Commission Decision on Environmental Reviews On April 19, 2022, the Commission voted against a formal rulemaking to revise the NRC’s environmental review process, and instead voted to continue using the existing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 to conduct environmental reviews (See more Memorandum regarding Staff RequirementsAnd Voting package). In taking this position, the Commission directed the NRC staff to revise corresponding National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidance and to “continue to set scheduling goals and timeliness metrics” for NEPA reviews, while “avoid[ing] set-in-stone schedules and page limits” in order to “preserve meaningful public participation.”
The Commission chose this option—to retain the NRC’s NEPA-implementing regulations under the current Part 51 while revising the accompanying guidance—over two alternatives that were presented by the NRC staff in SECY-21-0001A staff position paper was sent to the Commission in December 2020. The NRC staff offered two options: (1) to not take any action and to allow the staff to continue to prepare EISs (environmental impact statements) for all new reactor applications and renewals of reactor licenses; or (2) to conduct a full rulemaking to amend Part 51 regulations. The staff had recommended to the Commission a full rulemaking to revise Part 51 “to enhance the efficiency and flexibility of the agency’s environmental review process, create consistency across rulemaking efforts, and provide technology-inclusive language suitable for the environmental review of advanced reactors.”
Commissioner Baran Tweet his support for not pursuing the rulemaking option, which he said would “weaken” the NEPA review process, asserting that an outcome of the proposed rulemaking would be to decrease the number of full EISs conducted for major licensing actions such as license renewals and instead substitute less thorough environmental assessments (EAs) for these actions. The NRC has recently made a greater effort to address environmental justice issues, including the staff’s submission of SECY-22-0025 to the Commission on March 29, 2022, with environmental justice-related policy recommendations, as detailed in our prior post, “NRC staff completes review of Environmental Justice Policy and makes recommendations to the Commission.”
The Commission directed NRC staff to streamline environmental review processes and make administrative changes to existing revisions to Part 51. This included the retrospective review of administrative requirements and the Categorical Exclusion rulemaking. The Commission left open the option for staff to “further explore” the idea of preparing EAs for certain advanced reactor applicants, but only After the staff completes “several” advanced reactor environmental reviews.
NRC Staff Actions on SLR GEIS. Separately, as described in our PostThe NRC issued three orders on March 2, 2022 that reversed the approved SLRs for reactors at Turkey Point nuclear power plant, and Peach Bottom nuclear energy station. It also provided guidance for conducting environmental reviews for various pending SLR proceedings. The Commission issued these orders to reverse its previous decisions and determined that the GEIS as well as the regulations at 10 C.F.R. were valid. § 51.53(c)(3) on required environmental reports only apply to Initial license renewal (i.e. from 40-60 years of a plant’s operating life), not license renewal (i.e. From 60-80 years
The Commission ordered staff to create a rulemaking process to update the GEIS process. license renewal. On March 25, 2022 the NRC staff submitted SECY-22-0024The Commission presented three alternative timelines for the necessary rulemaking. They differed based upon the degree of acceleration, from a total of 24 to 38 months to complete and issue the final rules. The Commission Responded on April 5, 2022, directing the staff to use the most accelerated schedule proposed—24 months for issuance of the final rule. It also instructed the staff to “seek opportunities” to further accelerate the schedule. The Commission may feel pressure to accelerate the rulemaking due to industry’s response to its initial SLR reversals.
