
April 25, 2014.
NUREG–1353, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue 82, ‘Beyond Design ML082330232.
Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools,’ ’’ April 30, 1989.
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear ML13107A023.
Plants’’ (2013 GEIS), June 20, 2013.
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear ML040690705, ML040690738.
Plants’’ (1996 GEIS; Volumes 1 and 2), May 31, 1996.
NUREG–1738, ‘‘Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nu- ML010430066.
clear Power Plants,’’ S102686, February 28, 2001.
NUREG–2157, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nu- ML14196A105, ML14196A107.
clear Fuel’’.
NUREG–2161, ‘‘Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent ML14255A365.
Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling-Water Reactor’’ (Spent Fuel Pool Study), October 9, 2013.
Order EA–12–049, NRC Order on Mitigating Strategies, March 12, 2012 .................................... ML12054A735.
Order EA–12–051, NRC Order on Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation, March 12, 2012 ................. ML12056A044.
Order EA–13–109, NRC Order on Severe Accident Capable Hardened Vents, June 6, 2013 ..... ML13143A321.
PRM–51–10, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, August 25, 2006 ............................................... ML062640409.
PRM–51–29, from Mathew Brock, Commonwealth Of Mass. Petition for Waiver of C.F.R. Part ML12254A005.
51 Subpart A, Appendix B or In Alternative Petition For Rulemaking to Rescind Regulations
Excluding Consideration Of Spent Fuel Storage Impacts, June 2, 2011.
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, ‘‘Preparation of Environmental Reports for ML13067A354.
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications,’’ June 20, 2013.
Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety—The http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/
Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations, June 2011. 201106/iaea_houkokusho_e.html.
Sandia Letter Report, Revision 2, Mitigation of Spent Fuel Pool Loss-of-Coolant Inventory Acci- ML120970086.
dents And Extension of Reference Plant Analyses to Other Spent Fuel Pools, November 30,
2006.
Sandia Report: MELCOR 1.8.5 Separate Effect Analysis of Spent Fuel Assembly Accident Re- ML062290362.
sponse, June 30, 2003.
SECY–04–0191, ‘‘Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power ML042310663.
Reactors From Public Disclosure,’’ October 19, 2004.
SECY–11–0125, ‘‘Issuance of Bulletin 2011–01, ‘‘Mitigating Strategies,’’ September 12, 2011 ... ML111250360.
SRM–COMSECY–13–0030, Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned ML14143A360.
Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel, May 23, 2014.
The Thompson Report, ‘‘New And Significant Information From The Fukushima Daiichi Acci- ML12094A183.
dent In The Context Of Future Operation Of The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant,’’ June 1, 2011.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day Rule, which requires that eyecare written data, views, and arguments
of August, 2015. prescribers provide a copy of a concerning the Rule.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. consumer’s prescription to the DATES: Written comments must be
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, consumer upon completion of a contact received on or before October 26, 2015.
Secretary of the Commission. lens fitting and verify or provide
[FR Doc. 2015–21834 Filed 9–2–15; 8:45 am] prescriptions to authorized third parties. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a
comment at https://
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P The Rule also mandates that a contact
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
lens seller may sell contact lenses only
contactlensrule online or on paper, by
in accordance with a prescription that
following the instructions in the
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION the seller either: (a) Has received from Instructions for Submitting Comments
the patient or prescriber; or (b) has part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
16 CFR Part 315 verified through direct communication section below. Write ‘‘Contact Lens
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
with the prescriber. The Commission is Rule, 16 CFR part 315, Project No.
Contact Lens Rule soliciting comments about the R511995’’ on your comment, and file
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission efficiency, costs, benefits, and your comment online at https://
(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). regulatory impact of the Rule as part of ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
ACTION: Request for comment.
its systematic review of all current contactlensrule by following the
Commission regulations and guides. All instructions on the web-based form. If
SUMMARY: The Commission is requesting interested persons are hereby given you prefer to file your comment on
public comments on the Contact Lens notice of the opportunity to submit paper, write ‘‘Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:54 Sep 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM 03SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_53437/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 09:56:23
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 09:56:23
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Petition for rulemaking; denial. | |
| Dates | The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-51-29, is closed on September 3, 2015. | |
| Contact | Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; telephone: 301-415-2328; email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 53266 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR