[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48828-48832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23791]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 2, 50, 51, and 52
[Docket No. PRM-52-2]
Nuclear Energy Institute; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for
public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated
July 18, 2001, which was filed with the Commission by the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI). The petition was docketed by the NRC on July
24, 2001, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-52-2. The petition
requests that the NRC eliminate the requirement that an early site
permit applicant evaluate, and that the NRC review, alternative sites,
and remove provisions regarding the siting, construction, and operation
of nuclear power plants which require applicants and licensees to
analyze, and the NRC to evaluate, alternative sites, alternative energy
sources, and the need for power.
DATES: Submit comments by November 8, 2001. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration can only be given to comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking
website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site allows you to upload
comments as files in any format, if your web browser supports the
function. The petition and any public comments received are available
on the site. For information about the interactive rulemaking website,
contact Carol Gallagher at (301) 415-5905 or via e-mail at [email protected].
The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected, and
copied for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, (first floor) 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll-free: 1-800-368-5642. E-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for
rulemaking dated July 18, 2001, submitted by the Nuclear Energy
Institute (the petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on
July 24, 2001, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-52-2.
The Petitioner
The petitioner (the Nuclear Energy Institute or NEI) claims
representational responsibility for coordinating the combined efforts
of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear
power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all
matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and regulatory
aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the
nuclear power industry.
The Petitioner's Request
The petitioner believes that the NRC, in implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), has imposed requirements on
the content of environmental impact reviews that are unnecessary under
the statute, unduly burdensome to both industry and the NRC, and
outside the scope of the agency's mission. Specifically, the petitioner
requests that the NRC amend part 52, subpart A, Early Site Permits,
Secs. 52.17(a)(2) and 52.18, to remove provisions that the petitioner
believes are more appropriately dealt with through the application of
10 CFR part 51, National Environmental Policy Act--Regulations
Implementing Sec. 102(2). The petitioner further requests that the NRC
amend 10 CFR part 51 and revise associated NRC regulations and guidance
regarding the siting, construction, operation, and license renewal of
nuclear power plants (e.g., 10 CFR part 51, appendix A to subpart A) to
remove the requirement for applicants and licensees to conduct an
analysis of and for the NRC to evaluate alternative sites, alternative
sources of energy, and the need for power. The petitioner emphasizes
that its proposed amendments would not affect any other required
reviews of matters pertinent to
[[Page 48829]]
the NRC's responsibilities (e.g., seismology, hydrology, meteorology,
endangered species, water use, thermal discharges).
The petitioner contends that although NEPA requires consideration
of ``alternatives'' to proposed actions, it does not specifically
require alternative site reviews. The petitioner cites several NRC
regulations that specify that an alternative site review must be
conducted, including 10 CFR 2.101(a)(3)(ii), 2.101(a-1)(1),
2.603(b)(1), 2.605(b)(1), 52.17(a)(2), and 52.18; 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix Q.2 and 7; 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix Q.2 and 7. Similarly, the
petitioner claims that NEPA does not specifically require an analysis
of alternative sources of energy or of the need for power. However, the
NRC's implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 51 currently require that
those matters be addressed. General guidance on how environmental
reviews are to be conducted is provided in Regulatory Guide 4.2,
``Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants'' (July
1976), and in NUREG-1555, ``Environmental Standard Review Plan'' (March
2000), which, the petitioner notes, also call for a review of
alternative sites, alternative energy sources, and need for power.
The petitioner contends that the NRC has the statutory authority to
revise its regulations to eliminate the NRC's review of such issues.
The petitioner also cites a February 28, 2001, letter from NRC Chairman
Meserve to Senator Domenici, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which
states that the evaluation of alternative sites, alternative sources of
power, and the need for generating capacity are matters ``that are
distant from NRC's mission.'' The petitioner argues that the Commission
can and should conclude that, because of the fundamental changes that
have occurred in the electricity market, these reviews are no longer
required in the NRC's implementation of NEPA.
