Text

VR-SECY-22-0109: Proposed Rule: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296) (Baran)
	ML23023A233
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/20/2022
From:	Commissioners; NRC/OCM
To:	Brooke Clark; NRC/SECY
Shared Package
ML23023A223	List: SECY-22-0109, VR-SECY-22-0109: Proposed Rule: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296) (Caputo); VR-SECY-22-0109, Proposed Rule: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296) (Baran);
References
	SECY-22-0109, SRM-SECY-22-0109 VR-SECY-22-0109
	Download: ML23023A233 (111)
	v • d • e

RULEMAKING ISSUE NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: Brooke P. Clark, Secretary FROM: Commissioner Baran

SUBJECT:

SECY-22-0109: Proposed Rule - Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review Approved X Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS: Below Attached X None Jeffery Digitally signed by Jeffery M. Baran M. Baran Date: 2022.12.20 16:15:48 -05'00' Entered in STAR Yes X Signature 12/20/22 No Date

Commissioner Barans Comments on SECY-22-0109, Proposed Rule:

Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review The review of subsequent license renewal applications is a high priority for NRC. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and ensure that subsequent license renewal decisions rest on a firm legal foundation, it is essential that NRC update the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) to examine the 60-80-year subsequent license renewal period. The license renewal regulation must also be revised so that the GEIS findings can then apply to subsequent license renewal applications.

This proposed rule and accompanying draft GEIS take these necessary steps so that NRC can move forward expeditiously with subsequent license renewal reviews. The draft GEIS also includes new analyses of greenhouse gas impacts on climate change and climate change impacts on environmental resources, recognizing that [t]he effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess the impacts on the human environment for a specific location.1 For these reasons, I approve publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, subject to the attached edits, and issuance of the draft GEIS for public comment. To avoid any ambiguity in these documents, the NRC staff should also modify the proposed rule and draft GEIS to explicitly state that the scope of the GEIS is initial license renewal and one term of subsequent license renewal.

I look forward to reviewing stakeholder feedback on the proposed rule and draft GEIS and appreciate the NRC staffs diligent work on these vital products.

1 SECY-22-0109, Attachment 1 at 62.

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51

[NRC-2018-0296]

RIN 3150-AK32 Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review JMB edits AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its environmental protection regulations by updating the Commissions 2013 findings on the environmental effect of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. The NRC proposes to redefine the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed during the review of each application for license renewal. As part of this update, the NRC has prepared draft Revision 2 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS), to account for new information and to address the impacts of initial license renewals, which the previous versions considered, as well as subsequent license renewals. The draft revised LR GEIS provides the technical basis for this proposed rule. The NRC is providing an opportunity for interested parties to submit comments on this proposed rule, the draft revised LR GEIS, and associated draft guidance.

DATES: Submit comments by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments received after this date will

be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0296. Address questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301-415-3407; email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yanely Malave-Velez, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-1519, email: Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov, Jennifer Davis, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3835, email: Jennifer.Davis@nrc.gov, or Kevin Folk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone 301-415-6944, email:

Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov. All are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) authorizes the NRC to issue commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses for up to 40 years. The AEA and the NRCs regulations allow for the renewal of these operating licenses for up to an additional 20 years for each renewal term, which could either be an initial license renewal (initial LR) or subsequent license renewal (SLR). There are no limitations in the AEA or the NRCs regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed.

The NRCs review of a license renewal application proceeds along two independent regulatory tracks: one for safety issues and another for environmental issues. The NRCs regulations for the license renewal safety review are set forth in part 54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants. The NRCs environmental protection regulations are set forth in 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.

The license renewal application includes both general and technical information that demonstrates that an applicant is in compliance with the NRCs regulations in 10 CFR part 54. During the safety review, the license renewal applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended 3

operation. Information in the application must be sufficiently detailed to permit the NRC staff to complete its review and develop the safety finding.

Separate from the safety analysis, the applicant prepares an evaluation of the potential impacts to the environment of facility operation for an additional 20 years, which the NRC uses to inform its environmental analysis. Under the NRCs environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51, which implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). To support the preparation of these EISs, the NRC issued a rule in 1996 (61 FR 28467) and a supporting analysis in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS). The LR GEIS defines which impacts would essentially be the same at all nuclear power plants or a subset of plants (i.e.,

generic or Category 1 issues) and which ones could be different at different plants and would require a plant-specific analysis to determine the impacts (Category 2 issues).

The determinations are codified in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, of appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 (hereafter referred to as Table B-1).1 For each license renewal application, those impacts that require a plant-specific analysis must be analyzed by the applicant in its environmental report and by the NRC in a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to NUREG-1437. The 1996 rule was amended in 2013 (78 FR 37281) by the issuance of an updated rule and publication of LR GEIS, Revision 1. In 2014, the NRC issued a final rule that addressed the generic determination of the environmental 1 As stated in the introductory paragraph of appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, the Commission has assessed the environmental impacts associated with granting a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant to a licensee who holds either an operating license or construction permit as of June 30, 1995.

4

impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactors licensed life for operation (79 FR 56238). That rule amended 10 CFR part 51 by revising the findings of two environmental issues listed in Table B-1.

This proposed rule would further redefine the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during license renewal environmental reviews. These changes are based primarily on the lessons learned and knowledge gained from initial LR and SLR reviews performed by the NRC since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. The changes also address Commission direction in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-22-0024, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32, NRC-2018-0296), by thoroughly evaluating SLR in this review and update.

In addition, new scientific research, public comments, changes in environmental regulations and impacts methodology, and other new information were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with license renewal.

B. Major Provisions In the 2013 rule, there were 78 environmental issues, 17 of which required a plant-specific analysis (Category 2 issues) during license renewal environmental reviews. In this proposed rule, there are 80 environmental issues, 20 of which require a plant-specific analysis. The following points summarize the primary proposed changes to the NRCs requirements in part 51:

1. Several issues were consolidated, including some issues that were combined with other related Category 1 or Category 2 issues.

2. One new Category 1 issue was added: Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change.

5

3. One issue was changed from Category 2 to Category 1: Severe accidents.

4. Two new Category 2 issues were added: Climate change impacts on environmental resources and National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources.

5. One Category 2 issue was divided into three separate Category 2 issues:

Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction, Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction, and Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish habitat.

C. Costs and Benefits The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the expected quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits of the proposed rule and associated guidance. The draft regulatory analysis concluded that the proposed rule and associated guidance would result in undiscounted total net savings of $91.4 million to the industry and $31.7 million to the NRC.

The draft regulatory analysis also reflected qualitative factors to be considered in the NRCs rulemaking decision. Qualitative factors include regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity in the licensing process. The proposed rule would reduce the cost to the industry of preparing environmental reports for license renewal applications by focusing resources on plant-specific analyses. The NRC would also recognize similar reductions in cost and be able to better focus its resources on plant-specific environmental issues during reviews of reactor license renewal applications.

For more information, see the draft regulatory analysis (available as indicated in Section XV, Availability of Documents, of this document).

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information B. Submitting Comments II. Background A. Environmental ReviewCurrent 10 CFR Part 51 Regulations B. Rulemaking History III. Discussion A. Proposed Amendments B. Environmental Impacts to be Reviewed C. Draft Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants D. Proposed Actions and Basis for Changes to 10 CFR Part 51 IV. Availability of Guidance for Comment V. Section-by-Section Analysis VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification VII. Regulatory Analysis VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation X. Plain Writing XI. National Environmental Policy Act XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards XIV. Public Meetings XV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0296 when contacting the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0296.

NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 7

search, select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the Availability of Documents section.

NRCs PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents, by appointment, at the NRCs PDR, Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. eastern time (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Technical Library: The Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, is open by appointment only. Interested parties may make appointments to examine documents by contacting the NRC Technical Library by email at Library.Resource@nrc.gov between 8:00 a.m.

and 4:00 p.m. (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Submitting Comments The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (https://www.regulations.gov). Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0296 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment 8

submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Background NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) is intended to streamline the NRCs license renewal environmental review by documenting a systematic approach that the NRC uses to evaluate the environmental impacts of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power plants. The LR GEIS also provides the technical basis for Table B-1, in appendix B to subpart A, and the Commissions other license renewal regulations in 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. This Background section provides an overview of the environmental review process and the rulemaking history related to the license renewal process under which a power reactor licensee may apply for a renewal of its operating license.

A. Environmental ReviewCurrent 10 CFR Part 51 Regulations 9

As a Federal agency, the NRC must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by assessing the potential environmental effects of a proposed agency action before approving or disapproving that proposed action. The regulations implementing the NRCs NEPA review are found in 10 CFR part 51.

Under NEPA, Federal agencies prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for any major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In addition, the Commission has identified at § 51.20 certain categories of NRC proposed actions that require the preparation of an EIS, including the renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power reactor.2 For each plant-specific review, the NRC prepares a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to the LR GEIS.

The NRCs provisions at § 51.53(c) require an applicant for renewal of a nuclear power plant license to submit with its application a separate document entitled Applicants Environmental ReportOperating License Renewal Stage that describes in detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant effluents and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the report must address the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters described in § 51.45, which include the following: (1) the impact of the proposed action on the environment, (2) any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, (3) alternatives to the proposed action, (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (5) any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. Within its environmental report, the applicant is required to include analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the impacts of refurbishment activities, if any, associated with 2 The term Nuclear reactor is defined in § 50.2, Definitions.

10

license renewal and the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues identified as Category 2 issues in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51.

Additionally, the applicant is required to provide any new and significant information of which it is aware in its environmental report. If there is no new and significant information for a Category 1 issue, the applicant can rely on that Category 1 generic finding and analyses in the LR GEIS. The applicants environmental report informs the NRCs independent evaluation.

Before making a decision on a renewed license application for a nuclear power plant, the NRC is required to prepare and distribute, for public comment, a draft SEIS.

The draft SEIS assesses the potential environmental impacts that may result from continued nuclear power plant operation and any proposed refurbishment activities during the renewal term (initial license renewal (initial LR) or subsequent license renewal (SLR)). In preparing the draft SEIS, the NRC staff will rely on the findings in Table B-1 for Category 1 issues and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) on the affected environment and specific environmental resources (e.g., groundwater) for Category 2 issues. Additionally, the NRC will consider any potentially new and significant information for Category 1 issues and for uncategorized issues. An environmental issue may remain uncategorized where the impact level remains unknown or uncertain, such as any activity or aspect associated with the nuclear power plant operations that can act upon the environment in a manner or an intensity not previously recognized and/or quantified. Within each environmental resource area, the NRC staff will analyze issues that correspond to specific, potential environmental impacts at the specific site (e.g., within the groundwater resource area, groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals). In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff also will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action.

11

After analyzing the potential environmental impacts for each issue, the NRC assigns one of the following three significance levels to describe its evaluation of those impacts on that issue in either the LR GEIS or a plant-specific SEIS:

SMALLThe environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commissions regulations are considered SMALL.

MODERATEThe environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGEThe environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

In assessing the significance of environmental impacts for some environmental resources (e.g., federally protected ecological resources and historic properties that require interagency consultation with Federal agencies or Indian Tribes3), the NRC assigns the appropriate impact level (other than SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) in accordance with the terminology used in the relevant statutes and their implementing regulations.

The NRC will document its environmental review and analysis through the preparation of a draft SEIS that will be published for public comment in the Federal Register, with a minimum 45-day comment period, in accordance with § 51.73. Further, 3

Per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), the agency official will consult with any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking. The term Indian Tribes refers to Federally recognized Tribes as acknowledged by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).

12

as provided in § 51.74, the NRC will distribute the draft SEIS to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other Federal agencies that have a special expertise or jurisdiction with respect to any potential environmental impact that may be relevant to the proposed action, the applicant, and appropriate State, Tribal, and local agencies and clearinghouses.

Following the public comment period, the NRC will analyze any comments received, revise its environmental analyses as appropriate, and then prepare the final SEIS in accordance with the requirements of § 51.91. Pursuant to § 51.93, the NRC will distribute the final SEIS to many of the same entities as the draft SEIS and to each commenter. The NRC also will publish a notice of availability for the final SEIS in the Federal Register. As set forth in § 51.102 and following the preparation and distribution of the final SEIS, the NRC will prepare and issue the record of decision, which is a concise, publicly available statement that documents the agencys decision, as informed by the final SEIS and final safety evaluation report. The requirements for a record of decision are described in § 51.103, and include stating the NRCs decision (e.g., the approval or disapproval of the license renewal application), identifying the alternatives (including the proposed action) considered by the agency, and a statement as to whether the NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected and if not, to explain why those measures were not adopted. Further, the record of the decision will include a determination by the NRC as to whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable, which is the purpose and need of license renewal. To meet the § 51.102 requirement that the record of decision be a concise document, the NRC staff also will prepare a Summary Record of Decision, 13

signed by the NRCs Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that summarizes the presiding officers initial, or the Commissions final, decision.

