[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47960-47964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19587]
[[Page 47960]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-271; NRC-2015-0111]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of exemptions in response to a request from Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) that would permit the
licensee to reduce its emergency planning (EP) activities at the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee or VY). The
licensee is seeking exemptions that would eliminate the requirements
for the licensee to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency
plans, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities, based on the
reduced risks at VY, which is permanently shutdown and defueled.
However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate
and coordinate with offsite response authorities, in the event of an
emergency at VY, would be retained. In addition, offsite EP provisions
would still exist through State and local government use of a
comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) process in accordance
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Comprehensive
Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, ``Developing and Maintaining Emergency
Operations Plans.'' The NRC staff is issuing a final environmental
assessment (EA) and final finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
associated with the proposed exemptions.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on
August 10, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0111 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0111. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. For
the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided
in a table in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this
document.
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: James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-4125; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Vermont Yankee is a permanently shutdown and defueled nuclear power
plant that is in the process of decommissioning, and is located in
Windham County, Vermont, 5 miles south of Brattleboro, Vermont. Entergy
is the holder of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for
VY. Vermont Yankee has been shut down since December 29, 2014, and the
final removal of fuel from the VY reactor vessel was completed on
January 12, 2015. By letter dated January 12, 2015, Entergy submitted
to the NRC a certification of the permanent cessation of power
operations at VY and the permanent removal of fuel from the VY reactor
vessel. As a permanently shutdown and defueled facility, and pursuant
to section 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), VY is no longer authorized to be operated or to have fuel
placed into its reactor vessel, but the licensee is still authorized to
possess and store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated nuclear fuel is
currently stored onsite at VY in a spent fuel pool (SFP) and in an
independent spent fuel storage installation.
The licensee has requested exemptions for VY from certain EP
requirements in 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities.'' The NRC regulations concerning EP do not
recognize the reduced risks after a reactor is permanently shut down
and defueled. As such, a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor,
such as VY, must continue to maintain the same EP requirements as an
operating power reactor under the existing regulatory requirements. To
establish a level of EP commensurate with the reduced risks of a
permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, Entergy requires exemptions
from certain EP regulatory requirements before it can change its
emergency plans.
The NRC is considering issuing exemptions from portions of 10 CFR
50.47, ``Emergency plans,'' and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, ``Emergency
Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,''
to Entergy, which would eliminate the requirements for Entergy to
maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the
onsite EP activities, based on the reduced risks at VY, due to its
permanently shutdown and defueled status. According to the decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Brodsky v.
NRC associated with a fire protection exemption for Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, and demonstrated public interest in this
exemption request, particularly by the State of Vermont, on April 30,
2015 (80 FR 24291), the NRC published a Federal Register notice seeking
public comment, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33, on a draft EA and FONSI
associated with Entergy's exemption request. Based on the final EA and
the NRC staff's responses to the comments received on the draft EA, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for
the exemption request and is issuing a FONSI.
II. Environmental Assessment
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt Entergy from meeting certain
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and appendix E to 10 CFR part
50. More specifically, Entergy requested exemptions from: (1) Certain
requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency
response plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) certain requirements in
10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP
zones for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10
CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements
that make up the content of emergency plans. The
[[Page 47961]]
proposed action of granting these exemptions would eliminate the
requirements for Entergy to maintain formal offsite radiological
emergency plans, as described in 44 CFR part 350, and reduce some of
the onsite EP activities at VY, based on the reduced risks at the
permanently shutdown and defueled reactor. However, requirements for
certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite
response authorities, in the event of an emergency at VY, would be
retained. Additionally, if necessary, offsite protective actions could
still be implemented using a CEMP process. A CEMP in this context, also
referred to as an emergency operations plan (EOP), is addressed in
FEMA's CPG 101. The CPG 101 is the foundation for State, territorial,
Tribal, and local EP in the United States. It promotes a common
understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and
decision making, and helps planners at all levels of government in
their efforts to develop and maintain viable, all-hazards, all-threats
emergency plans. An EOP is flexible enough for use in all emergencies.