Justification for the Petition
NEPA Requirements
The petitioner begins by reviewing the provisions of NEPA and their
application in NRC proceedings concerning the siting, construction, and
operation of nuclear power plants. The petitioner notes that Section
102(2)(C) of NEPA requires Federal agencies, as part of the decision-
making process, to prepare an analysis weighing the environmental costs
and benefits of all ``major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.'' The ``detailed statement'' that the
agency is required to prepare and publicly disclose must evaluate: the
environmental impacts of the proposed action; any adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
alternatives to the proposed action; the relationship between local
short term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement
of long term productivity; and any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources that would be involved if the proposed action
were to be implemented.
The petitioner further notes that the environmental report
submitted with an application requesting NRC action serves as the basis
for the NRC's evaluation of the environmental impacts of major agency
decisions--e.g., to issue or deny a permit or license as applied for,
or to impose terms or conditions upon a permit or license in light of
the NEPA review.
The Role of State and Local Governments
The petitioner then addresses the relative jurisdictions of the NRC
and State and local governments with respect to the location,
construction, and operation of electric power plants. The petitioner
points out that the NRC's licensing process does not change the
division of authority between the Federal Government and the States
over the siting of electric generating facilities. The petitioner
argues that an NRC license or permit constitutes approval of a site or
plant only under the Federal statutes and regulations administered by
the NRC, not under other applicable laws. By way of example, the
petitioner notes that individual State laws may require a State
determination of the need for power and an evaluation of alternative
energy sources, or may require the issuance of a certificate of public
convenience and necessity, as well as various environmental permits.
The petitioner further notes that local zoning laws may control how a
potential site is used.
Legal and Regulatory Basis of State Primacy. The petitioner claims
that Section 271 of the Atomic Energy Act explicitly preserves State
authority over the generation, sale, and transmission of electric power
produced by nuclear plants (42 U.S.C. sec. 2018). The petitioner says
that, based on this provision and clear Congressional intent, the
Supreme Court has held that States have jurisdiction over ``the need
for additional generating capacity, the type of generating capacity to
be licensed, land use, ratemaking, and the like'' (Pacific Gas &
Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Comm., 461 U.S. 190, 1983).
According to the petitioner, the NRC itself explicitly recognized
the limited extent of its authority in the evaluation of alternatives
in Footnote 4 to 10 CFR 51.71(e), Preliminary Recommendation, which
reads: ``The consideration of reasonable alternatives to a proposed
action involving nuclear power reactors (e.g., alternative energy
sources) is intended to assist the NRC in meeting its NEPA obligations
and does not preclude any State authority from making separate
determinations with respect to these alternatives and in no way
preempts, displaces, or affects the authority of States or other
Federal agencies to address these issues.''
Persistent State Concerns about the License Renewal Process. The
petitioner claims that many States nonetheless expressed concern that
the NRC's findings in license renewal proceedings, even though not
legally dispositive, would establish an official Federal position that
would be difficult to rebut in State proceedings. Specifically, the
States expressed concern that the NRC's consideration of the need for
power and alternative energy sources in the license renewal Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG 1437, Chapters 8 and 9), and
associated proposed amendments to part 51, would infringe on State
jurisdiction over economic regulation of electric utilities.
The NRC's Response to State Concerns. The petitioner states that
the NRC issued a supplement to its proposed license renewal rule in
order to address the States' concerns and respond to questions raised
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Council for
Environmental Quality. The petitioner says that this supplement
addressed whether, under NEPA, the NRC could and should remove from its
consideration issues over which States have primary jurisdiction. The
petitioner claims that in the supplement the NRC, having reconsidered
its NEPA responsibilities with respect to license renewal, correctly
(1) recognized the primacy of State regulatory decisions regarding
future energy options, (2) acknowledged that the choice of energy
options will be made by the electricity generating company, and (3)
stated that the purpose of the major Federal action in license renewal
proceedings is ``* * * to preserve the option of continued operation of
the nuclear power plant for State regulatory and utility officials in
their future energy planning decisions.''