B. Rulemaking History In 1986, the NRC initiated a program to develop license renewal regulations and associated regulatory guidance in anticipation of receiving applications for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. In 1996, the NRC published a final rule that amended the environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to include provisions for applicants seeking to renew an operating license for up to an additional 20 years (61 FR 28467; June 5, 1996). The 1996 final rule was based upon the analyses and findings of a May 1996 NRC environmental impact statement, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (the 1996 LR GEIS).

Based upon the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS, the 1996 final rule identified those license renewal environmental issues for which a generic analysis had been determined to be appropriate (Category 1 issues). Similarly, based upon the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS, the 1996 final rule identified those environmental impacts for which a site- or plant-specific analysis was required, both by the applicant in its environmental report and by the NRC in its SEIS (Category 2 issues). The 1996 final rule, among other amendments to 10 CFR part 51, added appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant.

Appendix B included Table B-1 which summarized and codified the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS.

In preparing the 1996 LR GEIS, the Commission based its generic assessment on the following factors:

14

(1) License renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which the environmental impacts of operation are well understood as a result of lessons learned and knowledge gained from operating experience and completed license renewals.

(2) Activities associated with license renewal are expected to be within this range of operating experience; thus, environmental impacts can be reasonably predicted.

(3) Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are gradual and predictable.

The 1996 LR GEIS improved the efficiency of the license renewal process in the following ways: (1) providing an evaluation of the types of environmental impacts that may occur from renewing commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses, (2) identifying and assessing impacts that are expected to be generic (i.e., the same or similar) at all nuclear power plants or plants with specified plant or site characteristics, and (3) defining the number and scope of environmental impacts that need to be addressed in plant-specific SEISs to the 1996 LR GEIS.

A Category 1 issue is an issue that meets the following criteria: (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic; (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for certain issues discussed below in more detail); and (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. A Category 2 issue is defined as an issue where one or more 15

of Category 1 criteria cannot be met, and therefore, additional plant-specific review is required.

As stated in the 1996 final rule, the NRC recognized that environmental issues might change over time and that additional issues may need to be considered. As further stated in the introductory text to Table B-1, the NRC indicated that it intended to review the material in Table B-1 on a 10-year basis.

On December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), the NRC amended the 1996 final rule to incorporate minor clarifying and conforming changes and to add language omitted from Table B-1.

In 1999, the NRC amended 10 CFR part 51, including Table B-1, to expand the generic findings pertaining to the environmental impacts resulting from transportation of fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power plant (64 FR 48496; September 3, 1999). This final rule also incorporated rule text consistent with the 1996 LR GEIS to address local traffic impacts attributable to the continued operations of a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

In 2013, the NRC completed the first 10-year review and update of the 1996 LR GEIS and published a final rule (78 FR 37281; June 20, 2013) that amended Table B-1 by updating the Commissions 1996 findings on the environmental impacts related to the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses and other NRC environmental protection regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 51.53, which sets forth the contents of the applicants environmental report, 10 CFR 51.75, and 10 CFR 51.95). The 2013 final rule redefined the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during license renewal environmental reviews. These changes were primarily based on lessons learned and knowledge gained from license renewal environmental reviews conducted by the NRC since 1996. Together with the final rule, 16

the NRC issued a revised LR GEIS, NUREG-1437 Revision 1 (the 2013 LR GEIS), as well as Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, Supplement 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, and Revision 1 to NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License Renewal.

On July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46255), the NRC amended the 2013 final rule to incorporate minor clarifying and conforming changes and revise the statutory authority that was cited in the authority citation for the final rule.

In 2014, the NRC published a final rule titled Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel that revised the generic determination regarding the environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactors licensed life for operation and prior to ultimate disposal (79 FR 56238; September 14, 2014). The continued storage final rule also made conforming amendments to the determinations of environmental effects of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. These changes addressed issues related to the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, both for the license renewal term and for the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, and offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.

Specifically, the continued storage final rule revised two environmental issues in Table B-1: (1) Onsite storage of spent fuel and (2) Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.

In August 2020, the NRC issued a notice of intent to review and potentially update the 2013 LR GEIS4 (i.e., the scoping notice) in the Federal Register (85 FR 4 Unless stated otherwise, references to the 2013 LR GEIS include the changes made to two environmental issues in Table B-1 as a part of the 2014 Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel final rule. These changes are discussed in Section 1.7.2 of the draft revised LR GEIS.

17

47252; August 4, 2020). The comment period began in August 2020 and ended in November 2020. The scoping notice provided the public with an opportunity to submit comments and participate in the environmental scoping process, as defined in § 51.26.

Specifically, the NRC invited the public to review the results of the NRC staffs preliminary review of the LR GEIS, including a proposal to address SLR in the LR GEIS, and asked the public to provide comments and suggestions for other areas that should be updated. The NRC conducted four webinars where the staff received comments from the public. All comments provided during the 2020 scoping period were considered in preparing the revised draft revised LR GEIS and are publicly available. The official transcripts and the scoping summary report are available as indicated in the Availability of Documents section of this proposed rule.

In July 2021, the staff submitted SECY-21-0066, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296), to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking to amend Table B-1 and update the 2013 LR GEIS and associated guidance. The rulemaking plan also proposed to remove the word initial from § 51.53(c)(3), which, as described above, governs license renewal applicants environmental reports; this change would have explicitly included applicants for SLR in the sections scope. The plan would have also made corresponding changes to the LR GEIS and the associated guidance.

In February 2022, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-21-0066, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296). The Commission disapproved the staffs recommendation and directed the staff to develop a rulemaking plan that aligned with the Commission Order CLI-22-03, and recent decisions in Turkey Point, CLI-22-02, and Peach Bottom, CLI-22-04, regarding the NEPA analysis of SLR applications. These 18

orders concluded that the staff did not conduct an adequate NEPA analysis for the SLR period and further stated that the staff cannot exclusively rely on the LR GEIS for Category 1 issues in SLR environmental reviews. The SRM also directed the staff to include in the rulemaking plan a proposal to remove the word initial from § 51.53(c)(3) and to revise the LR GEIS and Table B-1 and associated guidance to fully addresssupport SLR. The SRM also directed the staff to provide options for a future rulemaking effort regarding the 10-year regulatory update.

In March 2022, the staff submitted SECY-22-0024, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296), to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking that would align with the Commission Order CLI-22-03 and recent decisions in Orders CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-04 regarding the NEPA analysis of SLR applications, as well as to remove the word initial from § 51.53(c)(3) and to revise the LR GEIS and Table B-1 and associated guidance to fully support SLR. The staff also proposed to update the LR GEIS to consider new technical data from completed environmental reviews, changes to environmental laws and regulations, and other information.

In April 2022, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-22-0024, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296), approving the staffs recommendation to proceed with rulemaking.

In April 2022, the staff submitted SECY-22-0036, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses10-Year Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022-0087) that provided options for a future rulemaking effort to incorporate further changes to the LR GEIS as part of the 10-year regulatory update to amend Table B-1. Because the current rulemaking would address all necessary issues, the staff 19

recommended that a future rulemaking for updating the LR GEIS and Table B-1 be deferred, to begin no sooner than FY 2031. The staff further recommended that the current update to the LR GEIS constitute the update for this review cycle.

In June 2022, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-22-0036 approving the staffs recommendation.

III. Discussion A. Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 51 would revise the existing requirements for environmental reviews of applications for a license renewal of operating nuclear power plants. The proposed amendments would codify the updated generic conclusions of the draft revised LR GEIS for those issues for which a generic conclusion regarding the potential environmental impacts of issuing an initial or subsequent renewed license for a nuclear power plant can be reached. These conclusions have been updated to specifically account for SLR as well as initial LR and other new information since the last LR GEIS update. These issues are identified as Category 1 issues in the draft revised LR GEIS. The Category 1 issues identified and described in the draft revised LR GEIS may be applied to any initial LR or SLR application for an operating nuclear power plant and have been determined to have a SMALL impact for all plants or a subset of plants. Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 summarizes and codifies the Commissions findings for all Category 1 issues. The revisions to Table B-1 account for SLR ; reflect lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS; consider changes to applicable laws and regulations; and factor in new scientific data and methodology with respect to the assessment of potential 20

environmental impacts of nuclear power plant license renewal. In addition, the proposed amendments include conforming changes to the provisions of § 51.53(c)(3) and § 51.95.

These proposed changes are intended to maintain the accuracyrelevance of the LR GEIS and ensure that future environmental reviews meet the hard look standard to fully account for the environmental impacts of initial LR and SLR, as documented in the draft revised LR GEIS.

B. Environmental Impacts to be Reviewed In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC reevaluated the Category 1 generic findings and determined that many of the environmental impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment during the renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL. However, license renewal applicants in their environmental reports and the NRC staff in the SEIS would still need to evaluate whether new and significant information exists that would require a plant-specific analysis for that issue. See Section III.C of this document for a more detailed discussion of the process used in the draft revised LR GEIS.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC identified a total of 80 environmental issues that may be associated with operation and refurbishment during the renewal term. Chapter 4 of the draft revised LR GEIS describes the impact findings and impact significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, or a range where applicable, for each Category 1 and Category 2 issue. Of the 80 issues, the NRC identified 59 environmental issues as Category 1 issues. Applicants and the NRC staff would be required to rely on the generic finding for each Category 1 issue as supported by the analysis in the draft revised LR GEIS, which would be codified in the proposed Table B-1.

21

The draft revised LR GEIS identifies 20 environmental issues as Category 2 issues. These issues cannot be evaluated generically and must be evaluated by the applicant, in its environmental report, and the NRC staff, in the draft SEIS, using plant-specific information. For example, for the issue, Surface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river), the staff found in the draft revised LR GEIS that impacts could be of small or moderate significance based on site-specific factors that exacerbate consumptive water use by a nuclear power plant.

The factors include increased water demand due to population growth; changes in water demand by industrial, agricultural, or other users of the same water source; drought and river low-flow conditions, and reduced water availability over time due to climate change.

Therefore, the potential for water use conflicts must be addressed on a plant-specific basis.

For one environmental issue, Electromagnetic fields (EMF), the draft revised LR GEIS identified the category as N/A (not applicable). Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. If, in the future, the Commission finds that a general agreement has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from EMFs, the Commission will then treat this issue in a manner similar to a Category 2 issue and require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects in their environmental report. Until such time, applicants are not required to submit information on this issue.

C. Draft Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 22

This revision evaluates the environmental issues and findings of the 2013 LR GEIS and updates the analysis and assumptions to fully support address both initial LR and SLR. Lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed by the NRC since development of the 2013 LR GEIS provided a significant source of new information for this assessment. This review included an examination of previous site-specific considerations of potential new and significant information for Category 1 issues. In addition, new scientific research, changes in environmental regulations and impact methodology, and other new information were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with initial LR and SLR. Public comments on previous plant-specific license renewal reviews were analyzed to assess the existing environmental issues and identify new ones. The purpose of this evaluation was to review the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS and to ensure that the analysis and assumptions support SLR environmental reviews. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add to, or delete any of the 78 environmental issues in the 2013 LR GEIS and codified in Table B-1. After this evaluation, the staff identified 80 impact issues for detailed consideration in this draft LR GEIS revision. No environmental issues identified in Table B-1 and evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS were eliminated, but certain issues were consolidated, and one issue was subdivided into three separate issues. Two new Category 2 issues and one new Category 1 issue were added.

Environmental issues in the draft revised LR GEIS are arranged by resource area in the same manner as the 2013 LR GEIS. In the draft revised LR GEIS, the environmental impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) and associated refurbishment activities are addressed in each resource area. This analysis provides the technical basis for the 80 identified 23

environmental issues. Additionally, the NRC staff also considered a range of replacement energy alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) as described in the draft revised LR GEIS. This discussion of potential alternatives will inform the site-specific alternatives analyses in the SEISs. The draft revised LR GEIS considers and evaluates the 80 environmental issues within the context of the following environmental resource (i.e., subject matter) areas: (1) land use and visual resources, (2) air quality and noise, (3) geologic environment, (4) water resources (surface water and groundwater resources), (5) ecological resources (terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, and federally protected ecological resources), (6) historic and cultural resources, (7) socioeconomics, (8) human health (radiological and nonradiological hazards and postulated accidents), (9) environmental justice, (10) waste management and pollution prevention (radioactive and nonradioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel),

(11) greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, (12) cumulative effects, and (13) impacts common to all alternatives (uranium fuel cycle and termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning). The proposed rule revises Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 to reflect the changes in the draft revised LR GEIS.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the general analytical approach used by the NRC staff to evaluate potential environmental impacts was to: (1) describe the nuclear power plant activity or aspect of plant operations or refurbishment that could affect a resource; (2) identify the resource that is affected; (3) evaluate past license renewal reviews and other available information; (4) assess the nature and magnitude of the potential environmental impact on the affected resource for both initial LR and SLR; (5) characterize the significance of the effects; (6) determine whether the results of the analysis apply to all nuclear power plants or to a specific subset of plantsi.e., whether 24

the impact issue is Category 1 (generic) or Category 2 (plant-specific); and (7) consider additional mitigation measures for adverse impacts. Identification of environmental impacts (or issues) was conducted in an iterative rather than a stepwise manner. For example, after information was collected and level of significance was reviewed, the staff reexamined impacts to determine if any issues should be removed, added, consolidated, or divided.

The Commission would like to emphasize that in complying with the NRCs environmental regulations under § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), as required by NEPA, applicants are required to provide any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware, including for Category 1 issues and for uncategorized issues. The proposed amendments would not change this requirement.

The draft revised LR GEIS retains the 2013 LR GEIS definitions for Category 1 and Category 2 issues. The draft revised LR GEIS discusses six major types of changes to the categorization of issues:

(1) New Category 1 Issue: This would be a Category 1 issue not previously listed in the 2013 LR GEIS. The applicant would not need to assess this issue in its environmental report. Under § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), however, the applicant is responsible for disclosing in the environmental report any new and significant information of which the applicant is aware. If the applicant is not aware of any new and significant information that would change the conclusion in the draft revised LR GEIS, the applicant would be required to state this determination in the environmental report. The NRC has addressed the environmental impacts of these Category 1 issues generically for all plants in the draft revised LR GEIS.

25

(2) New Category 2 Issue: This would be a Category 2 issue not previously listed in the 2013 LR GEIS. For the new Category 2 issue, the applicant would have to conduct an analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to that issue and include it in the environmental report. The analysis must include a discussion of (i) the possible actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with license renewal and (ii) the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal.

(3) Existing Issue Category Change from Category 2 to Category 1: This would be an issue that was considered as Category 2 in the 2013 LR GEIS and would now be considered as Category 1 in the draft revised LR GEIS. An applicant would no longer be required to conduct a plant-specific analysis on the environmental impacts associated with this issue. Consistent with the requirements of § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), an applicant would only be required to describe in its environmental report any new and significant information of which it is aware.

(4) Consolidation of an Existing Category 1 Issue into an Existing Category 2 issue: This would be an issue where an existing Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS has a similar scope as an existing Category 2 issue and has been consolidated into the Category 2 issue. Therefore, for the new, consolidated Category 2 issue, the applicant would have to conduct a plant-specific analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to that issue and include it in the environmental report. The analysis must include a discussion of (i) the possible actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with license renewal and (ii) the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal.

(5) Consolidation of One or More Existing Category 1 Issues into an Existing Category 1 Issue: This would be an issue that was considered Category 1 in the 2013 LR GEIS and would remain so. The issue has been revised by consolidating similar 26

aspects of one or more Category 1 issues, in whole or in part, into the existing Category 1 issue and which affect the same environmental resources. Consistent with the requirements of § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), an applicant would only be required to describe in its environmental report any new and significant information of which it is aware.

(6) Subdividing an Existing Category 2 Issue into Multiple Category 2 Issues:

This would be an existing Category 2 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS that has been divided into multiple, new Category 2 issues in order to more clearly address specific categories of environmental resource impacts. For the new, separate Category 2 issues, the applicant would have to conduct analyses of the potential environmental impacts related to each separate issue, as applicable, and include it in the environmental report. The analyses must include a discussion of (i) the possible actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with license renewal and (ii) the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal.

D. Proposed Actions and Basis for Changes to 10 CFR Part 51 Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 This proposed rule revises the introductory paragraph in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, to indicate the applicability to initial LR and SLR and to update the findings on environmental issues with the data supported by the analyses in the proposed NUREG-1437, Revision 2.

The proposed rule renames the title of Table B-1, Summary of NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, as Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial and Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, to spell out the applicability to initial LR and SLR environmental reviews.

27

The draft revised LR GEIS, which is being concurrently issued for public comment, provides a summary change table comparing the 78 environmental issues in the 2013 LR GEIS with the 80 environmental issues in the draft revised LR GEIS. The proposed rule amends Table B-1 to reflect the changes made in the draft revised LR GEIS. As documented in the draft revised LR GEIS, for each of the 80 environmental issues, the scope has been expanded to fully account for the impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations and any refurbishment encompassing the initial LR or SLR term. The changes to Table B-1 are described below:

(i) Land Use (1) Onsite Land Use, (2) Offsite Land Use, and (3) Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways (ROWs)Onsite land use, Offsite land use, and Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways (ROWs) are Category 1 issues.

There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(ii) Visual Resources (4) Aesthetic ImpactsAesthetic impacts is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(iii) Air Quality (5) Air Quality ImpactsThe proposed rule renames Air quality impacts (all plants) as Air quality impacts; it is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes 28

minor clarifying changes and revisions to the order of the topics discussed in the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(6) Air Quality Effects of Transmission LinesAir Quality Effects of Transmission Lines is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(iv) Noise (7) Noise ImpactsNoise impacts is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(v) Geologic Environment (8) Geology and SoilsGeology and Soils is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(vi) Surface Water Resources (9) Surface Water Use and Quality (Non-Cooling System Impacts), (10) Altered Current Patterns at Intake and Discharge Structures, (11) Altered Salinity Gradients, (12)

Altered Thermal Stratification of Lakes, (13) Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling Water, (14) Discharge of Metals in Cooling System Effluent, (15) Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills, and (16) Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems)Surface water use and quality (non-29

cooling system impacts), Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures, Altered salinity gradients, Altered thermal stratification of lakes, Scouring caused by discharged cooling water, Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent, Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills, and Surface water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(17) Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a RiverSurface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) is a Category 2 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(18) Effects of Dredging on Surface Water QualityEffects of dredging on surface water quality is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(19) Temperature Effects on Sediment Transport CapacityTemperature effects on sediment transport capacity is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(vii) Groundwater Resources (20) Groundwater Contamination and Use (Non-Cooling System Impacts)

Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts) is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(21) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw Less than 100 Gallons per Minute [gpm])Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw less than 100 30

gallons per minute [gpm]) is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(22) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More than 100 Gallons per Minute [gpm]) and (23) Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems That Withdraw Makeup Water from a River)Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]) and Groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river) are Category 2 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(24) Groundwater Quality Degradation Resulting from Water Withdrawals Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(25) Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds)The proposed rule combines a Category 1 issue, Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes), and a Category 2 issue, Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites), and names it Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds). The combined issue is a Category 2 issue. The two issues are combined because both issues consider the possibility of groundwater quality and beneficial use becoming degraded as a result of the migration of contaminants discharged to cooling ponds. Also, for the first issue, Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes), the NRC staff found that the issue was relevant to only two nuclear power plants. The combined issue reflects lessons learned and knowledge gained and new and significant information from the Turkey Point SLR review that showed that cooling ponds can impact groundwater and surface water in ways not previously considered. This combined issue also considers the environmental effects of 31

saltwater intrusion and encroachment on adjacent surface water and groundwater quality.

As described in the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC staff had previously determined that plants relying on cooling ponds in salt marsh settings were expected to have a small impact on groundwater quality. However, new information indicates that the impacts of groundwater quality degradation for plants using cooling ponds in either coastal (salt marsh) settings or at inland sites could be greater than small (i.e., small or moderate), depending on site-specific differences in the cooling ponds construction and operation; water quality; site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water and groundwater); and the location, depth, and pump rate of any water supply wells contributing to or impacted by outflow or seepage from a cooling pond.

Therefore, the combined issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 accordingly.

(26) Radionuclides Released to GroundwaterRadionuclides released to groundwater is a Category 2 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(viii) Terrestrial Resources (27) Non-Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial ResourcesThe proposed rule renames Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system impacts) as Non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources. The issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule makes clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more precisely describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources (e.g., aquatic and terrestrial) issues.

32

(28) Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to RadionuclidesExposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(29) Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the potential impacts of once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds at nuclear power plants on terrestrial resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). Cooling system operation can alter the ecological environment in a manner that affects terrestrial resources. Such alterations may include thermal effluent additions to receiving water bodies; chemical effluent additions to surface water or groundwater; impingement of waterfowl; disturbance of terrestrial plants and wetlands associated with maintenance dredging; disposal of dredged material; and erosion of shoreline habitat.

Thermal effluents discharged from once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds can contribute to localized elevated water temperatures in receiving bodies that may affect the distributions of some terrestrial plants and animals in adjacent riparian or wetland habitats. Thermal effluents to waters of the United States are regulated through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to limit the effects of such discharges on the ecological environment. In addition, wetland and riparian plant communities present near nuclear power plants have been influenced by many years of facility operation, and these communities have acclimated to local conditions.

Along with thermal effluents, nonradiological chemical contaminants may be present in cooling system discharges. The NPDES permits also limit the allowable 33

concentrations of contaminants in liquid effluent to minimize impacts on the ecological environment.

Groundwater quality can be degraded by nonradiological contaminants present in cooling ponds and cooling canals. The NRC staff found that this issue was identified only at one operating nuclear power plant, where the movement of hypersaline water did not have discernable ecological impacts.

The impingement of waterfowl at cooling water intakes has been observed at some nuclear power plants. These plants have changed operational procedures, such as periodically cleaning zebra mussels off intake structures, or have changed intake structure designs to minimize impacts on waterfowl.

Maintenance dredging near cooling system intakes or outfalls physically disturb or alter wetland or riparian habitats. Dredging and disposal of dredged material would likely require the nuclear power plant operator to obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA)

Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; best management practices and conditions associated with these permits would minimize impacts on the ecological environment.

The NRC determined that the effects of once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds on terrestrial resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of plants or animals during the initial LR or SLR term. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(30) Cooling Tower Impacts on Terrestrial PlantsThe proposed rule renames Cooling tower impacts on vegetation (plants with cooling towers) as Cooling tower impacts on terrestrial plants; it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the potential 34

impacts of cooling tower operation on terrestrial plants during the license renewal term.

Terrestrial habitats near cooling towers can be exposed to particulates, such as salt, and can experience increased humidity, which can deposit water droplets or ice on vegetation; these effects can lead to structural damage and changes in plant communities.

The NRC determined that the effects of cooling towers on terrestrial plants would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of plant populations during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(31) Bird Collisions with Plant Structures and Transmission LinesBird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the risk of birds colliding with plant structures and transmission lines during the license renewal term. Tall structures on nuclear power plant sites, such as cooling towers, meteorological towers, and transmission lines, create collision hazards for birds that can result in injury or death.

The NRC determined that the risk of bird collisions with site structures would remain the same for a given nuclear power plant during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). Because the number of associated bird mortalities is small for any species, it is unlikely that losses would threaten the stability of local or migratory bird populations or result in a noticeable impairment of the function of a species within the ecosystem.

The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

35

(32) Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River)Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) is a Category 2 issue. This issue concerns water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup water from a river and how those conflicts could affect terrestrial resources during the license renewal term.

Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. For plants using cooling towers, while the volume of surface water withdrawn is substantially less than once-through systems for a similarly sized nuclear power plant, the makeup water needed to replenish the consumptive loss of water to evaporation can be significant. Cooling ponds also require makeup water. Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources, especially riparian communities, could occur when water that supports these resources is diminished by a combination of anthropogenic uses.

The NRC identified water use conflicts with terrestrial resources at only one nuclear power plant. That nuclear power plant operator developed and implemented a water level management plan, which effectively mitigated the effects that downstream riparian communities might experience from the plants cooling water withdrawals.

The NRC determined that water use conflicts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the consumptive use of other municipal, agricultural, or industrial water users; and the plants and animals present in the area. Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources would be small at most nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or 36

cooling towers that withdraw makeup from a river but may be moderate or large at some plants.

The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(33) Transmission Line Right-Of-Way (ROW) Management Impacts on Terrestrial ResourcesTransmission line right-of-way (ROW) management impacts on terrestrial resources is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on terrestrial plants and animals during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).

Utilities maintain transmission line ROWs so that the ground cover is composed of low-growing herbaceous or shrubby vegetation and grasses. Noise and general human disturbance during ROW management can temporarily disturb wildlife and affect their behaviors. Most nuclear power plants maintain procedures to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of ROW management. The scope of transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution system. Typically, the first substation is located on the nuclear power plant property within the primary industrial-use area or other developed portion of the plant site. Therefore, effects on terrestrial plants and animals are generally negligible.

