ML25246C224
| ML25246C224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/2025 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/DNRL/NLRP |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25246C220 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML25246C224 (0) | |
Text
RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER: 50-461 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, AS SUPPLEMENTED, FOR CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 BACKGROUND The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) received an application dated February 14, 2024 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Package Accession No. ML24045A023), from Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG) filed pursuant to 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 renewal of the facility operating license for Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 (Clinton). The application was supplemented by letters dated November 27, 2024 (ML24332A050),
December 20, 2024 (ML24355A050), January 30, 2025 (ML25030A182), March 25, 2025 (ML25084A044), and April 10, 2025 (ML25100A083).
Clinton is a boiling water reactor located in DeWitt County, Illinois. CEG is authorized to operate the facility at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3,473 megawatts thermal. On March 7, 2024, the NRC published in the Federal Register (FR) a notice of receipt of the license renewal (LR) application (LRA), including the environmental report (ER) (89 FR 16591). On April 18, 2024, the NRC published in the FR a notice of acceptance for docketing and opportunity to request a hearing (89 FR 27805).
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), specifies that licenses for commercial nuclear power reactors can be granted for up to 40 years. The initial 40-year licensing period was based on economic and antitrust considerations rather than on technical limitations of the nuclear facility. The NRC regulations allow for an option to renew such licenses beyond the initial 40-year term for an additional period of time, 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.
The Clinton facility operating license, NPF-62, expires on April 17, 2027. The requested renewed facility operating license would authorize CEG to operate Clinton until April 17, 2047.
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 or a supplement to an EIS for the renewal of facility operating licenses. The NRCs Federal action is to decide whether to renew the Clinton facility operating license for an additional 20 years of operation, as proposed in the LRA.
On April 29, 2024, the NRC published in the FR a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping for the Clinton LRA (89 FR 33400). In addition, Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as Tribal governments, were notified and asked to provide comments on and to participate
2 in the environmental scoping process. On May 7 and May 9, 2024, the NRC staff held two public webinars to obtain public input on the scope of the NRCs environmental review of the Clinton LRA. On May 21, 2024, the NRC staff published a summary of both meetings (ML24135A363). In September 2024, the NRC staff issued a Scoping Summary Report (ML24215A280).
In April 2025, the NRC staff issued a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS)
(NUREG-1437, Supplement 63) for public comment, providing the preliminary results of the NRC staffs environmental review of the Clinton LRA (ML25072A105). A notice of availability of the draft SEIS was published in the FR on April 16, 2025 (90 FR 16011). A public comment period began on April 18, 2025, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the FR a notice of availability (90 FR 16524) of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public and agencies an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the environmental review. On May 6, 2025, the NRC staff held a public webinar to present the preliminary results of the environmental review and to accept public comments. In June 2025, the NRC staff published a summary of the meeting (ML25181A751). The comment period ended on June 2, 2025.
In August 2025, the NRC staff issued its final SEIS, providing its final evaluation of the environmental impacts of the Clinton LRA (ML25189A122); the notice of issuance was published in the FR on August 8, 2025 (90 FR 38517). On August 8, 2025, the EPA published in the FR a notice of availability of the final SEIS (90 FR 38468).1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC staff documents its environmental review of each LRA and publishes it as a plant-specific supplement to NUREG1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (ML24087A133) (LR GEIS). The LR GEIS documents the results of the NRCs systematic approach to evaluating the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and operating them for an additional 20 years. The LR GEIS provides the technical bases for the NRC staffs environmental impact findings on generic (Category 1) issues for license renewal contained in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent 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 LR applicants and by the NRC staff on a plant-specific basis.
Consistent with the NRCs regulations, the NRC staffs final SEIS for the Clinton LRA evaluated the environmental impacts for Category 2 (plant-specific) issues and relied upon the determinations in the LR GEIS for Category 1 (generic) issues. Appendix A to the final SEIS discusses the comments received during the draft SEIS comment period. In the final SEIS, the NRC staffs recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of LR for Clinton are not so great that preserving the option of LR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. This recommendation was based on (1) the analysis and findings in the LR GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by CEG; (3) the NRC staffs consultation with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies; (4) the NRC staffs independent environmental review; and (5) the NRC 1The EPA notice of availability established a 30-day cooling off period, which expired on September 8, 2025.
3 staffs consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft SEIS.
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 Clinton LRA. This ROD incorporates by reference materials contained in the final SEIS, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).
The final SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Federal action of LR for Clinton. 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 is that the adverse environmental impacts of LR for Clinton (i.e., the continued operation of Clinton for a period of 20 years beyond the expiration date of the facility operating license) are not so great that preserving the option of LR 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 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 a ROD.
The final SEIS, which is incorporated by reference herein, documents the NRC staffs recommendation that the adverse environmental impacts of LR for Clinton are not so great that preserving the option of LR 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 this as follows:
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 license renewal 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 Clinton through April 17, 2047, the NRC must also make a favorable safety finding.
The purpose of the 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
4 effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended functions will be maintained during the LR period. The NRC staff documented the results of its safety review of the Clinton LRA in Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, dated August 2025 (ML25238A215), along with an exemption dated August 29, 2025 (ML25227A002).
PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (i.e., issuance of a renewed facility operating license for Clinton) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than the NRC) decision-makers. This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition that absent findings in the NRCs safety review required by the AEA or in the NRCs environmental review required by NEPA that would lead the NRC to reject an LRA, the agency has no role in the energy-planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Ultimately, the appropriate energy-planning decision-makers and CEG will decide whether Clinton 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. The issuance of a renewed license is one of the requirements that CEG must address to operate Clinton during the LR term.
NRC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES In LR environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental consequences of the proposed action (i.e., issuance of a renewed facility operating license), the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative (i.e., not issuing the renewed facility operating license), and the environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives for replacing the nuclear power plants generating capacity. Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA and the NRCs regulations require the consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. In this case, the proposed action would authorize CEG to operate Clinton for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration date of the current license, as requested in the LRA.
Chapter 2 of the final SEIS, Alternatives including the Proposed Action, presents the NRC staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and of alternatives to the proposed action. The evaluation considered the environmental impacts of the proposed action and each alternative across the following impact areas: land use and visual resources, air quality and noise, geologic environment, water resources, terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, Federally protected ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, human health, and waste management.
As explained in the discussion of purpose and need for the proposed Federal action, outside of its 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 Clinton facility operating license not be renewed, and the plant shuts down at the end of its current license, the appropriate energy-planning decision-makers will decide how best to replace the nuclear power plants generating capacity. In evaluating alternatives to LR, 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 that the current Clinton license expires.
5 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 facility operating license for Clinton expires on April 17, 2027. Therefore, to be considered in the alternatives evaluation, reasonable power alternatives must be available (i.e., constructed, permitted, and connected to the grid) by that date. To determine whether replacement power alternatives were reasonable, or likely to be commercially suitable to replace Clinton, 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 CEG in its ER.
Table 1 provides a summary (comparison) of environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. As summarized in Table 1, each of the three reasonable replacement power alternatives have identified environmental impacts that are greater than the impacts from the proposed action of LR. Based on its review, the NRC staff concludes that the environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action of LR.
Table 1:
Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to the Proposed Action Impact Area (Resource)
Proposed Action -
License Renewal No-Action Alternative Natural Gas Alternative Renewable and Natural Gas Combination Alternative Purchased Power Alternative Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL LARGE SMALL Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to LARGE Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Geologic Environment SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE Aquatic Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Federally Protected Ecological Resources SEE NOTE(a)
SEE NOTE(b)
SEE NOTE(c)
SEE NOTE(c)
SEE NOTE(c)
Historic and Cultural Resources SEE NOTE(d)
SEE NOTE(e)
SEE NOTE(f)
SEE NOTE(f)
SEE NOTE(f)
Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL Human Health SMALL(g)
SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL
6 Impact Area (Resource)
Proposed Action -
License Renewal No-Action Alternative Natural Gas Alternative Renewable and Natural Gas Combination Alternative Purchased Power Alternative Waste Management SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
SMALL SMALL SMALL Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL TO MODERATE (a)
May affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, whooping crane, monarch butterfly, western regal fritillary, rusty patched bumble bee, and eastern prairie fringed orchid. No effect on salamander mussel.
(b)
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 shut down activities as well as the listed species present when the no-action alternative is implemented.
(c)
The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to species listed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, would depend on the proposed alternative site, facility design and operation, as well as listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot forecast a level of impact for this alternative.
(d)
Based on no new physical or visual modifications to the landscape, Tribal consultation, and the applicants administrative procedures, the proposed action will result in No Adverse Effect to historic properties, as defined in 36 CFR 800.5(b); there would be no impact to historic and cultural resources.
(e)
Until the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report is submitted, the NRC staff cannot determine whether historic properties and/or historic and cultural resources would be affected outside the existing industrial site boundary by decommissioning activities after the nuclear power plant ceases operations.
(f)
Potential impacts of this alternative would be dependent on the power source, type of facilities, and location chosen. The NRC does not license natural gas or renewable energy facilities; therefore, the NRC would not be responsible for National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultations for this alternative. If the project has a Federal nexus (i.e., license, permit), the Federal agency would need to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect and consider the effects of their undertaking on historic properties, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. If historic properties are present and could be affected by the undertaking, adverse effects would be assessed, determined, and mitigated with the State Historic Preservation Officer and any Tribe(s) that attach religious and cultural significance to identified historic properties through the Section 106 consultation process.
(g)
The effects of electromagnetic fields on human health associated with operating nuclear power and other electricity generating plants are uncertain.
(h)
NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, discusses the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage for the timeframe beyond the licensed life for reactor operations.
MITIGATION MEASURES The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected, which is the proposed action of Clinton LR.
The final SEIS concludes that the continued operation of Clinton for an additional 20 years would have SMALL environmental impacts in all resource areas. The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with mitigation measures. However, Clinton 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 Clintons current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and water quality certification or is otherwise required of CEG under the NRCs regulations or by other Federal, State, or local agencies, as described in the final SEIS.
7 DETERMINATION Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the LR GEIS, (2) the ER submitted by CEG, (3) the NRC staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, (4) the NRC staffs independent environmental review, and (5) the NRC staffs consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft SEIS, the NRC has determined that the standard for issuance of a renewed facility operating license in 10 CFR 54.29(b) that any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied is met as are the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA. The NRC has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of issuing a renewed facility operating license for Clinton are not great enough that preserving the option of LR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of December 2025.
APPROVED BY:
/RA/
Michele M. Sampson, Director Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation