ML25209A180
| ML25209A180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/2025 |
| From: | Hammock J NRC/NRR/DNRL/NLRP |
| To: | Erb D Tennessee Valley Authority |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25209A177 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML25209A180 (0) | |
Text
RECORD OF DECISION DOCKET NOS: 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 BACKGROUND The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application dated January 19, 2024 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Package Accession No. ML24019A009), from Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C 2011 et seq.) (AEA);
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, and 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, for subsequent renewal of the renewed facility operating licenses for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3.
BFN is a three-unit boiling water reactor site located approximately 10 miles northwest of the center of Decatur, Alabama, and 10 miles southwest of Athens, Alabama. TVA is authorized to operate each BFN unit at reactor core power levels not to exceed 3,952 megawatts thermal for each unit. On February 8, 2024, the NRC staff published a notice of receipt and availability of the subsequent license renewal application (SLRA), including the environmental report (ER), in the Federal Register (FR) (89 FR 8725).
The AEA specifies that licenses for commercial power reactors can be granted for an initial period of up to 40 years. The NRC regulations permit these licenses to be renewed beyond the initial 40-year term for an additional period, limited to 20-year increments per renewal, based on the results of an assessment to determine whether the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely during the proposed period of extended operation. There are no limitations in the AEA or NRC regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed.
The current operating licenses for BFN Units 1 (DPR-33), 2 (DPR-52), and 3 (DPR-68) will expire on December 20, 2033, June 28, 2034, and July 2, 2036, respectively. However, if the subsequent license renewal (SLR) is approved, the subsequently renewed facility operating licenses would be extended and would authorize TVA to operate BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 until December 20, 2053, June 28, 2054, and July 2, 2056, respectively.
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for any major Federal action that has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the NRC prepares an EIS for the issuance of a renewed reactor operating license, regardless of the actions environmental impact significance. The NRCs Federal action
2 is to decide whether to issue subsequently renewed operating licenses for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, authorizing operation until December 20, 2053, June 28, 2054, and July 2, 2056, respectively, as proposed in the application.
On March 21, 2024, the NRC staff published a notice of opportunity to request a hearing (89 FR 20254), and on April 3, 2024, the NRC staff published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping for the BFN SLRA (89 FR 23056). In addition, Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as Tribal governments, were notified and asked to provide comments on, and to participate in, the environmental scoping process and review. On October 24, 2024, the NRC staff issued a Scoping Summary Report (ML24289A127).
On May 21, 2025, the NRC staff issued a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) (NUREG-1437, Supplement 21, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3) for public comment, which provided the preliminary results of the NRC staffs environmental evaluation of the BFN SLRA (ML25133A156). A notice of availability (NOA) of the DSEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2025 (90 FR 23074). A public comment period began on May 30, 2025, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a NOA (90 FR 23050) of the DSEIS to allow members of the public and agencies an opportunity to comment on the results of the environmental review. The comment period ended 45 days from the published EPA NOA, which was July 14, 2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC staff documents its environmental review of each SLRA and publishes it as a plant-specific supplement to NUREG1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (License Renewal GEIS, or LR GEIS), as revised. The LR GEIS documents the results of the NRC staffs systematic approach to evaluating the incremental environmental effects (impacts) of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power plants. The LR GEIS1 provides the technical bases for the NRC staffs environmental impact findings on generic (Category 1) issues for initial and SLR contained in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, in Appendix B, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, to Subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2), of 10 CFR Part 51. Category 2 issues are to be evaluated by license renewal (LR) and SLR applicants, and by the NRC staff, on a plant-specific basis.
On August 21, 2025, the NRC staff issued its final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), which provided its final evaluation of the environmental impacts of BFNs SLR. The notice of issuance was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42272). On August 29, 2025, the EPA published an NOA of the final SEIS (90 FR 42243).2 Appendix A to the final SEIS discusses the comments received during the DSEIS comment period. After consideration of those comments and its independent review, the NRC staff concluded that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for BFN are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
This recommendation is based on: (1) the analysis and findings in the LR GEIS; (2) information 1 The most recent revision of the LR GEIS was issued in August 2024, as NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 2, Volumes 1-3 (Aug. 2024) (ML24087A133).
2 The EPA notice of availability established a 30-day waiting period (90 FR 42243), which ended on September 29, 2025.
3 provided in TVAs EIS and the ER, as supplemented, and other documents submitted by TVA; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local governmental agencies; (4) the NRC staffs independent environmental review; and (5) consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft EIS (NUREG-1437, Supplement 21, Second Renewal, Draft for Comment).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102(b) and 51.103(a)(1) - (5), the NRC staff has prepared this Record of Decision (ROD) to accompany its Federal action on the BFN SLRA. This ROD incorporates by reference materials contained in the final SEIS, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).
The SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Federal action. The NRC designates these environmental impacts as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.
SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The NRC staffs recommendation in the final SEIS is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for BFN (i.e., the continued operation of BFN for a period of 20 years beyond the expiration date of the initial renewed licenses) are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
DECISION Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, Standards for issuance of a renewed license, a renewed license may be issued if the Commission finds, in part, that the SLR application satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, and any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied; pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102, this includes the completion of the ROD.
The final SEIS, which is incorporated by reference herein, documents the NRC staffs recommendation that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for BFN are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In the 1996 final rule amending 10 CFR Part 51 (61 FR 28467), the Commission explained the following:
Given the uncertainties involved and the lack of control that the NRC has in the choice of energy alternatives in the future, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to exercise its NEPA authority to reject LR applications only when it has determined that the impacts of license renewal sufficiently exceed the impacts of all or almost all of the alternatives that preserving the option of license renewal for future decision-makers would be unreasonable.
In making its licensing decision on the proposed Federal action to authorize the continued operation of BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, through December 20, 2053, June 28, 2054, and July 2, 2056, respectively, the NRC must make a favorable safety finding. The purpose of the
4 NRCs safety review is to determine whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the effects of aging will not adversely affect the intended functions of any systems, structures, and components specified in 10 CFR 54.4, Scope, and 10 CFR 54.21, Contents of applicationtechnical information. The applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended functions will be maintained during the SLR period. The staff documented the results of its safety review in Safety Evaluation Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, dated July 18, 2025 (ML25195A021).
On July 25, 2025, the NRC issued an exemption (ML25195A014) from the requirement in 10 CFR 54.25 that would otherwise require the application for renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 for BFN, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, to be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for a review and report, with any report being made part of the record of the application and made available to the public, except to the extent that security classification prevents disclosure. The notice of issuance was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2025 (90 FR 35935).
PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (issuance of subsequent renewed licenses for BFN) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current renewed nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system-generating needs. Such needs may be determined by energy planning decision-makers such as State regulators, utility owners, and Federal agencies other than the NRC. This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition that, unless there are findings in the NRCs safety review (required by the AEA) or findings in the NRCs environmental analysis (required by NEPA) that would lead the NRC to reject an SLR application, the agency does not have a role in energy planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Ultimately, the appropriate energy planning decision-makers and TVA will decide whether BFN will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the States jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.
NRC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES In SLR environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental consequences of the proposed action (i.e., renewing the operating licenses) and the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing the operating licenses) that include an analysis of the environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives for replacing the nuclear power plants generating capacity. In this case, the proposed action would authorize TVA to operate BFN for an additional period of 20 years beyond the expiration date of the current renewed licenses, as requested in the application. In Chapter 2 of the SEIS, the NRC relies upon the description of alternative sources of replacement energy in Appendix D of the LR GEIS, and incorporates by reference the replacement energy alternatives evaluated in TVAs 2023 BFN SLR SEIS and the alternatives described in TVAs ER. TVAs SLR SEIS eliminated stand-alone replacement energy alternatives from the detailed study and, instead, TVA analyzed the environmental impacts of a combination of replacement energy generating capacity as part of the no-action alternative (should TVA not obtain SLRs for all three BFN units). The alternatives analysis in TVAs SLR SEIS and in the NRC staffs final SEIS are consistent with NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(iii), which states, [] a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the
5 proposed agency action in the case of a no-action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal.
As explained in the discussion of purpose and need for the proposed Federal action, outside of the safety and environmental reviews, the NRC does not have a role in the energy planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Should the renewed operating licenses not be subsequently renewed, and the nuclear plant shuts down at the end of its current renewed licenses, the appropriate energy planning decision-makers will decide how best to replace the nuclear power plants generating capacity. In evaluating alternatives to SLR in the EIS, the NRC staff considered energy technologies or options in commercial operation, as well as technologies not currently in commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time the current BFN renewed operating licenses expire.
For a replacement power alternative to be considered reasonable, it must be both commercially viable on a utility scale and operational before the reactors operating license expires or expected to become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational before the expiration of the reactors operating license. The current renewed operating licenses for BFN Units 1 (DPR-33), 2 (DPR-52), and 3 (DPR-68) will expire on December 20, 2033, June 28, 2034, and July 2, 2036, respectively. Therefore, to be considered in this evaluation, reasonable alternatives must be available (i.e., constructed, permitted, and connected to the grid) by those dates. To determine whether alternatives were reasonable, or likely to be commercially suitable to replace BFN, the NRC staff reviewed energy-relevant statutes, regulations, and policies; the state of technologies; and information on energy outlook from sources such as the Energy Information Administration, other organizations within the U.S. Department of Energy, industry sources and publications, and information submitted by TVA in its ER.
Table 1 provides a summary (comparison) of environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative. Based on the review of the proposed action and the no-action alternative, the environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action of SLR.
Table 1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative at BFN Resource Proposed Action -
License Renewal No Action Land Use SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to LARGE, depending on the location and type of new energy generation facility.
Visual Resources SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to LARGE, depending on the location and type of new energy generation.
Air Quality SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL. The permanent cessation of BFN operations
6 Table 1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative at BFN Resource Proposed Action -
License Renewal No Action would reduce overall air emissions (e.g., from boiler, diesel generators, and vehicle traffic).
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to LARGE, depending on the type of new energy generation (i.e., fossil fuel or renewable); air emissions can be significant.
Noise SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to MODERATE.
Geologic Environment SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to MODERATE.