The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(34) Electromagnetic Field Effects on Terrestrial Plants and AnimalsThe proposed rule renames Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural 37

crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) as Electromagnetic field effects on terrestrial plants and animals for clarity; it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by electric transmission lines at nuclear power plants on terrestrial plants and animals, including agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, and livestock, during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). Studies investigating the effects of EMFs produced by operating transmission lines up to 1,100 kV have generally not detected any ecologically significant impact on terrestrial plants and animals. Plants and animals near transmission lines have been exposed to many years of transmission line operation and associated EMFs. The scope of transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution system.

Therefore, the effects of EMFs on terrestrial plants and animals are generally negligible.

The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resource issues.

(ix) Aquatic Resources (35) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)The proposed rule combines a Category 2 issue, Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) and the impingement component of a Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, into one Category 2 issue, Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling 38

ponds). This issue pertains to impingement mortality and entrainment of finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This includes plants with helper cooling towers that are seasonally operated to reduce thermal load to the receiving water body, reduce entrainment during peak spawning periods, or reduce consumptive water use during periods of low river flow.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC renamed the issue to include impingement mortality, rather than simply impingement. This change is consistent with the EPAs 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations and the EPAs assessment that impingement reduction technology is available, feasible, and has been demonstrated to be effective.

Additionally, the EPAs 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations establish best technology available (BTA) standards for impingement mortality based on the fact that survival is a more appropriate metric for determining environmental impact than simply looking at total impingement. Therefore, the draft revised LR GEIS also consolidates the impingement component of the Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses issue, for plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds, into this issue.

As a result of the 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations, nuclear power plants must submit detailed information about their cooling water intake systems as part of NPDES permit renewal applications to inform the permitting authoritys BTA determination. Some nuclear power plants have received final BTA determinations under the 2013 CWA Section 316(b) regulations. Many others have submitted the required information and are awaiting final determinations. The NRC expects that most operating nuclear power plants will have final BTA determinations within the next several years.

39

When available, the NRC relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting authority with respect to the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment. Therefore, if the NPDES permitting authority has made BTA determinations for a nuclear power plant pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) and that plant has implemented any associated requirements or those requirements would be implemented before the license renewal period, then the NRC assumes that adverse impacts on the aquatic environment would be minimized. In such cases, the NRC concludes that the impacts of either impingement mortality, entrainment, or both would generally be small over the course of the initial LR or SLR term. In cases where the NPDES permitting authority has not made BTA determinations, the NRC analyzes the potential impacts of impingement mortality, entrainment, or both using a weight-of-evidence approach and determines the level of impact (small, moderate, or large) that the aquatic environment is likely to experience over the course of the license renewal term.

The potential effects of impingement mortality and entrainment during the license renewal term depend on numerous plant-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the characteristics of the cooling system; and the characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area (e.g., life history, distribution, population trends, management objectives, etc.). Additionally, whether the NPDES permitting authority has made BTA determinations pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) and whether the nuclear power plant operator has implemented any associated requirements is also a relevant factor.

(36) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling Towers)The proposed rule combines a Category 1 issue, Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers), and the impingement 40

component of a Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, into one Category 1 issue, Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers). The issue pertains to impingement mortality and entrainment of finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with cooling towers that operate on a fully closed-cycle mode.

In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC changed the title of this issue to include impingement mortality, rather than simply impingement. This change is consistent with the EPAs 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations and because assessing survival of impinged organisms is a more appropriate metric for determining environmental impact than simply looking at total impingement. Therefore, this draft revised LR GEIS also consolidates into this issue the impingement component of the issue of Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, for plants with cooling towers.

In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC found that that impingement and entrainment of finfish and shellfish at plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode did not result in noticeable effects on finfish or shellfish populations within source water bodies, and this impact was not expected to be an issue during the license renewal term.

This finding is further supported by the EPAs 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations for existing facilities, which state that the operation of a closed-cycle recirculating system is an essentially preapproved technology for achieving impingement mortality BTA.

The 2013 LR GEIS considered that impingement may result in sublethal effects that could increase the susceptibility of fish or finfish to predation, disease, or parasitism.

However, only once-through cooling systems were anticipated to be of concern for this issue as the lower volume of water required by nuclear power plants with cooling towers 41

that operate in a fully closed-cycle mode would minimize this potential effect. The NRC does not expect secondary effects of impingement to be of concern during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) at nuclear power plants with cooling towers, and sublethal effects of entrainment do not apply.

In considering the effects of impingement mortality and entrainment of closed-cycle cooling systems on aquatic ecology, the NRC evaluated the same issues that were evaluated for nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds.

No significant impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants with cooling towers operating in a closed-cycle mode. As part of obtaining BTA determinations under CWA 316(b), permitting authorities may require some nuclear power plant licensees to implement additional plant-specific controls to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment. Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate impingement mortality and entrainment during the license renewal term. The NRC determined that the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment on aquatic organisms during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be small for nuclear power plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode.

Therefore, the combined issue is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 accordingly.

(37) Entrainment of Phytoplankton and ZooplanktonThe proposed rule renames Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton (all plants) as Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton; it is a Category 1 issue. The NRC found that the effects of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of these organisms in source water bodies during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) of any nuclear power plants. As part of obtaining the best technology available 42

entrainment determinations under Section 316(b) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.),

permitting authorities may require some nuclear power plants to implement additional site-specific controls to reduce entrainment. Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton.

The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to clarify the scope of issues and resources considered and indicate that the entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).

(38) Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)The proposed rule renames Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) as Effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource titles; it is a Category 2 issue.

This issue pertains to acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents on finfish and shellfish from operation of nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). The NRC determined that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms would be small at many nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or ponds, but that these impacts could be moderate or large at some plants. The potential effects of thermal effluent discharges depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant, the characteristics of the cooling system and effluent discharges, and the characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area. Additionally, whether the NPDES permitting authority has granted a CWA Section 316(a) variance is also a relevant factor.

43

The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to clarify the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(39) Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling Towers)The proposed rule renames Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) as Effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource issue titles; it is a Category 1 issue.

This issue pertains to acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents on finfish and shellfish from operation of nuclear power plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode. The NRC found that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms at plants with cooling towers would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attributes of aquatic populations in receiving water bodies. As part of obtaining a variance under CWA Section 316(a),

permitting authorities may impose conditions concerning thermal effluent discharges at some nuclear power plants. Implementation of such conditions would further reduce or mitigate thermal impacts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).

The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to clarify the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(40) Infrequently Reported Effects of Thermal EffluentsThe proposed rule combines two Category 1 issues, Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants) and Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication, with the thermal effluent component of a Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, 44

into one Category 1 issue, Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents. This issue pertains to interrelated and infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents, to include cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation of aquatic insects, and proliferated growth of aquatic nuisance species, as well as the effects of thermal effluents on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication. This issue also considers sublethal stresses associated with thermal effluents that can increase the susceptibility of exposed organisms to predation, parasitism, or disease. As discussed below, these effects are not a concern for license renewal (initial LR or SLR).

At nuclear power plants, cold shock can occur during refueling outages, reductions in power generation level, or other situations that would quickly reduce the amount of cooling capacity required at the plant. The 1996 LR GEIS reported that cold shock events have only rarely occurred at nuclear power plants. No cold shock events have been reported since the events described in the 1996 LR GEIS occurred, and no noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants.

Thermal effluents have the potential to create migration barriers if the thermal plume covers an extensive cross-sectional area of a river and temperatures within the plume exceed a species physiological tolerance limit. This impact has been examined at several nuclear power plants, but it has not been determined to result in observable effects.

The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs considered that the heated effluents of nuclear power plants could accelerate the maturation of aquatic insects in freshwater systems and cause premature emergence. The maturation and emergence of aquatic insects are often closely associated with water temperature regimes. To date, thermal effluents of 45

nuclear power plants have resulted in no noticeable or detectable impacts on the life cycles of aquatic insects.

The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs also considered that heated effluents could proliferate the growth of aquatic nuisance organisms. Aquatic nuisance species are organisms that disrupt the ecological stability of infested inland (e.g., rivers and lakes),

estuarine, or marine waters. No noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants related to this issue. The NRC has identified no other concerns about nuisance aquatic organisms associated with nuclear power plant thermal effluents.

Aerobic organisms, such as fish, require oxygen, and the concentration of dissolved oxygen in a water body is one of the most important ecological water quality parameters. The thermal effluent discharges of nuclear power plants have the potential to stress aquatic organisms by simultaneously increasing these organisms need for oxygen and decreasing oxygen availability. Although the thermal effluents of nuclear power plants may contribute to reduced dissolved oxygen in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point, as the effluent disperses, diffusion and aeration from turbulent movement introduces additional oxygen into the water. No noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants related to oxygen availability.

Rapid heating of cooling water can also affect the solubility and saturation point of other dissolved gases, including nitrogen, resulting in a state where condenser cooling water becomes supersaturated with gases. Once the supersaturated water is discharged in the receiving water body, dissolved gas levels equilibrate as the effluent cools and mixes with ambient water. This process is of concern if aquatic organisms remain in the supersaturated effluent for a long enough period to become equilibrated to 46

the increased pressure associated with the effluent. If these organisms then move into water of lower pressure too quickly when, for example, swimming out of the thermal effluent or diving to depths, the dissolved gases within the affected tissues may come out of solution and form embolisms (bubbles). The resulting condition is known as gas bubble disease, and fish mortality from gas bubble disease has been observed at one nuclear power plant. That nuclear power plant operator installed a barrier net to prevent fish from entering the discharge canal, and no such events occurred again following implementation of this mitigation. No noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any other nuclear power plants related to gas supersaturation.

An early concern about nuclear power plant discharges was that thermal effluents would cause or speed eutrophication by stimulating biological productivity in receiving water bodies. Several nuclear power plants that conducted long-term monitoring to investigate this potential effect did not detect any evidence of eutrophication.

Fish and shellfish that are exposed to the thermal effluent of a nuclear power plant may experience stunning, disorientation, or injury. These sublethal effects can subsequently affect an organisms susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease.

Since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has determined that thermal effects on aquatic organisms at four nuclear power plants could be small to moderate during the license renewal term. At three of the four plants (i.e., Braidwood, LaSalle, and Turkey Point), these impacts were limited to species confined to cooling pond environments. In the fourth example (Peach Bottom), the adverse effects were found to be confined to a narrow band of shallow water habitat downstream of the discharge canal during the summer months. However, increased susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease 47

or predation resulting from exposure to thermal effluent was not found to be responsible for these small to moderate findings. Rather, these effects were attributed to other acute (i.e., heat shock) or community-level effects (i.e., reduced habitat availability or quality and reduced species diversity over time) of thermal effluents evaluated as part of the former Category 2 issue, Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds), which has been renamed in this proposed rule.

As described in the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC determined that the infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of aquatic populations in receiving water bodies of any nuclear power plants during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). As part of obtaining a variance under CWA Section 316(a), permitting authorities may impose conditions through the NPDES permit process concerning thermal effluent discharges at some nuclear power plants. Implementation of such conditions would further reduce or mitigate thermal impacts during the license renewal term. The NRC concluded that infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents during the license renewal term would be small for all nuclear power plants. Therefore, the combined issue is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 accordingly.

(41) Effects of Nonradiological Contaminants on Aquatic OrganismsEffects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the potential effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms that could occur as a result of nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This issue was originally of concern because some nuclear power plants used heavy metals in condenser tubing that could leach from the tubing and 48

expose aquatic organisms to these contaminants. Heavy metals have not been found to be of concern other than a few instances of copper contamination, and in all cases, the nuclear power plants eliminated leaching by replacing the affected piping.

In addition to heavy metals, nuclear power plants often add biocides to cooling water to kill algae, bacteria, macroinvertebrates, and other organisms that could cause buildup in plant systems and structures. Nuclear power plants typically maintain site procedures that specify when and how to treat the cooling water system with such chemicals and best management practices to minimize impacts on the ecological environment. The NPDES permits mitigate potential effects of chemical effluents by limiting the allowable concentrations in effluent discharges to ensure the protection of the aquatic community within the receiving water body.

The NRC determined that the effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of these organisms in source water bodies during license renewal terms of any nuclear power plants. Continued adherence of nuclear power plants to chemical effluent limitations established in NPDES permits would minimize the potential impacts of nonradiological contaminants on the aquatic environment. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(42) Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to RadionuclidesExposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides is a Category 1 issue. The proposed rule makes minor clarifying changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(43) Effects of Dredging on Aquatic ResourcesThe proposed rule renames Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms as Effects of dredging on aquatic resources; 49

it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of dredging on aquatic resources conducted to maintain the function or reliability of plant cooling systems during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).