It describes how people and property will be protected; details
regarding who is responsible for carrying out specific actions;
identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other
resources available; and outlines the process by which all actions will
be coordinated. A CEMP is often referred to as a synonym for ``all-
hazards'' planning.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated March 14, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated
August 29, 2014, and October 21, 2014. In its letters dated August 29,
2014, and October 21, 2014, Entergy provided responses to the NRC
staff's requests for additional information concerning the proposed
exemptions.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed for Entergy to revise the VY
emergency plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled status
of the facility. The EP requirements currently applicable to VY are for
an operating power reactor. There are no explicit regulatory provisions
distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that has been
permanently shut down, from those for an operating power reactor.
Therefore, since the 10 CFR part 50 license for VY no longer authorizes
operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the
reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of
postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer
credible.
In its exemption request, the licensee identified four possible
radiological accidents at VY in its permanently shutdown and defueled
condition. These are: (1) A fuel handling accident (FHA); (2) a
radioactive waste handling accident; (3) a loss of SFP normal cooling
(i.e., boil off); and (4) an adiabatic heat up of the hottest fuel
assembly. The NRC staff evaluated these possible radiological
accidents, as memorialized in the Commission Paper (SECY) 14-0125,
``Request by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for Exemptions from
Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,'' dated November 14, 2014. In
SECY-14-0125, the NRC staff stated that it had verified that Entergy's
analyses and calculations provided reasonable assurance that if the
requested exemptions were granted, then: (1) For a design-basis
accident (DBA), an offsite radiological release will not exceed the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guides
(PAGs) at the exclusion area boundary, as detailed in the EPA ``PAG
Manual, Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological
Incidents,'' dated March 2013, which was issued as Draft for Interim
Use and Public Comment; and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond DBA,
resulting in a loss of all SFP cooling, there is sufficient time to
initiate appropriate mitigating actions on site and, if a release is
projected to occur, there is sufficient time for offsite agencies to
take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the public health and
safety. The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to grant
the exemptions, based on this evaluation in its Staff Requirements
Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-14-0125, dated March 2, 2015.
Based on these analyses, the licensee states that complete
application of the EP rule to VY, in its particular circumstances as a
permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, would not serve the
underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rule. Entergy also states that it would incur
undue costs in the application of operating plant EP requirements for
the maintenance of an emergency response organization in excess of that
actually needed to respond to the diminished scope of credible
accidents for a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff concludes that the exemptions, if granted, would not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at
VY in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. There would be
no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be
released offsite. There would be no significant increase in the amounts
of any effluents that may be released offsite. There would be no
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational or public
radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water
resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are no known
socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with the
proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
the denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action''
alternative). The denial of the proposed action would not result in a
change to the current environmental impacts. Therefore, the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action
are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different
resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental
Statement for VY, dated July 1972, as supplemented by NUREG-1437,
Supplement 30, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station,'' Volumes 1 and 2, published in August 2007.
Agencies or Persons Consulted
Development of this EA and FONSI did not result in consultation.
Discussion of Comments
At the conclusion of the draft EA and FONSI comment period on June
1, 2015, the NRC received four submissions containing comments from
interested
[[Page 47962]]
members of the public and from the State of Vermont. Full text versions
of the comments can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, by
searching for Docket NRC-2015-0111 and selecting ``Open Docket
Folder,'' or at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15138A094, ML15159A183,
ML15159A184, and ML15159A185, respectively.
Each comment was carefully reviewed by the NRC staff. Although most
of the comments were outside the scope of the draft EA and FONSI, which
deal strictly with the environmental impacts of granting the exemption
request, the NRC has responded fully to the comments, as shown below.
State of Vermont Comments
The State of Vermont's comments consisted of two arguments: (1)
That the NRC did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), by publishing the draft EA after the Commission had approved
the staff's recommendation to grant the exemption request and (2) that
the draft EA and FONSI are deficient and inadequate because they do not
take a hard look at all the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed action, which Vermont asserts could be significant and, thus,
require evaluation through an environmental impact statement. The NRC
staff does not agree with these comments. As an initial matter, the
comments are outside the scope of the comment opportunity because they
do not have to do with the environmental impacts of granting Entergy's
exemption request, but are instead procedural and substantive
challenges under NEPA, to an NRC granting of the exemption request that
has not yet occurred. Additionally, both arguments are without merit.