[[Page 48830]]
The Major Federal Action in License Renewal Proceedings. The
petitioner emphasizes that the NRC concluded in this supplement that
the proposed major Federal action in license renewal proceedings does
not involve deciding whether the plant seeking license renewal is at
the best possible site or whether there is or will be a need for the
power generated by the plant. The petitioner says that the NRC's
definition of the proposed Federal action in the supplement accurately
reflects what is really at issue in license renewal proceedings,
namely, the establishment of a stable and predictable regulatory
approach to determining whether the option of nuclear power as a source
of generating capacity at a given site can be considered in future
State energy planning decisions. The petitioner concludes that the NRC
can reasonably consider only two basic alternatives in such
proceedings: the agency may either renew the license and preserve the
nuclear option at that particular site, or decline to renew the license
(59 FR 37725; July 25, 1994).
The petitioner concedes that the NRC decided to examine alternative
sources of future generating capacity as part of its NEPA review in the
license renewal context. The petitioner believes that the NRC should
reconsider that decision on the grounds that it is fundamentally
inconsistent with related NRC decisions.
Application of NEPA to the Siting, Construction, and Operation of
Nuclear Power Plants
The petitioner believes that future plants will be licensed under
Part 52, but stresses that the elimination of NRC requirements
concerning need for power, alternative sources and alternative sites is
appropriate regardless of whether plants are licensed under Part 52 or
Part 50, and asks that its analysis be read accordingly.
The Role of Early Site Permits. The provisions of Subpart A of 10
CFR part 52 apply to applicants seeking an early site permit (ESP)
separate from an application for a construction permit or a combined
license for a nuclear power plant. According to the petitioner, the
basic purpose of Subpart A, consistent with all of Part 52, is to
resolve all site suitability issues in a licensing proceeding as early
as possible, before large commitments of resources are made. The
petitioner states that the importance of raising and resolving all
environmental issues as part of the ESP proceeding is recognized in 10
CFR 52.39(a)(2), Finality of early site permit determinations, which
reads in part: ``In making the findings required for the issuance of a
construction permit, operating license, or combined license, or the
findings required by Sec. 52.103 of this part, if the application for
the construction permit, operating license, or combined license
references an early site permit, the Commission shall treat as resolved
those matters resolved in a proceeding on the application for issuance
or renewal of an early site permit * * *'' (emphasis added by the
petitioner).
NEPA Review in 10 CFR Part 52. The petitioner states that, at the
time Part 52 was promulgated, the NRC staff felt it was necessary to
include language that further refined its interpretation of the scope
of the agency's NEPA review. The petitioner says that the first change
clarified that a need-for-power analysis need not be included in the
environmental report that is part of the early site permit (ESP)
application, but could be deferred until the combined license (COL)
stage. The second change related to performing an alternative site
analysis. According to the petitioner, because early site permitting is
a siting decision, the NRC revised Part 52 to state explicitly that an
alternative site analysis was necessary at the ESP stage to determine
if there is an ``obviously superior'' (Sec. 52.18) alternative to the
site proposed. As a result, 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2) and 52.18 provide that
the environmental report for an ESP need not include an assessment of
the need for power, but must include an evaluation of alternative
sites.
The petitioner contends that the provisions of Part 52 relative to
alternative site reviews are based on an interpretation of NEPA that is
neither necessary, nor desirable, nor reflective of the evolving
electricity marketplace.
Definition of the Major Federal Action in ESP and COL Proceedings.
The petitioner notes that, in the context of an ESP, the proposed
``major Federal action'' is the granting of a permit for a site for one
or more nuclear power plants. To actually build and operate one or more
nuclear plants on that site, an applicant must also obtain a combined
license (COL). In a COL proceeding, the petitioner says, the proposed
``major Federal action'' is the approval to build and subsequently
operate a particular nuclear plant at a specified site. If the COL
references an ESP, the site approval is already established, and the
site suitability issue reduces to whether the proposed nuclear power
plant(s) fit within the ESP's environmental envelope. The petitioner
claims that, if the COL applicant does not reference an ESP, the
``major Federal action'' with respect to approving the specified site
is the same as for an ESP. The petitioner emphasizes that in none of
these cases (i.e., ESP or COL with or without a referenced ESP) is the
proposed action a matter of deciding whether there is a need for power,
whether an applicant should select a different site, or which of
various possible sources of electric generating capacity best meets the
State's or the region's needs, provides the most economic electricity
to ratepayers, or is environmentally most benign.