Any dredging performed would be infrequent and would require the nuclear power plant operators to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under CWA Section 404. Best management practices and conditions associated with these permits would minimize impacts on the ecological environment.

The NRC determined that the effects of dredging on aquatic resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the aquatic environment during license renewal term at any nuclear power plant. The NRC assumes that nuclear power plant operators would continue to implement site environmental procedures and would obtain any necessary permits for dredging activities. Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate potential effects. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(44) Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River)Water use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) is a Category 2 issue. This issue concerns water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how those conflicts could affect aquatic resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems.

50

Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Water use conflicts with aquatic resources could occur when water that supports these resources is diminished by a combination of anthropogenic uses. To date, the NRC has identified water use conflicts with aquatic resources at only one nuclear power plant. The NRC concluded that water use conflicts would be small to moderate for this nuclear power plant. The plant operator developed and implemented a water level management plan which successfully mitigated water use conflicts. The NRC has identified no concerns about water use conflicts with aquatic resources at any other nuclear power plant with cooling ponds or cooling towers. The NRC concluded that water use conflicts with aquatic resources would be small at most nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup water from a river but may be moderate at some plants.

Water use conflicts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would depend on numerous site-specific factors including the ecological setting of the nuclear power plant; the consumptive use of other municipal, agricultural, or industrial water users; and the aquatic resources present in the area. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(45) Non-Cooling System Impacts on Aquatic ResourcesThe proposed rule renames Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system impacts) as Non-cooling system impacts on aquatic resources; it is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of nuclear power plant operations on aquatic resources that are unrelated to the operation of the cooling system. Such activities include landscape and grounds 51

maintenance, stormwater management, and ground-disturbing activities that could directly disturb aquatic habitat or cause runoff or sedimentation.

Many nuclear power plant operators have developed site or fleet-wide environmental review procedures that help workers identify and avoid impacts on the ecological environment when performing site activities. These procedures generally include checklists to help identify potential effects and required permits and best management practices to minimize the affected area. Proper implementation of environmental procedures and BMPs would minimize or mitigate potential effects on aquatic resources during the license renewal term. Many activities that could affect aquatic habitats would also require nuclear power plants to obtain Federal permits under CWA Section 404, which would include conditions to minimize or mitigate impacts on affected waterways.

The NRC determined that the effects of site activities unrelated to cooling system operation would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the aquatic environment during the license renewal term of any nuclear power plants. The NRC assumes that nuclear power plants would continue to implement site environmental procedures and would obtain any necessary permits for activities that could affect waterways or aquatic features. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(46) Impacts of Transmission Line Right-Of-Way (ROW) Management on Aquatic ResourcesImpacts of transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management on aquatic resources is a Category 1 issue. This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on aquatic plants and animals during the license renewal term.

52

The transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power distribution system. Typically, the first substation is located on the nuclear power plant property within the primary industrial-use area and the in-scope transmission lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites. Therefore, effects on aquatic plants and animals are generally negligible.

Most nuclear power plants maintain procedures to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of ROW management. The NRC determined that the transmission line ROW maintenance impacts on aquatic resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be small for all nuclear power plants. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue, to more clearly describe the scope of issues and resources considered and for consistency with other ecological resources issues.

(x) Federally Protected Ecological Resources (47) Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife JurisdictionThe proposed rule divides a Category 2 issue, Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat, into three separate Category 2 issues, for clarity and consistency with the separate Federal statues and interagency consultation requirements that the NRC must consider with respect to Federally protected ecological resources. When combined, the scope of the three issues is the same as the scope of the former Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat issue discussed in the 2013 LR GEIS.

53

The first of the three issues, Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction, concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Under the ESA, the FWS is responsible for listing and managing terrestrial and freshwater species and designating critical habitat for these species. Continued operation of a nuclear power plant during the license renewal term could affect these species and their habitat. Listed species are likely to occur near all operating nuclear power plants. However, the potential for a given species to occur in the action area of a specific nuclear power plant depends on the life history, habitat requirements, and distribution of the species and the ecological environment present on or near the plant site.

The NRC may be required to consult with FWS under ESA Section 7(a)(2); such consultations are required for license renewal actions that may affect federally listed species and critical habitats and to ensure that the actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those species or destroy or adversely modify those habitats.

The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term depends upon numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and the plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and refurbishment and other ground-disturbing activities. Listing status is not static, and FWS frequently issues new rules to list or delist species and designate or remove critical habitats. Therefore, a generic 54

determination of potential impacts on listed species and critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction during a nuclear power plants license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible. The NRC would perform a plant-specific impact assessment for each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with the FWS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.

(48) Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under National Marine Fisheries Service JurisdictionThe second of the three issues from the prior Category 2 issue on federally protected species, Endangered Species Act: federally listed specifies and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction, concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the ESA and under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Under the ESA, NMFS is responsible for listing and managing marine and anadromous species and designating critical habitat of these species. Continued operation of a nuclear power plant and any refurbishment during the license renewal term could affect these species and their habitat. The potential for a given species to occur in the action area of a specific nuclear power plant depends on the life history, habitat requirements, and distribution of that species and the ecological environment present on or near the power plant site. In general, listed species and critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction are only of concern at nuclear power plants that withdraw or discharge from estuarine or marine waters. However, anadromous listed species under NMFS jurisdiction may be seasonally present in the action area of plants located within freshwater reaches of rivers well upstream of the saltwater interface.

55

The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and refurbishment and other ground-disturbing activities. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with NMFS for actions that may affect federally listed species and critical habitats. Additionally, listing status is not static, and NMFS frequently issue new rules to list or delist species and designate or remove critical habitats. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on listed species and critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction during a nuclear power plants license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible. The NRC would perform a plant-specific impact assessment for each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.

(49) Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish HabitatThe last of the three issues from the prior Category 2 issue on federally protected species, Magnuson-Stevens Act:

essential fish habitat, concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on essential fish habitat (EFH) protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (i.e., Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)).

Under the MSA, the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, designate areas of EFH and manage marine resources within those areas. Within EFH, habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) may be designated if the area meets certain additional criteria. Continued operation of a nuclear power plant and any refurbishment during the license renewal term could affect EFH, including HAPCs. The NRC may be 56

required to consult with NMFS under MSA Section 305(b). In cases where adverse effects on EFH are possible, the NRC has engaged NMFS in EFH consultation as part of the plant-specific license renewal environmental review and obtained EFH conservation recommendations.

The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term depends upon numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the EFH present in the action area, including HAPCs; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and any other activities that may affect aquatic habitats during the license renewal term. Section 305(b) of the MSA requires that Federal agencies consult with NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH. Additionally, EFH status is not static. The NMFS and the Fishery Management Councils frequently update management plans for EFH species and issue new rules to designate or modify EFH and HAPCs. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on EFH during a nuclear power plants license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible.

The NRC would perform a plant-specific impact assessment as part of each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.

(50) National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources- The proposed rule adds this as a new Category 2 issue, National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources, to evaluate the concerns of the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on sanctuary resources protected under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).

Under the NMSA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) designates and manages the 57

National Marine Sanctuary System. Marine sanctuaries may occur near nuclear power plants located on or near marine waters as well as the Great Lakes. Currently, five operating nuclear power plants are located near designated or proposed national marine sanctuaries.

The potential impacts on marine sanctuaries are broad-ranging because such resources include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary. With respect to ecological sanctuary resources, potential effects of particular concern include the following: (1) impingement (including entrapment) and entrainment, (2) thermal effects, (3) exposure to radionuclides and other contaminants, (4) reduction in available food resources due to impingement mortality and entrainment or thermal effects on prey species, and (5) effects associated with maintenance dredging. Additionally, the magnitude and significance of such impacts can be greater for sanctuary resources becauseby virtue of being part of a national marine sanctuarythese resources are more sensitive to environmental stressors. Based on the foregoing, a generic determination of potential impacts on sanctuary resources during a nuclear power plants license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible.

Depending on the NRCs effect determinations, the NRC may be required to consult with ONMS under NMSA Section 304(d). The NMSA consultation is required when a Federal agency determines that an action is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. Federal actions subject to consultation may be inside or outside the boundary of a national marine sanctuary.

In summary, the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation during the license renewal term depends upon numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the sanctuary resources present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent 58

discharges, and any other activities that may affect sanctuary resources during the license renewal term. Section 304(d) of the NMSA requires that Federal agencies consult with the ONMS for actions that may injure sanctuary resources. Additionally, national marine sanctuary status is not static. The geographic extent of existing sanctuaries may change or expand in the future, and NOAA is likely to designate new sanctuaries as additional areas of conservation need are identified and assessed.

Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on sanctuary resources during a nuclear power plants license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) is not possible. The NRC would perform a site-specific impact assessment as part of each license renewal environmental review to determine the potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this new issue is being established as a plant-specific, or Category 2, issue.

(xi) Historic and Cultural Resources (51) Historic and Cultural ResourcesHistoric and cultural resources is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to make clarifying changes and include a discussion of impacts on cultural resources that are not eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places that would also need to be considered during plant-specific license renewal environmental reviews.

(xii) Socioeconomics 59

(52) Employment and Income, Recreation and TourismEmployment and income, recreation and tourism is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(53) Tax RevenueThe proposed rule renames Tax revenues as Tax revenue; it is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(54) Community Services and Education, (55) Population and Housing, and (56)

TransportationCommunity services and education, Population and housing, and Transportation are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(xiii) Human Health (57) Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers and (58) Radiation Exposures to the PublicRadiation exposures to plant workers and Radiation exposures to the public are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(59) Chemical HazardsThe proposed rule renames Human health impact from chemicals as Chemical hazards for clarity and to reflect the fact that chemicals can have environmental effects beyond human health. Chemical hazards can have immediate human health effects as well as potential environmental impacts from nuclear power plant discharges and chemical spills. This issue is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

60

(60) Microbiological Hazards to Plant WorkersMicrobiological hazards to plant workers is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(61) Microbiological Hazards to the PublicThe proposed rule renames Microbiological hazards to the public (plants with cooling ponds or canals or cooling towers that discharge to a river as Microbiological hazards to the public because this issue is a concern wherever receiving waters are accessible to the public and as changes in microbial populations and in the public use of water bodies might occur over time. Specifically, members of the public could be exposed to microorganisms in thermal effluents at nuclear power plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, or canals and discharge to any waters of the United States accessible to the public. This issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue for clarity and to indicate that thermophilic microorganisms are a concern wherever waters receiving thermal effluents are accessible to the public.

(62) Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)The proposed rule renames Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) for clarity because this issue considers effects beyond those that are chronic in nature. This issue is an uncategorized issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(63) Physical Occupational HazardsPhysical occupational hazards is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(64) Electric Shock HazardsElectric shock hazards is a Category 2 issue.

There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

61

(xiv) Postulated Accidents (65) Design-Basis AccidentsDesign-basis accidents is a Category 1 issue.

There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

(66) Severe AccidentsThe proposed rule reclassifies the Category 2 Severe accidents issue as a Category 1 issue. In the 2013 LR GEIS, the issue of severe accidents was classified as a Category 2 issue to the extent that only alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all nuclear power plants where the licensee had not previously performed a severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis for the plant. In the draft revised LR GEIS, the NRC notes that this issue will be resolved generically for the vast majority, if not all, expected license renewal applicants because the applicants who will likely reference the LR GEIS have previously completed a SAMA analysis. The NRC provides a technical basis further supporting this conclusion in Appendix E of the draft revised LR GEIS. Although the NRC does not anticipate any license renewal applications for nuclear power plants for which a previous severe accident mitigation design alternative or SAMA analysis has not been performed, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

In license renewal applications, both internal and external events were considered for impacts from reactor accidents at full power when assessing SAMAs.

The impacts of all new information in the draft revised LR GEIS were found to not contribute sufficiently to the environmental impacts to warrant further SAMA analysis because the likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant improvements is small.

This further analysis confirms the Commissions expectation that further SAMA analysis would not be necessary for plants that have already completed one.

62

With regard to the severe accident impact finding, the NRC reviewed information from SEISs for both initial LR and SLR reviews completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue. The NRCs review of new information determined that the overall risk posed by severe accident is less than originally stated in the 1996 LR GEIS by a significant margin. Therefore, the NRC concluded that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents during the initial LR or SLR terms are small.

The proposed rule revises the finding column in Table B-1 for this issue to reflect the fact that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents remain small.