Water Resources SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to LARGE.
Terrestrial Resources SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to MODERATE Aquatic Resources SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to MODERATE.
Federally Protected Ecological Resources May affect but is not likely to affect federally protected species(a)
Impacts of BFN shutdown:
Overall, the effects on federally listed species would likely be smaller under the no-action alternative than the effects under continued operation but would depend on the specific shutdown activities as well as the listed species present.
Impacts of new generating assets:
NO EFFECT to NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT.
Historic and No adverse effect to Impacts of BFN shutdown:
7 Table 1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative at BFN Resource Proposed Action -
License Renewal No Action Cultural Resources historic properties No immediate effect on historic properties or historic and cultural resources.
Impacts of new generating assets:
NO EFFECT to NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT.
Socioeconomics SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL to LARGE.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to MODERATE.
Human Health SMALL and UNCERTAIN(b)
Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL and UNCERTAIN.
Waste Management SMALL(c)
Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
SMALL.
Impacts of new generating assets:
SMALL to MODERATE.
Fuel Cycle SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
Uranium fuel cycle impacts associated with the shutdown of BFN are expected to be similar to those described in Section Error! Reference source not found. and summarized in Error! Reference source not found. of the final SEIS.
Impacts of new generating assets:
Impacts would depend on the source and specific technology of the replacement power generation facility.
Termination of Operations/
Decommissioning SMALL Impacts of BFN shutdown:
The environmental impacts of decommissioning a nuclear power plant are evaluated NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities:
Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of
8 Table 1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative at BFN Resource Proposed Action -
License Renewal No Action Nuclear Power Reactors (NRC 2002-TN665).
Additionally, Section 4.14.2.1 of the LR GEIS (NRC 2024-TN10161) summarizes the incremental environmental impacts associated with nuclear power plant decommissioning activities. The NRC staff incorporates the information in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, and NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Section 4.14.2.1 (NRC 2024-TN10161: pp.4-164 171), herein by reference.
Impacts of new generating assets:
The range of possible decommissioning considerations and impacts, depending on the energy alternative considered, is discussed in Section D.4.13 of the LR GEIS (see subsection, Termination of Operations and Decommissioning of Replacement Power Plants) (NRC 2024-TN10161).
(a) May affect but is not likely to affect gray bat, Indiana bat, whooping crane, monarch butterfly, slackwater darter, pink mucket, spectaclecase, critical habitat for spectaclecase, Tennessee pigtoe, Anthonys riversnail, armored snail, and slender campeloma. No effect on eastern hellbender, spring pygmy sunfish, birdwing pearlymussel, cracking pearlymussel, Cumberlandian combshell, dromedary pearlymussel, fluted knidneyshell, organgefoot pimpleback, ring pink, rough pigtoe, and sheepnose. No effect on federally protected resources and critical habitats under the National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction. No effect on essential fish habitat (EFH). No effect on sanctuary resources of National Marine Sanctuaries.
(b) Human Health - Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have an UNCERTAIN impact and is discussed in Section Error!
Reference source not found. of the final SEIS.
(c)
NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (NRC 2014-TN4117), discusses the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage for the timeframe beyond the licensed life for reactor operations.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT By letter dated June 24, 2025 (ML24353A119), EPA Region 4 reviewed the DSEIS for BFN SLR and had no further comments on the final SEIS.
MITIGATION MEASURES The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected. Continued operation of BFN would have SMALL environmental impacts in all resource areas. The NRC staff concluded that there are no additional mitigation measures warranted. However, BFN is subject to requirements, including permits, authorizations, and regulatory orders, imposed by other Federal, State, and local agencies governing facility operation. The NRC is not requiring any new environmental monitoring programs outside what is required by BFNs current National Pollutant Discharge
9 Elimination System permits and water quality certification or is otherwise required of the licensee under NRC regulations, as described in the BFN final SEIS.
DETERMINATION The NRC has determined that the standards for the issuance of the BFN subsequent renewed operating licenses, with respect to the environmental matters as described in 10 CFR 54.29(b),
have been met and that the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA, as prescribed in 10 CFR 51.103, Record of decisiongeneral, have been satisfied based on: (1) TVAs EIS and ER, as supplemented by additional information, (2) the NRC staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies, (3) the NRC staffs independent environmental review, which is documented in the final SEIS, (4) the NRC staffs consideration of mitigation measures, and (5) the NRC staffs consideration of comments received from other agencies, organizations, and the public. The NRC has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of issuing subsequent renewed operating licenses for BFN are not great enough that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11 day of December 2025.
APPROVED BY:
Michele M. Sampson, Director Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Signed by Sampson, Michele on 12/11/25
- via eConcurrence NRR-106 OFFICE PM/ERLRB/REFS*
PM/NLRP/DNRL*
LA/NRLP/DNRL*
BC/ERLRB/REFS*
NAME JUmana JHammock KBratcher SKoenick DATE 09/10/2025 08/12/2025 08/19/2025 08/20/2025 OFFICE BC/NLRP/DNRL*
D/DNRL*
NAME LGibson LBauer for ALeatherman MSampson DATE 08/29/2025 09/05/2025