The Vermont argument that the NRC is not procedurally in compliance
with NEPA is without merit because, consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the
NRC conducted the EA for the exemption request before making any final
decision on the exemption request. The NRC received the exemption
request on March 14, 2014. The exemption request seeks exemptions from
10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E.
The Commission has previously directed, in SRM to SECY-08-0024,
``Delegation of Commission Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny
Emergency Plan Changes that Represent a Decrease in Effectiveness,''
dated May 19, 2008, that the NRC staff should request Commission
approval for any reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's
emergency plan that requires an exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. Therefore, on November 14,
2014, the NRC staff sought Commission approval with SECY-14-0125 ``for
the staff to process and grant, as appropriate'' the exemption request.
In SECY-14-0125, the NRC staff also explained that it had reviewed
Entergy's site-specific analyses and calculations and stated that these
analyses provide reasonable assurance that in granting the exemption
request: 1) An offsite radiological release will not exceed the EPA
PAGs at the site boundary for a DBA and 2) in the unlikely event of a
beyond DBA resulting in a loss of all SFP cooling, there is sufficient
time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions and, if a release is
projected to occur, there is sufficient time for offsite agencies to
take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the health and safety
of the public. In response, on March 2, 2015, the Commission ``approved
the staff's recommendation to grant'' the exemption request ``to be
implemented as stipulated in SECY-14-0125.'' Thus, the NRC staff then
proceeded to process the exemption request by, in part, conducting an
EA of the exemption request, the draft of which was published for
public comment on April 30, 2015. The NRC has now completed its final
EA and FONSI, but has still yet to approve or deny the exemption
request. The fact that the Commission had approved an NRC staff
recommendation to grant the exemption request does not compel the NRC
staff to grant the exemption request. Therefore, any future approval or
denial of the exemption request will have necessarily come only after
the NRC had considered the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed exemption request, as well as, the public's and the State of
Vermont's comments on these potential environmental impacts.
Consequently, Vermont's argument that the NRC has approved the
exemption request before taking a hard look at its potential
environmental impacts in contravention of NEPA is without merit.
The Vermont argument that the NRC is not substantively in
compliance with NEPA is without merit because, consistent with 10 CFR
51.30, the EA identifies the proposed action and includes a brief
discussion of: The need for the proposed action; the alternatives to
the proposed action; the environmental impacts of the proposed action
and alternatives; and a list of agencies and persons consulted and
identification of sources used. With respect to environmental impacts,
the NRC staff found that the exemption request, if granted, would not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at
VY, would not significantly change the types or increase the amounts of
any effluents that may be released offsite, and would not significantly
increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that granting the exemption request
would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. The NRC staff based this finding on the permanently
shutdown and defueled status of VY, combined with the long history of
technical studies demonstrating that the risk for such facilities is
very low, and the staff's verification that Entergy's site-specific
analyses provided reasonable assurance that, even with the granting of
the exemption request, a DBA will not exceed the EPA PAGs at the
exclusion area boundary and a beyond-DBA will move slowly enough that
appropriate onsite mitigating actions may be initiated and, if a
release is projected to occur, offsite agencies would take protective
actions using a CEMP to protect the public health and safety.
Consequently, Vermont's argument that the EA is deficient and
inadequate is without merit.