(xv) Environmental Justice (67) Impacts on Minority Populations, Low-Income Populations, and Indian TribesThe proposed rule renames Minority and low-income populations as Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes5 to reflect the scope of environmental justice concerns addressed in this issue. Continued reactor operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant could affect land, air, water, and ecological resources, which could result in human health or environmental effects. Consequently, minority and low-income populations and Indian Tribes could be disproportionately affected. The environmental justice impact analysis determines whether human health or environmental effects from continued 5

The term Indian Tribes refers to Federally recognized Tribes as acknowledged by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). Along with minority and low-income communities, environmental justice communities can include State-recognized Tribes, those that self-identify as Indian Tribes, and tribal members. Tribal members can be part of an environmental justice community that has different interests and concerns than a Tribal government.

63

reactor operations and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant would disproportionately affect a minority population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe and whether these effects may be high and adverse.

The NRC determined that environmental justice impacts during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) are unique to each nuclear power plant. Therefore, the issue is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule revises the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to add Indian Tribes and subsistence consumption to the scope of the finding and to make other minor clarifications.

(xvi) Waste Management (68) Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal, (69) Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, (70) Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste Disposal, (71) Mixed-Waste Storage and Disposal, and (72) Nonradioactive Waste Storage and DisposalLow-level waste storage and disposal, Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal, Mixed-waste storage and disposal, and Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(xvii) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (73) Greenhouse Gas Impacts on Climate ChangeThe proposed rule adds a new Category 1 issue, Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change, that evaluates the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts on climate change associated with continued operation 64

and refurbishment. The issue of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change was not considered in the 2013 LR GEIS and is not listed in the current Table B-1. At the time of publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, insufficient data existed to support a classification of the contribution of nuclear power plant GHG emissions on climate change, either as a generic or site-specific issue. The 2013 LR GEIS, however, included a discussion summarizing the life cycle impacts of nuclear power plant GHG emissions and climate change. Furthermore, following the issuance of Commission Order CLI-09-21, the NRC began to evaluate the direct and cumulative effects of GHG emissions and their contribution to climate change in environmental reviews for license renewal applications.

Nuclear power plants, by their very nature, do not combust fossil fuels to generate electricity and, therefore, have inherently low GHG emissions. However, nuclear power plant operations do have some GHG emission sources including diesel generators, pumps, diesel engines, boilers, refrigeration systems, electrical transmission and distribution systems, as well as mobile sources (e.g., worker vehicles and delivery vehicles). Any refurbishment activities undertaken at the nuclear power plant site could also produce GHGs due to emissions from motorized equipment, construction vehicles, and worker vehicles. Collectively, these GHG emissions when compared to different GHG emission inventories for other facilities, are minor.

The NRC concluded that the impacts of GHG emissions on climate change from continued operation during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) and any refurbishment activities would be small for all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this is a new Category 1 issue.

(74) Climate Change Impacts on Environmental ResourcesThe proposed rule adds this new Category 2 issue, Climate change impacts on environmental resources, that evaluates the impacts of climate change on environmental resources that are 65

affected by continued nuclear power plant operations and any refurbishment during the license renewal term. Climate change is an environmental trend (i.e., reflected in changes in climate indicators, such as precipitation, air and water temperature, sea level rise over time) that could result in changes in the affected environment, irrespective of license renewal. The issue of climate change impacts was not identified as either a generic or site-specific issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. However, the 2013 LR GEIS briefly described the environmental impacts that could occur on resources areas (land use, air quality, water resources, etc.) that may also be affected by license renewal. In site-specific initial LR and SLR SEISs prepared since development of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC considered climate change impacts for those resources that could be incrementally affected by license renewal as part of the cumulative impact analysis.

As part of a comprehensive environmental review to meet its obligations under NEPA, the NRC must consider the impacts of climate change on environmental resource conditions that could also be affected by continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment as a result of the proposed action (license renewal). License renewal environmental reviews conducted by the NRC have found that climate change effects on affected resources (e.g., water availability, sea level rise) can be equal to or greater than any direct effects associated with continued nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term. Observed climate change has not been uniform across the United States. The accrued effects of climate change on environmental resource conditions can vary greatly based on site-specific conditions and thus are plant-specific rather than generic in nature. In support of safe plant operation and in conformance with environmental permitting requirements, nuclear power plant licensees maintain systems and collect meteorological, water temperature, and other data that can inform the NRCs 66

environmental review with respect to the impacts of climate change on environmental resource conditions.

The impacts of climate change on environmental resources that are affected by continued nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) are location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically. The effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess the impacts on the human environment for a specific location. The NRC would need to perform a site-specific impact assessment as part of each license renewal environmental review. Therefore, this is a new Category 2 issue that cuts across multiple resource areas, similar to the cumulative effects issue, which is currently in Table B-1.

(xviii) Cumulative Effects (75) Cumulative EffectsThe proposed rule renames Cumulative impacts as Cumulative effects; it is a Category 2 issue. The proposed rule makes minor editorial and clarification changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue to be consistent with the definition of cumulative effects as provided in the Council on Environmental Qualitys revised regulation at 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3).

(xix) Uranium Fuel Cycle (76) Offsite Radiological ImpactsIndividual Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste, (77) Offsite Radiological Impacts Collective Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste, 67

(78) Nonradiological Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, and (79) Transportation Offsite radiological impactsindividual impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, Offsite radiological impactscollective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, and Transportation are Category 1 issues. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for these issues.

(xx) Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning (80) Termination of Plant Operations and DecommissioningTermination of plant operations and decommissioning is a Category 1 issue. There are no changes to the finding column of Table B-1 for this issue.

The proposed rule also revises the footnotes to Table B-1 as follows:

Footnote 1 is revised to update the reference to the current revision of the LR GEIS.

Footnote 2 is revised to indicate that for the Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal issue, there is no single significance level to the impact.

Footnote 7 is added to indicate that for the Severe accidents issue, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not already considered such alternatives.

Section 51.53(c)(3), Postconstruction Environmental Reports 68

The proposed rule revises the introductory paragraph of Section 51.53(c)(3) to replace the words an initial with the word a to reflect that the regulation governing postconstruction environmental reports for license renewal applies to applicants seeking either an initial or subsequent renewed license following this update to the LR GEIS.

The proposed rule revises Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) for clarity and consistency with the methodology in CWA Sections 316(a) and (b), including the 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations which establish the BTA criteria based on impingement mortality, rather than total impingement.

The proposed rule revises Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D) to delete the words is located at an inland site and, to reflect the consolidation of two issues from the 2013 LR GEIS: Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes), a Category 1 issue, and Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds at inland sites), a Category 2 issue. The consolidated Category 2 issue in the draft revised LR GEIS, Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds) reflects new information that cooling ponds can impact water quality at both inland and at coastal sites as a result of the migration of contaminants discharged to cooling ponds.

The proposed rule revises Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) for clarity and consistency with the proposed changes related to Federally protected ecological resources in Table B-1 and the draft revised LR GEIS. The changes in this paragraph correspond to the changes in Table B-1 where a Category 2 issue, Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat was divided into three issues, for clarity and consistency with the separate Federal statues and interagency consultation requirements that the NRC must consider with respect to Federally protected ecological resources. Also included is a change reflecting the addition of a 69

new Category 2 issue, National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources, which addresses the NRC consultation requirements under the Act.

The proposed rule revises Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) for consistency with proposed changes to the Category 2 issue, Microbiological hazards to the public. The updated finding for this issue states that public health is a concern wherever receiving waters associated with nuclear power plant thermal effluents are accessible to the public.

The proposed rule revises Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) for clarity and consistency with the specific requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, including the reference to NEPA, to reflect the requirement that Federal agencies must consider the potential effects of their actions on the affected human environment, which includes aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources.

The proposed rule revises Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N) for clarity and consistency with the proposed changes in Table B-1 and the draft revised LR GEIS by adding consideration of Indian Tribes and revises the terminology to refine the scope of environmental justice concerns.

The proposed rule revises Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O) for consistency with the revised terminology for cumulative effects provided by the Council on Environmental Quality.

The proposed rule adds a new Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q), for consistency with the proposed changes in Table B-1 and the draft revised LR GEIS which includes the addition of a new Category 2 issue, Climate change impacts on environmental resources. The proposed change addresses the assessment of the effects of changes in climate on environmental resources areas and any mitigation measures implemented by the nuclear power plant operator to address climate change impacts. The new issue 70

was identified to improve the efficiency of reviews, address lessons learned from plant-specific reviews and information provided in public comments, and to reflect analyses already being performed by the NRC staff in environmental reviews, consistent with the Commission direction provided in CLI-09-21.

Section 51.95, Postconstruction Environmental Impact Statements The proposed rule revises Section 51.95(c), Operating license renewal stage, to remove the date of issuance of NUREG-1437. This change is made for clarity and to ensure that the regulation refers to the latest revision of the LR GEIS.

IV. Availability of Guidance for Comment The NRC is issuing for comment two revised draft guidance documents, draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-4027, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications,6 and draft NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, to support implementation of the requirements in this proposed rule. The guidance documents are available as indicated in the Availability of Documents section of this document. You may submit comments on the draft regulatory guidance by the methods outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The DG-4027 has been prepared as a revision to Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, Supplement 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License 6 Unless stated otherwise, references to RG 4.2, Supplement 1, refer to DG-4027, the draft revision to RG 4.2, Supplement 1, which is being published at the same time as this notice.

71

Renewal Applications. The DG-4027 provides general procedures for the preparation of environmental reports that are submitted as part of an application for the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license, including SLR, in accordance with 10 CFR part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, including subsequent license renewals. The revision updates the content for environmental reports. The revision also updates the regulatory and technical bases and the criteria for required plant-specific analyses for Category 2 issues and other matters to be addressed in the environmental report, as specified in the proposed amendments to § 51.53(c)(3).

The draft revision of NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, provides guidance for the NRC staff when performing a 10 CFR part 51 environmental review of an application for the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license, including SLR.

The changes in the draft revision to the Standard Review Plan parallel the revisions in DG-4027. The primary purpose of the Standard Review Plan is to ensure that these reviews are focused on the significant environmental concerns associated with license renewal as described in 10 CFR part 51. Specifically, the Standard Review Plan provides guidance to the NRC staff about environmental issues that should be reviewed and provides acceptance criteria to help the reviewer evaluate the information submitted as part of the license renewal application. It is also the intent of this draft Standard Review Plan to make information about the regulatory process available and to improve communication between the NRC, interested members of the public, and the nuclear industry, thereby increasing understanding of the review process.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 72

The following paragraphs describe the specific changes proposed by this rulemaking.

10 CFR 51.53, Postconstruction Environmental Reports.

In § 51.53(c)(3), this proposed rule would remove the words an initial and add in its place the word a, to indicate applicability to initial LR and SLR.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) for clarity and consistency with the methodology in Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 316(a) and (b).

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D) to remove the words is located at an inland site and, for consistency with proposed consolidation of two issues related to groundwater quality degradation and corresponding updates in Table B-1.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E) for clarity and consistency with proposed revisions to Table B-1.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(G) for consistency with proposed revisions to Table B-1 related to the Microbiological hazards to the public issue.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(K) for clarity and consistency with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(N) for clarity and consistency with proposed revisions to Table B-1 related to the scope of environmental justice concerns.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(O) for consistency with the revised terminology for cumulative effects provided by the Council on Environmental Quality.

73

This proposed rule would add new paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(Q) to include an assessment of the effects of climate change in postconstruction environmental reports.

Section 51.95, Postconstruction Environmental Impact Statements.

This proposed rule would revise paragraph (c) to remove the date (June 2013),

to clarify the reference to the current revision of NUREG-1437.

Appendix B to Subpart AEnvironmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant This proposed rule would revise appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, to indicate the applicability to initial LR and SLR and to update the findings on environmental issues with the data supported by the analyses in the proposed NUREG-1437, Revision 2.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would only affect nuclear power plant licensees filing for license renewal applications. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

VII. Regulatory Analysis 74

The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC.

The NRC requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the Availability of Documents section of this document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document.

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality The proposed rule would codify in 10 CFR part 51 certain environmental issues identified in the draft revised LR GEIS. The proposed rule would also revise

§ 51.53(c)(3) to remove the word initial. The NRC has determined that the backfitting rule in § 50.109 and the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 do not apply to this proposed rule because this amendment does not involve any provision that would either constitute backfitting as that term is defined in 10 CFR chapter I or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52.

IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation The NRC is following its cumulative effects of regulation (CER) process by engaging with external stakeholders throughout the rulemaking and related regulatory activities. Public involvement has included (1) the publication of notice announcing information gathering through the public scoping process to support the review to determine whether to update the LR GEIS on August 4, 2020 (85 FR 47252); and (2) 75

four public meetings conducted on August 19, 2020, and August 27, 2020 (two meetings on each day), to receive comments on the scope of the LR GEIS.