The Applicant's Goal. The petitioner contends that its proposal to
eliminate consideration of such alternatives by the NRC is based on a
fundamental principle of NEPA law, namely, that an agency need only
consider alternatives that will accomplish the applicant's goal. The
petitioner says that the ESP applicant's goal is to determine whether
the proposed site satisfies statutory and NRC regulatory requirements
as a suitable location for a nuclear power plant. Similarly, the
petitioner says, the goal of a COL applicant is to determine whether
the proposed plant satisfies applicable safety and environmental
requirements, including the criteria established in any referenced ESP.
The petitioner therefore concludes that the only site suitability issue
before the NRC in either an ESP or COL proceeding is whether that site
is suitable for one or more nuclear facilities. Thus, alternative sites
are not ``reasonable alternatives'' under NEPA and need not be
addressed in ESP and COL applications.
Under NEPA, the NRC must consider the no-action alternative and any
actions that could mitigate the environmental impact of the proposed
plant. The petitioner argues that, beyond this, the NRC must consider
only those alternatives that serve the purpose for which an applicant
is seeking approval, and, according to the petitioner, there are none.
ESP and COL applicants, the petitioner reiterates, seek to obtain a
determination on whether the proposed site and facilities meet all
applicable NRC requirements, not a decision as to whether one or more
nuclear facilities should, or will, be built, nor how or how much or
where electricity should be generated in the future. In the
petitioner's view it is unnecessary and inappropriate both for the NRC
to require applicants to conduct a NEPA analysis of such issues, and
for the agency to expend its own limited resources to evaluate possible
alternative sources of electricity, alternative sites, or the need for
power.
Agency Discretion under NEPA. The petitioner maintains that each
Federal
[[Page 48831]]
agency considering a major proposed action is charged with determining
what alternatives are reasonable and should be considered under NEPA.
According to the petitioner, the fact that the NRC modified the scope
of its NEPA review in license renewal proceedings is evidence that the
agency also has the authority to determine what matters are pertinent
to NEPA evaluation of applications to site and build new nuclear power
plants.
Limits of NRC's Authority. The petitioner further claims that, if
the NRC were to deny an application for reasons related to alternative
sites or alternative energy sources, the applicant would not be
required to use either the alternative site or the alternative energy
source recommended by the agency. In fact, the petitioner says, the
applicant would be free to develop a different alternative energy
source at another site, which might result in a greater environmental
impact than the nuclear power plant originally proposed. In such a
case, the petitioner argues, the NRC's denial of the permit or license
would, in the name of protecting the environment, actually defeat the
purpose of NEPA review.
Summary. In summary, the petitioner maintains that the NRC, as part
of its NEPA analysis, is not legally obligated, and thus should not
attempt, to reach any conclusions related to alternative sites,
alternative sources of power, or the need for power. The petitioner
believes that the NRC demonstrated the proper use of its discretion
when it altered its understanding of the ``major Federal action'' in
the license renewal context, with a consequent, appropriate change in
NRC's requirements for NEPA analyses. The petitioner argues that the
NRC should similarly exercise that discretion to circumscribe its NEPA
analysis requirements in Parts 50 and 52.
Changes in the Electricity Marketplace Since the 1970's
The petitioner maintains that, while NEPA has never required these
analyses, the electric utility structure in the 1970's was such that a
typical environmental review associated with the siting, construction
and operation of a nuclear power plant included an evaluation of the
need for additional generating capacity, alternative sites, and
alternative sources of energy. The petitioner notes that, in the
1970's, the typical applicant for a nuclear power plant was an electric
utility that was regulated by a State public utility commission. As a
regulated electric utility, the applicant also had the legal authority
to exercise the power of eminent domain to build generating facilities
and any necessary supporting infrastructure. In the petitioner's view,
many licensing decisions and judicial determinations based on the NRC's
interpretation of its responsibilities under NEPA, and corresponding
NRC regulations and practices, were adopted in response to this
particular historical context.
Effects of Deregulation. The petitioner notes that dramatic changes
have occurred in the electric power industry over the past thirty
years, most notably resulting from the passage of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 and resultant actions by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission imposing open access transmission requirements on
electricity transmission providers. Today, the petitioner contends, any
new nuclear power plant is likely to be constructed and operated by an
unregulated merchant generator operating in a competitive marketplace.
The petitioner believes that a merchant generator will not build and
operate a plant unless there is a need for the proposed additional
generating capacity or the proposed facility will generate electricity
at a lower cost than its competitors. The petitioner contends that a
merchant generator will not build and operate a nuclear power plant if
there is a superior alternative source of energy. According to the
petitioner, in States where utilities are still subject to regulation,
the situation described relative to license renewal will be directly
applicable. The petitioner argues that, given all of these factors, it
is not reasonable to believe that a nuclear power plant will be built
in today's environment absent a need for power or some other benefit.
The petitioner further maintains that it is not reasonable to
assume that the NRC would be able to identify an alternative site or
alternative energy source that is both feasible and preferable to the
choices made by a merchant generator. Because the consideration of
alternatives under NEPA is subject to a rule of reason, the petitioner
believes that NEPA does not compel the NRC to consider these factors in
today's environment. The petitioner maintains that deregulation at the
State level has fundamentally altered both the marketplace for
electricity and the makeup of electricity generating companies, and
argues that the NRC's regulatory framework for implementing NEPA should
be revised accordingly.
The Petitioner's Conclusion
The petitioner concludes that, given the dramatic effect of State
deregulation on electricity markets and generators, the NRC should
reevaluate its implementation of NEPA. The petitioner maintains that
the ``major Federal action'' in NRC proceedings should be described
solely in terms of evaluating the suitability of siting, constructing
or operating one or more nuclear power plants at a proposed site in
accordance with the NRC's responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act.
The ``reasonable alternatives'' that must be considered under NEPA
should, in turn, be defined by reference to this circumscribed
understanding of the major Federal action at issue. The petitioner
further argues that limited NRC, industry and other stakeholder
resources should not be expended on matters that are more appropriately
and effectively dealt with by State and local regulators. Given the
dictates of NEPA as they apply to the decisions to be made under 10 CFR
parts 50 and 52, the petitioner believes that the NRC need not, and
therefore as a matter of policy should not, conduct any evaluation of
alternative sites, alternative energy sources, or need for power.
The petitioner contends that the foregoing reasons support its
request to eliminate the Part 52 requirements for applicants to submit,
and for NRC to review, information on alternative sites. The petitioner
maintains that 10 CFR parts 2, 50 and 51 should be similarly modified
to eliminate provisions which require applicants requesting NRC
approval to site, build and operate nuclear power plants to submit, and
the NRC to review, information concerning the need for power,
alternative sources and alternative sites.
The petitioner sets out a detailed series of proposed amendments.
These amendments are presented verbatim in appendix A to this notice of
receipt.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of September, 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Appendix A to This Notice of Receipt--The Nuclear Energy
Institute's Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 52 and 10 CFR Parts
2, 50, and 51
Proposed Modifications to 10 CFR Part 52
1. 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2) should be amended as follows: A complete
environmental report as required by 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50 must be
included in the application, provided, however, that such environmental
report must focus on the environmental effects of construction and
operation of a reactor.
[[Page 48832]]
2. 10 CFR 52.18 should be amended as follows: Applications filed
under this subpart will be reviewed according to the applicable
standards set out in 10 CFR part 50 and its appendices and part 100 as
they apply to applications for construction permits for nuclear power
plants. In particular, the Commission shall prepare an environmental
impact statement during a review of the application, in accordance with
applicable provisions of 10 CFR part 51, provided, however, that the
draft and final environmental impact statements prepared by the
Commission focus on the environmental effects of construction and
operation of a reactor, or reactors, which have characteristics that
fall within the postulated site parameters. The Commission shall
determine, after consultation with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, whether the information required of the applicant by
Sec. 52.17(b)(1) shows that there is no significant impediment to the
development of emergency plans, whether any major features of emergency
plan submitted by the applicant under Sec. 52.17(b)(2)(i) are
acceptable, and whether any emergency plans submitted by the applicant
under Section 52.17(b)(2)(ii) provide reasonable assurance that
adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a
radiological emergency.
Proposed Modifications to 10 CFR Parts 2, 50 and 51
1. 10 CFR 2.101(a-1)(1) should be amended as follows: Part one
shall include or be accompanied by any information required by
Secs. 50.34(a)(1) and 50.30(f) of this chapter which relates to the
issue(s) of site suitability for which an early review, hearing and
partial decision are sought, except that information with respect to
operation of the facility at the projected initial power level need not
be supplied, and shall include the information required by Secs. 50.33
(a) through (e) and 50.37 of this chapter. The information submitted
shall also include: (i) Proposed findings on the issues of site
suitability on which the applicant has requested review and a statement
of the bases or the reasons for those findings, and (ii) a range of
postulated facility design and operation parameters that is sufficient
to enable the Commission to perform the requested review of site
suitability issues under the applicable provisions of parts 50, 51 and
100.
2. 10 CFR 2.603(b)(1) should be amended as follows: The Director of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation will accept for docketing an application for
a construction permit for a utilization facility which is subject to
Sec. 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type specified in
Sec. 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec. 50.22 or is a testing facility where
part one of the application as described in Sec. 2.101(a-1) is
complete. Part one of any application will not be considered complete
unless it contains proposed findings as required by Sec. 2.101(a-
1)(1)(i). Upon assignment of a docket number, the procedures in
Sec. 2.101(a)(3) and (4) relating to formal docketing and the
submission and distribution of additional copies of the application
shall be followed.
3. 10 CFR 2.605(b)(1) should be deleted in its entirety.
4. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Q.2 and 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix Q.2
(which are essentially identical) should be amended as follows: The
submittal for early review of site suitability issue(s) must be made in
the same manner and in the same number of copies as provided in
Secs. 50.4 and 50.30 for license applications. The submittal must
include sufficient information concerning a range of postulated
facility design and operation parameters to enable the Staff to perform
the requested review of site suitability issues. The submittal must
contain suggested conclusions on the issues of site suitability
submitted for review and must be accompanied by a statement of the
bases or the reasons for those conclusions.
5. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Q.7(a) and 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix
Q.7(a) (which are identical) should be deleted in their entirety.
6. The following sentence should be added to the end of 10 CFR
51.45(c): No discussion of need for power, alternative energy sources,
or alternative sites for the facility is required in this report.
7. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) should be amended as follows: * * * In
addition, the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental
impacts of alternatives and any other matters described in Sec. 51.45.
The report is not required to include discussion of alternative sites,
alternative energy sources, or need for power or the economic costs and
economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the
proposed action except insofar as such costs and benefits are either
essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative
in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation * *
*.
8. The following sentence should be added after the first sentence
of 10 CFR 51.71(d): No discussion of need for power, or of alternative
energy sources, or of alternative sites for the facility will be
included in the draft environmental impact statement.
9. 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2) should be amended as follows: The
supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not
required to include discussion of alternative sites, alternative energy
sources, or need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits
of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except
insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a
determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of
alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. . . .
10. 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A.4 should be amended as follows:
Purpose of and need for action. The statement will briefly describe and
specify the need for the proposed action. The alternative of no action
will be discussed.
11. The following sentence should be added to the end of 10 CFR
part 51, appendix A.5: The consideration of alternatives will not
include an analysis of alternative sites or alternative energy sources.
12. Additionally, conforming changes should be made in 10 CFR
2.101(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.71 footnote 4.
13. Finally, NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2 and NUREG-1555 should be
modified to reflect the Commission's determination that alternative
sites, alternative sources of energy, and need for power are not to be
evaluated under 10 CFR part 51 provisions pertaining to the siting,
construction and operation of new nuclear power plants.
[FR Doc. 01-23791 Filed 9-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P