The NRC staff also disagrees with each of Vermont's specific
arguments as to why it believes that the EA is inadequate. Vermont
asserts that the granting of the exemption request would have ``direct
and significant implications for public health and safety,'' but the EA
explicitly found that granting the exemption request would not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Vermont
asserts that the situation is unique because there is an elementary
school directly across the street from VY, but this fact is immaterial
because the NRC staff found that Entergy had provided reasonable
assurance that a DBA would not result in radiation exposure greater
than or equal to 1 rem at the VY boundary and that any beyond-DBA could
be addressed in a timely manner. Vermont asserts that the EA fails to
give any consideration to high-burnup fuel in the SFP, but the
exemption request's DBA analysis, as demonstrated in its reference 6 at
attachment 4, table 3-2, did indeed consider high-burnup fuel. Vermont
asserts that the use of an EA is insufficient because Vermont opposes
the exemption request as do a number of Vermont citizens, but this does
not impact the staff's determination that the proposed action will not
have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Vermont asserts that the risks resulting from any
[[Page 47963]]
granting of the exemption request are uncertain, but technical studies
spanning from 1975 to 2014 have, in fact, demonstrated the risks of
storing spent fuel in SFPs to be very low. Vermont asserts that
precedent advises against the granting of the exemption request, but
similar exemption requests have been granted for eight previous
facilities. Vermont asserts that granting the exemption request means
that State and local officials may no longer receive training regarding
radiological incidents, but does not address Entergy's continuing
obligation, per 10 CFR part 50, appendix E.IV.F.1, to make radiological
orientation training available to local emergency services and law
enforcement, or, per 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15), to make radiological
emergency response training available to those called on to assist in
an emergency. Finally, Vermont asserts that the potential environmental
impacts from the exemption request should be analyzed in conjunction
with a prior Entergy termination of the Emergency Response Data System
at VY, but this earlier action was taken by Entergy, consistent with
the Commission's regulations and, thus, did not require an
environmental review. Consequently, the NRC staff disagrees with all of
Vermont's comments.
Public Comments
In addition to the Vermont comments, the NRC received three sets of
public comments on the draft EA. These public comments raised
substantively similar issues as the Vermont comments and, thus, the NRC
staff disagrees with them for the same reasons that it disagrees with
the Vermont comments, as addressed above.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The licensee has proposed exemptions from: (1) Certain requirements
in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response
plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) Certain requirements in 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones
for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part
50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up
the content of emergency plans. The proposed action of granting these
exemptions would eliminate the requirements for the licensee to
maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, as described in
44 CFR part 350, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities at VY,
based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled
reactor. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to
communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities following
declaration of an emergency at VY will be retained and offsite ``all
hazards'' EP provisions will still exist through State and local
government use of a CEMP.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the
proposed action, which is included in Section II of this document, and
incorporated by reference in this finding. On the basis of this EA, the
NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC
has decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document ADAMS Accession No./Web link
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developing and Maintaining Emergency http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/
Operations Plans, Comprehensive divisions/npd/CPG_101_V2.pdf
Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Version
2.0, November 2010.
Docket No. 50-271, Request for ADAMS Accession No. ML14080A141
Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR
50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,
March 14, 2014.
Docket No. 50-271, Request for ADAMS Accession No. ML14246A176
Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR
50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E--
Supplement 1, Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station, August 29, 2014.
Docket No. 50-271, Request for ADAMS Accession No. ML14297A159
Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR
50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E--
Supplement 2, Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station, October 21, 2014.
Protective Action Guides and Planning http://www.epa.gov/radiation/
Guidance for Radiological Incidents, docs/er/pag-manual-interim-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf
Draft for Interim Use and Public
Comment, March 2013.
SECY-14-0125, ``Request by Entergy ADAMS Accession No. ML14227A711
Nuclear Operations, Inc., for
Exemptions from Certain Emergency
Planning Requirements,'' November 14,
2014.
Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY- ADAMS Accession No. ML15061A516
14-0125, ``Request by Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., for Exemptions from
Certain Emergency Planning
Requirements,'' March 2, 2015.
Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY- ADAMS Accession No. ML081400510
08-0024, ``Delegation of Commission
Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny
Emergency Plan Changes that Represent
a Decrease in Effectiveness,'' May 19,
2008.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 30, ``Generic ADAMS Accession No. ML071840398
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station,'' August 2007.
State of Vermont Comments.............. ADAMS Accession No. ML15159A183
Public Comments........................ ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML15138A094, ML15159A184, and
ML15159A185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47964]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31 day of July, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-19587 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P