The NRC is issuing draft guidance along with this proposed rule to support more informed external stakeholder understanding and feedback. The draft guidance is available as indicated in the Availability of Documents section of this document.

Further, the NRC will continue to hold public meetings throughout the rulemaking process.

In addition to the questions on the implementation of this proposed rule presented in the Specific Requests for Comments section of this document, the NRC is requesting CER feedback on the following questions:

1. If CER challenges currently exist or are expected, what should be done to address them? Please explain your response.

2. Do other (NRC or other agency) regulatory actions (e.g., orders, generic communications, license amendment requests, inspection findings of a generic nature) influence the implementation of the proposed rules requirements? Please explain your response.

3. Are there unintended consequences? Does the proposed rule create conditions that would be contrary to the proposed rules purpose and objectives? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how should they be addressed? Please explain your response.

4. Please comment on the NRCs cost and benefit estimates in the draft regulatory analysis that supports the proposed rule. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the Availability of Documents section of this document.

X. Plain Writing 76

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, Plain Language in Government Writing, published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

XI. National Environmental Policy Act In support of the proposed revisions to 10 CFR part 51 concerning initial LR and SLRs, the NRC prepared draft Revision 2 to NUREG-1437, which is published for comment concurrent with this proposed rule. With regard to the corresponding changes in requirements for applications for initial LR or SLR, the NRC has determined that this is the type of action described in § 51.22(c)(3), an NRC categorical exclusion. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement has been prepared for this aspect of the proposed rule, as it is procedural in nature and pertains to the type of environmental information to be reviewed.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq). This proposed rule has 77

been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collections.

Type of submission: Revision The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 51, Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review The form number if applicable: Not applicable How often the information is required or requestion: On occasion.

Environmental Reports are required upon submittal of an application for an operating license renewal.

Who will be required or asked to respond: Applicants for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses An estimate of the number of annual responses: 8.3 An estimated number of annual respondents: 8.3 (5 applicants for future subsequent license renewals and 3.3 applicants for near-term and submitted applications, and issued subsequent license renewals)

An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 71,067 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br /> Abstract: The NRC is proposing to amend the regulations that govern the NRCs environmental reviews of operating license renewal applications. The NRCs regulations in § 51.53(c) require each applicant for renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under 10 CFR part 54 to submit an environmental report which includes, among other things, a description of the proposed action, including the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative controls. This proposed rulemaking would codify the generic findings of the LR GEIS, which presents impact analyses for the environmental issues common to many or most of license renewal applications that can 78

be addressed generically, thereby eliminating the need to repeatedly reproduce the same analyses each time a license renewal application is submitted. The NRCs regulations in § 51.53(c) require each applicant to prepare and submit a report entitled Applicants Environmental ReportOperating License Renewal Stage, with the applicants license renewal application. The information provided by the applicant in the environmental report helps the NRC meet its regulatory obligations consistent with Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The proposed rule would increase burden on an applicant because several proposed changes to Table B-1 (e.g., new Category 1 and 2 issues, consolidation of Category 1 issues into Category 2 issues, and dividing an existing Category 2 issue into multiple Category 2 issues) would require the applicant to evaluate such issues on a site-specific basis and provide this information in the environmental report.

The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collection contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility?

Please explain your response.

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection accurate?

Please explain your response.

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? Please explain your response.

4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? Please explain your response.

79

A copy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance package and proposed rule is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML22208A002 or may be obtained free of charge by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. You may obtain information and comment submissions related to the OMB clearance package by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2020-0101.

You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the above issues, by the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0296.

Mail comments to: FOIA, Library, and Information Collections Branch, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mail Stop: T6-A10M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or to the OMB reviewer at OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0021), Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; email:

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.

Submit comments by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

Public Protection Notification 80

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This proposed rule, which amends various provisions of 10 CFR part 51, does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

XIV. Public Meetings The NRC plans to hold public meetings to promote a full understanding of the proposed rule, the draft revised LR GEIS, and associated guidance documents, and to receive public comments.

The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of the meetings in the Federal Register, on Regulations.gov, and on the NRCs public meeting website within at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRCs public meeting website for information about the public meeting at:

https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.

XV. Availability of Documents 81

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. /

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Draft NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML22165A006 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Volume 1, Revision 2 Draft NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML22167A060 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Volume 2, Revision 2 Draft Guidance Documents Draft NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, ML22165A070 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4027, Preparation of ML22165A072 Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications (also referenced as RG 4.2, Supplement 1)

Proposed Rule Documents SECY-XX-XXXX, Proposed Rule: Renewing Nuclear ML22165A004 Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)

Draft Regulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, ML22165A008 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Draft Supporting Statement for Information Collections ML22208A002 Contained in the Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review Proposed Rule Related Documents Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of 78 FR 37281 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Final Rule, June 20, 2013 Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of 78 FR 46255 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Correction, Final Rule, Correcting Amendment, July 31, 2013 Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Final Rule, 79 FR 56251 September 29, 2014 Corrected Transcript for Public Scoping Meeting to ML20296A270 82

Discuss the Review and Potential Update of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, August 27, 2020, 1:30 p.m.

Corrected Transcript for Public Scoping Meeting to ML20296A271 Discuss the Review and Potential Update of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, August 27, 2020, 6:30 p.m.

Corrected Transcript for Public Scoping Meeting to ML20296A272 Discuss the Review and Potential Update of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, August 19, 2020, 1:30 p.m.

Corrected Transcript for Public Scoping Meeting to ML20296A273 Discuss the Review and Potential Update of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, August 19, 2020, 6:30 p.m.

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process ML21039A576 Summary Report, Review and Update of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437), June 2021 Notice of Intent to Review and Update the Generic 85 FR 47252 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, August 4, 2020 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML040690705 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Volume 1, dated May 1996 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML040690738 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Volume 2, dated May 1996 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML13106A241 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Volume 1, Revision 1, dated June 2013 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML13106A242 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Volume 2, Revision 1, dated June 2013 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML13106A244 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Volume 3, Revision 1, dated June 2013 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact ML19290H346 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, dated October 2019 SECY-21-0066, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing ML20364A008 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses -

83

Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32, NRC-2018-0296), dated July 22, 2021 SECY-22-0024, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing ML22062B643 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses -

Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32, NRC-2018-0296), dated March 25, 2022 SECY-22-0036, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing ML22083A149 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses Year Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022-0087),

dated April 25, 2022 SRM-SECY-21-0066, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing ML22053A308 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses -

Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32, NRC-2018-0296), dated February 24, 2022 SRM-SECY-22-0024, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing ML22096A035 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses -

Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32, NRC-2018-0296), dated April 5, 2022 SRM-SECY-22-0036, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing ML22168A130 Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses Year Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022-0087),

dated June 17, 2022 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum and ML093070690 Order CLI-09-21, dated November 9, 2009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum and ML22055A496 Order CLI-22-02, dated February 24, 2022 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum and ML22055A521 Order CLI-22-03, dated February 24, 2022 ML22055A526 ML22055A527 ML22055A533 ML22055A554 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum and ML22055A557 Order CLI-22-04, dated February 24, 2022 The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0296. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. The following actions are needed to subscribe: 1) navigate to the docket folder NRC-2018-0296, 2) click the Subscribe link, and 3) enter an email address and click on the Subscribe link.

84

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51 Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR part 51 as follows:

PART 51- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2243);

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161, 10168); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168).

Section 51.22 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 274 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 121 (42 U.S.C. 10141).

Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 114(f) (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)).

2. Amend § 51.53 by:

a. In paragraph (c)(3) introductory text, removing an initial and adding in its place a;

b. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B);

85

c. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D), removing is located at an inland site and;

d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E);

e. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(G);

f. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(K);

g. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(N);

h. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(O); and

i. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(Q).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 51.53 Postconstruction environmental reports.

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond water intake and discharge systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) Best Technology Available determinations and, if applicable, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement mortality and entrainment and thermal discharges.

(E) All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment, continued operations, and other license renewal-related construction activities on 86

important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

(G) If the applicants plant uses a cooling pond, lake, canal, or discharges into waters of the United States accessible to the public, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected water must be provided.

(K) All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic and cultural resources and historic properties and assess whether future plant operations and any planned refurbishment activities would affect these resources in accordance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act.

(N) Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and ethnicity) and Indian tribes in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant that could be disproportionately affected by license renewal, including continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities.

87

(O) Applicants shall provide information about other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions occurring in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant that may result in a cumulative effect.

(Q) Applicants shall include an assessment of the effects of any observed and projected changes in climate on environmental resource areas that are affected by license renewal, as well as any mitigation measures implemented at the applicants plant to address climate change impacts.

§ 51.95 [Amended]

3. In § 51.95, in paragraph (c) introductory text, remove (June 2013).

4. Revise appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 - Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant The Commission has assessed the environmental impacts associated with granting a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant to a licensee who holds either an operating license or construction permit as of June 30, 1995. This assessment applies to applications for initial or subsequent license renewal. Table B-1 summarizes the Commission's findings on the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant as required by section 102(2) of 88

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Table B-1, subject to an evaluation of those issues identified in Category 2 as requiring further analysis and possible significant new information, represents the analysis of the environmental impacts associated with renewal of any operating license and is to be used in accordance with § 51.95(c). On a 10-year cycle, the Commission intends to review the material in this appendix and update it if necessary. A scoping notice must be published in the Federal Register indicating the results of the NRC's review and inviting public comments and proposals for other areas that should be updated.

Table B-1Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial and Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants1 Issue Category2 Finding3 Land Use Onsite land use 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee.

Offsite land use 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

Offsite land use in 1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs transmission line right-of-ways from continued operations and (ROWs)4 refurbishment associated with license renewal would continue with no change in land use restrictions.

Visual Resources Aesthetic impacts 1 SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant structures or transmission lines are expected from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

Air Quality 89

Air quality impacts 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small at all plants.

Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and routine operations of boilers used for space heating are minor. Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions have been small.

Emissions resulting from refurbishment activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after these activities are completed. Operating experience has shown that the scale of refurbishment activities has not resulted in exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants, and best management practices, including fugitive dust controls and the imposition of permit conditions in State and local air emissions permits, would ensure conformance with applicable State or Tribal implementation plans.

Air quality effects of 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and transmission lines4 oxides of nitrogen from transmission lines is insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

Noise Noise impacts 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

Geologic Environment Geology and soils 1 SMALL. The impact of continued operations and refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be small for all nuclear power plants and would not change appreciably during the license renewal term.

Surface Water Resources 90

Surface water use and quality 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be (non-cooling system impacts) small if best management practices are employed to control soil erosion and spills. Surface water use associated with continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would not increase significantly or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage.

Altered current patterns at 1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would intake and discharge be limited to the area in the vicinity of structures the intake and discharge structures.

These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Altered salinity gradients 1 SMALL. Effects of salinity gradients would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Altered thermal stratifications 1 SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification of lakes would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Scouring caused by 1 SMALL. Scouring effects would be discharged cooling water limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Discharge of metals in cooling 1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not system effluent been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process.

Discharge of biocides, sanitary 1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges wastes, and minor chemical are regulated by Federal and State spills environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

91

Surface water use conflicts 1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been (plants with once-through found to be a problem at operating cooling systems) nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.

Surface water use conflicts 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could (plants with cooling ponds or be of small or moderate significance, cooling towers using makeup depending on makeup water water from a river) requirements, water availability, and competing water demands.

Effects of dredging on surface 1 SMALL. Dredging to remove water quality accumulated sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local agencies.

Temperature effects on 1 SMALL. These effects have not been sediment transport capacity found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Groundwater Resources Groundwater contamination 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not and use (non-cooling system anticipated from continued operations impacts) and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater ponds or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to State or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The application of best management practices for handling any materials produced or used during these activities would reduce impacts.

Groundwater use conflicts 1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than (plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any 100 gallons per minute [gpm]) groundwater use conflicts.

Groundwater use conflicts 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.

(plants that withdraw more Plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm than 100 gallons per minute could cause groundwater use conflicts

[gpm]) with nearby groundwater users.

92

Groundwater use conflicts 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.

(plants with closed-cycle Water use conflicts could result from cooling systems that withdraw water withdrawals from rivers during makeup water from a river) low-flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water demands.

Groundwater quality 1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at degradation resulting from operating nuclear power plants would water withdrawals not contribute significantly to groundwater quality degradation.

Groundwater quality 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Sites with degradation (plants with cooling ponds could degrade cooling ponds) groundwater quality. The significance of the impact would depend on site-specific conditions including cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and pump rate of water wells.

Radionuclides released to 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Leaks of groundwater radioactive liquids from plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous plants. Groundwater protection programs have been established at all operating nuclear power plants to minimize the potential impact from any inadvertent releases.

The magnitude of impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics.

Terrestrial Resources Non-cooling system impacts 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The on terrestrial resources magnitude of effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment, unrelated to operation of the cooling system, would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including ecological setting, planned activities during the license renewal term, and characteristics of the plants and animals present in the area. Application of best management practices and other conservation initiatives would reduce the potential for impacts.

93

Exposure of terrestrial 1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms organisms to radionuclides from continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.

Cooling system impacts on 1 SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear terrestrial resources (plants power plant cooling systems during with once-through cooling license renewal could cause thermal systems or cooling ponds) effluent additions to receiving waterbodies; chemical effluent additions to surface water or groundwater, impingement of waterfowl, disturbance of terrestrial plants and wetlands from maintenance dredging, and erosion of shoreline habitat. However, plants where these impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact, and it is no longer of concern. These impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term.

Cooling tower impacts on 1 SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear terrestrial plants power plant cooling towers could deposit particulates and water droplets or ice on vegetation and lead to structural damage or changes in terrestrial plant communities. However, nuclear power plants where these impacts occurred have successfully mitigated the impact.

These impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term.

Bird collisions with plant 1 SMALL. Bird mortalities from collisions structures and transmission with nuclear power plant structures and lines4 in-scope transmission lines would be negligible for any species and are unlikely to threaten the stability of local or migratory bird populations or result in noticeable impairment of the function of a species within the ecosystem. These impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term.

94

Water use conflicts with 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear power terrestrial resources (plants plants could consume water at rates that with cooling ponds or cooling cause occasional or intermittent water towers using makeup water use conflicts with nearby and from a river) downstream terrestrial and riparian communities. Such impacts could noticeably affect riparian or wetland species or alter characteristics of the ecological environment during the license renewal term. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact.

Impacts are expected to be small at most nuclear power plants but could be moderate at some.

Transmission line right-of-way 1 SMALL. In-scope transmission lines (ROW) management impacts tend to occupy only industrial-use or on terrestrial resources4 other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, effects of ROW maintenance on terrestrial plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible.

Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts.

Electromagnetic field effects 1 SMALL. In-scope transmission lines on terrestrial plants and tend to occupy only industrial-use or animals4 other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, effects of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible.

Aquatic Resources 95

Impingement mortality and 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The entrainment of aquatic impacts of impingement mortality and organisms (plants with once- entrainment would generally be small at through cooling systems or nuclear power plants with once-through cooling ponds) cooling systems or cooling ponds that have implemented best technology requirements for existing facilities under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b).

For all other plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or large depending on characteristics of the cooling water intake system, results of impingement and entrainment studies performed at the plant, trends in local fish and shellfish populations, and implementation of mitigation measures.

Impingement mortality and 1 SMALL. No significant impacts on entrainment of aquatic aquatic populations associated with organisms (plants with cooling impingement mortality and entrainment towers) at nuclear power plants with cooling towers have been reported, including effects on fish and shellfish from direct mortality, injury, or other sublethal effects. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small.

Further, effects of these cooling water intake systems would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).

Entrainment of phytoplankton 1 SMALL. Entrainment has not resulted in and zooplankton noticeable impacts on phytoplankton or zooplankton populations near operating nuclear power plants. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, effects would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).

96

Effects of thermal effluents on 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.

aquatic organisms (plants with Acute, sublethal, and community-level once-through cooling systems effects of thermal effluents on aquatic or cooling ponds) organisms would generally be small at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds that adhere to State water quality criteria or that have and maintain a valid CWA Section 316(a) variance. For all other plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or large depending on site-specific factors, including ecological setting of the plant; characteristics of the cooling system and effluent discharges; and characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area.

Effects of thermal effluents on 1 SMALL. Acute, sublethal, and aquatic organisms (plants with community-level effects of thermal cooling towers) effluents have not resulted in noticeable impacts on aquatic communities at nuclear power plants with cooling towers. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small.

Further, effects would be mitigated through adherence to State water quality criteria or CWA Section 316(a) variances.

Infrequently reported effects of 1 SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear thermal effluents power plant cooling systems could result in certain infrequently reported thermal impacts, including cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation of aquatic insects, proliferation of aquatic nuisance organisms, depletion of dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, eutrophication, and increased susceptibility of exposed fish and shellfish to predation, parasitism, and disease. Most of these effects have not been reported at operating nuclear power plants. Plants that have experienced these impacts successfully mitigated the impact, and it is no longer of concern. Infrequently reported thermal impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term.

97

Effects of nonradiological 1 SMALL. Heavy metal leaching from contaminants on aquatic condenser tubes was an issue at several organisms operating nuclear power plants. These plants successfully mitigated the issue, and it is no longer of concern. Cooling system effluents would be the primary source of nonradiological contaminants during the license renewal term.

Implementation of best management practices and adherence to NPDES permit limitations would minimize the effects of these contaminants on the aquatic environment.

Exposure of aquatic organisms 1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms to radionuclides from continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.

Effects of dredging on aquatic 1 SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power resources plants is expected to occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would affect relatively small areas.

Continued operation of many plants may not require any dredging. Adherence to best management practices and CWA Section 404 permit conditions would mitigate potential impacts at plants where dredging is necessary to maintain function or reliability of cooling systems.

Dredging is not expected to be a significant issue during the license renewal term.

Water use conflicts with 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear power aquatic resources (plants with plants could consume water at rates that cooling ponds or cooling cause occasional or intermittent water towers using makeup water use conflicts with nearby and from a river) downstream aquatic communities. Such impacts could noticeably affect aquatic plants or animals or alter characteristics of the ecological environment during the license renewal term. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact.

Impacts are expected to be small at most nuclear power plants but could be moderate at some.

98

Non-cooling system impacts 1 SMALL. No significant impacts on on aquatic resources aquatic resources associated with landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater management, or ground-disturbing activities at operating nuclear power plants have been reported.

Impacts from continued operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term would be similar and small.

Application of best management practices and other conservation initiatives would reduce the potential for impacts.

Impacts of transmission line 1 SMALL. In-scope transmission lines right-of-way (ROW) tend to occupy only industrial-use or management on aquatic other developed portions of nuclear resources4 power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on aquatic plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible.

Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts.

Federally Protected Ecological Resources Endangered Species Act: 2 The potential effects of continued federally listed species and nuclear power plant operation and critical habitats under U.S. refurbishment on federally listed species Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction and critical habitats would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other ground-disturbing activities. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may affect listed species or critical habitats under this agency's jurisdiction.

99

Endangered Species Act: 2 The potential effects of continued federally listed species and nuclear power plant operation and critical habitats under National refurbishment on federally listed species Marine Fisheries Service and critical habitats would depend on jurisdiction numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other ground-disturbing activities. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may affect listed species or critical habitats under this agency's jurisdiction.

Magnuson-Stevens Act: 2 The potential effects of continued essential fish habitat nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on essential fish habitat would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; essential fish habitat present in the area, including habitats of particular concern; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other activities that may affect aquatic habitats.

Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 305(b) would be required if license renewal could result in adverse effects to essential fish habitat.

National Marine Sanctuaries 2 The potential effects of continued Act: sanctuary resources nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on sanctuary resources would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; national marine sanctuaries present in the area, and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other activities that may affect aquatic habitats. Consultation with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries under National Marine Sanctuaries Act Section 304(d) would be required if license renewal could destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources.

100

Historic and Cultural Resources Historic and cultural 2 Impacts from continued operations and resources4 refurbishment on historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the transmission line ROW are analyzed on a plant-specific basis. The NRC will perform a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 which includes consultation with the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties.

Socioeconomics Employment and income, 1 SMALL. Although most nuclear plants recreation and tourism have large numbers of employees with higher than average wages and salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small.

Tax revenue 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term as a result of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal is not expected to change.

Community services and 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from education continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to local community and educational services would be small. With little or no change in employment at the licensees plant, value of the power plant, payments on energy production, and PILOT payments expected during the license renewal term, community and educational services would not be affected by continued power plant operations.

101

Population and housing 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional population and housing availability and value would be small.

With little or no change in employment at the licensees plant expected during the license renewal term, population and housing availability and values would not be affected by continued power plant operations.

Transportation 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes would be small.

Human Health Radiation exposures to plant 1 SMALL. Occupational doses from workers continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the current license term, and would continue to be well below regulatory limits.

Radiation exposures to the 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public public from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below regulatory limits.

Chemical hazards 1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee implementing good industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for impacts to the public are expected to be minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits.

Microbiological hazards to 1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts plant workers are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures as required by permits and Federal and State regulations.

102

Microbiological hazards to the 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.

public These microorganisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to waters of the United States accessible to the public. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics.

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs)6 N/A5 Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g.,

toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible.

Physical occupational hazards 1 SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and are of small significance if the workers adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment as required by Federal and State regulations.

Electric shock hazards4 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.

Electrical shock potential is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).

Without a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear power plants in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock potential.

Postulated Accidents Design-basis accidents 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all plants.

103

Severe accidents7 1 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.

Severe accident mitigation alternatives do not warrant further plant-specific analysis because the demonstrated reductions in population dose risk and continued severe accident regulatory improvements substantially reduce the likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant improvements.

Environmental Justice Impacts on minority 2 Impacts on minority populations, low-populations, low-income income populations, Indian tribes, and populations, and Indian tribes subsistence consumption resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal will be addressed in nuclear plant-specific reviews. See Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004).

Waste Management Low-level waste storage and 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory disposal controls that are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts on the environment would remain small during the license renewal term.

104

Onsite storage of spent 1 During the license renewal term, nuclear fuel SMALL. The 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 impacts through dry or pool storage at all plants.

For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and as stated in

§ 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this issue.

Offsite radiological impacts of 1 For the high-level waste and spent-fuel spent nuclear fuel and high- disposal component of the fuel cycle, the level waste disposal EPA established a dose limit of 0.15 mSv (15 millirem) per year for the first 10,000 years and 1.0 mSv (100 millirem) per year between 10,000 years and 1 million years for offsite releases of radionuclides at the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1.

105

Mixed-waste storage and 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory disposal controls and the facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small.

Nonradioactive waste storage 1 SMALL. No changes to systems that and disposal generate nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling, storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Greenhouse gas impacts on 1 SMALL. Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change climate change from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small at all plants. Greenhouse gas emissions from routine operations of nuclear power plants are typically very minor, because such plants, by their very nature, do not normally combust fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Greenhouse gas emissions from construction vehicles and other motorized equipment for refurbishment activities would be intermittent and temporary, restricted to the refurbishment period. Worker vehicle greenhouse gas emissions for refurbishment would be similar to worker vehicle emissions from normal nuclear power plant operations.

106

Climate change impacts on 2 Climate change can have additive environmental resources effects on environmental resource conditions that may also be directly impacted by continued operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess trends and the impacts on the human environment for a specific location. The impacts of climate change on environmental resources during the license renewal term are location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects 2 Cumulative effects or impacts of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered on a plant-specific basis.

The effects depend on regional resource characteristics, the incremental resource-specific effects of license renewal, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the environmental resource.

Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impacts 1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from individual impacts from other radiological exposures have been than the disposal of spent fuel considered by the Commission in Table and high-level waste S-3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRCs regulatory limits.

107

Offsite radiological impacts 1 There are no regulatory limits applicable collective impacts from other to collective doses to the general public than the disposal of spent fuel from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of and high-level waste estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be meaningful.

All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable.

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

Nonradiological impacts of the 1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of uranium fuel cycle the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant would be small.

Transportation 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the environment are expected to be small.

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning Termination of plant operations 1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to and decommissioning have a negligible effect on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning on all resources.

1 Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (XX 20XX).

2 The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:

Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic; (2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal and offsite radiological impactscollective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste); and (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.

Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is required.

108

3 The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of small, may be negligible. The definitions of significance follow:

SMALLFor the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table.

MODERATEFor the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGEFor the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in determining significance.

4 This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the grid.

5 NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.

6 If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue.

7 Although the NRC does not anticipate any license renewal applications for nuclear power plants for which a previous severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) or severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) analysis has not been performed, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

Dated: <Month XX, 2023>.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brooke P. Clark, Secretary of the Commission.

109

VR-SECY-22-0109, Proposed Rule: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296) (Baran)

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu