Text

SECY-24-0017: Enclosure 3 - Regulatory Analysis: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)
	ML23205A029
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/21/2024
From:	; NRC/SECY
To:	;
Shared Package
ML23202A179	List: SECY-24-0017, Enclosure 3 - Regulatory Analysis: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296);
References
	RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296 SECY-24-0017
	Download: ML23205A029 (53)
	v • d • e

Regulatory Analysis for the Final Rule:

10 CFR Part 51, Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review

NRC-2018- 0296; RIN 3150 -AK32

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Month Year

ML23205A029

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. This regulatory analysis evaluates the costs and benefits of the rule and implementing guidance relative to the baseline case, the no action alternative.

The amendments include updates to Table B -1, Summary of Findings on NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, in Appendix B, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, to Part 51 of Subpart A, National Environmental Policy Act Regulations Implementing Section 102(2), to align with recent Commission decisions regarding the NEPA analysis of subsequent license renewal (SLR) applications. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ( 2013 LR GEIS) (NRC, 2013a), provides the technical and regulatory bases for Table B-1. The final rule updates the 2013 LR GEIS, Table B-1, and associated guidance to clearly address the environmental impacts of nuclear power plant SLR; remove the word initial from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3); and make conforming changes to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.95(c).

i EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. Under the NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). NUREG -1437, Revision 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ( 2013 LR GEIS) (NRC, 2013a),

provides the technical and regulatory bases for the summary of findings on environmental issues in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, in Appendix B, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, to Part 51 of Subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2).

In Commission Order CLI-22-03 (NRC, 2022a) and recent decisions related to Turkey Point Nuclear Generating in CLI-22-02 (NRC, 2022b) and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in CLI-22- 04 (NRC, 2022c), the Commission determined that the 2013 LR GEIS and Table B-1 did not address subsequent license renewal (SLR). The Commission also found that 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) only applies to applicants for initial license renewal (initial LR). The final rule updates the 2013 LR GEIS, Table B-1, and associated guidance to clearly address the environmental impacts of SLR; remove the word initial from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3); and make conforming changes to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.95(c).

This regulatory analysis evaluates the costs and benefits of the final rule, including implementing guidance (Alternative 2), relative to the baseline case, the no action alternative.

The NRC staff has made the following key findings:

Rule Analysis: The final rule would result in an annual average benefit of $12.5 million.

Tables ES-1 and ES-2 show the net costs and benefits incurred over 10 years.

Table ES-1 shows the total costs and benefits of the final rule for each entity affected by the rule. Table ES-2 shows the total costs and benefits of the final rule to industry and the NRC for each type of licensee group affected by the rule.

Table ES-1 Total Costs and Benefits for Alternative 2 Entity Total (2023 dollars)a Undiscounted 7% NPVb 3% NPV Industry $89,491,000 $60,971,000 $74,996,000 NRC $35,996,000 $24,604,000 $30,209,000 Net Benefit (Cost) $125,487,000 $85,575,000 $105,205,000 a Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

b Net present value (NPV)

ii Table ES-2 Total Costs and Benefits by Licensee Group for Alternative 2 Licensee Group Total (2023 dollars)a,b Undi 7% NPV 3% NPV Initial LR ($201,000) ($99,000) ($147,000)

Future SLR $128,816,000 $88,412,000 $108,302,000 Near-term and Submitted Applications, and Issued ($3,128,000) ($2,738,000) ($2,951,000)

Subsequently Renewed Licenses Net Benefit (Cost) $125,487,000 $85,575,000 $105,204,000 a Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

b Implementation costs were allotted based on the projected number of affected license renewal applications submitted by that group.

Nonquantified Benefits: Based upon the assessment of total costs and benefits, the NRC concludes that the rule, if issued, would continue to ensure adequate consideration of the environmental impacts associated with license renewal while increasing regulatory clarity in the license renewal process. The revised rule would result in a more consistent implementation of the NRCs regulatory program and Federal environmental statutes and regulations. Additionally, the rule would ensure that the NRCs license renewal program fully accounts for SLR.

Uncertainty Analysis: The regulatory analysis contains a Monte Carlo simulation analysis that shows the mean net benefit for this final rule is $86 million, with 90 percent confidence that the net benefit is between $69 million and $102 million using a 7 percent discount rate. The amount of time for licensees to perform an environmental analysis for new Category 2 issues is the factor responsible for the largest variation in averted costs, followed by the amount of time for the NRC to review the environmental analyses for new Category 2 issues.

Decision Rationale: Relative to Alternative 1, the no action baseline, the NRC concludes that the rule is justified from a quantitative standpoint because its provisions will result in net averted costs (i.e., net benefits) to industry and the NRC. In addition, the NRC concludes that the rule is also justified when considering nonquantified costs and benefits because the significance of the nonquantified benefits (i.e., improvements in the quality of the information provided to the NRC, regulatory clarity, and NRC compliance with Federal environmental statutes and regulations) outweighs the nonquantified costs.

Implementation. The NRC expects that the final rule would be effective in 2024.

However, compliance with the final rule will be required within a year after publication in the Federal Register. In addition to the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC would correspondingly update the applicable guidance documents: Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications (NRC, 2013b), and NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1,

iii Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License Renewal (NRC, 2013c). The NRC plans to issue the revised guidance with the final rule.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... i

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

...................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................ ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................. x

1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVE...................................................... 1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action.......................................................................... 2 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action................................................................................... 3 1.3 Existing Regulatory Framework................................................................................ 4

2 IDENTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative......................................................................... 7 2.2 Alternative 2: Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 51........................................... 8

3 ESTIMATION AND EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.............................. 9 3.1 Identification of Affected Attributes.......................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Industry Implementation..................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Industry Operation.............................................................................. 9 3.1.3 NRC Operation................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Improvements in Knowledge.............................................................. 9 3.1.5 Regulatory Clarity............................................................................. 10 3.1.6 Environmental Considerations.......................................................... 10 3.1.7 Attributes with No Effects................................................................. 10 3.2 Analytical Methodology............................................................................................ 10 3.2.1 Regulatory Baseline......................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Affected Entities............................................................................... 11 3.2.3 Base Year........................................................................................ 12 3.2.4 Discount Rates................................................................................. 13 3.2.5 Cost/Benefit Inflators........................................................................ 13 3.2.6 Labor Rates...................................................................................... 14 3.2.7 Sign Conventions............................................................................. 15 3.2.8 Analysis Horizon............................................................................... 15 3.3 Industry Implementation.......................................................................................... 15 3.4 Industry Operation.................................................................................................... 16 3.5 NRC Operation.......................................................................................................... 18 3.6 Improvements in Knowledge................................................................................... 20

v 3.7 Regulatory Clarity..................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Environmental Considerations................................................................................ 20

4

SUMMARY

OF THE RESULTS.............................................................................. 21 4.1 Summary.................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.1 Quantified Net Benefits..................................................................... 21 4.1.2 Nonquantified Benefits..................................................................... 21 4.2 Uncertainty Analysis................................................................................................. 22 4.2.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions.................................................... 22 4.2.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results............................................................ 23 4.2.3 Summary of Uncertainty Analysis..................................................... 26 4.3 Disaggregation.......................................................................................................... 26

5 DECISION RATIONALE AND IMPLEMENTATION................................................ 27

6 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 28

APPENDIX A SUPPORTING INFORMATION................................................................. A-1

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Total Industry Net Benefits (Costs) (7 Percent NPV)Alternative 2...........................23 Figure 2 Total NRC Net Benefits (Costs) (7 Percent NPV)Alternative 2................................24 Figure 3 Total Net Benefits (Cost) (7 Percent NPV)Alternative 2..........................................24 Figure 4 Tornado DiagramTotal Averted Costs 7 Percent NPV..........................................25

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Total Costs and Benefits for Alternative 2................................................................ ii Table ES-2 Total Costs and Benefits by Licensee Group for Alternative 2................................ iii Table 1 Affected License Renewal Applicants..........................................................................12 Table 2 CPI-U Inflator..............................................................................................................14 Table 3 Position Titles and Occupations..................................................................................15 Table 4 Industry Implementation..............................................................................................16 Table 5 Industry Operation Costs.............................................................................................18 Table 6 NRC Operation Costs..................................................................................................19 Table 7 Summary of Totals by Licensee Group........................................................................21 Table 8 Summary of Totals......................................................................................................21 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Uncertainty Results (7 Percent NPV)....................................25 Table A-1 Changes to Table B-1............................................................................................ A-1 Table A-2 Major Assumptions and Input Data........................................................................ A-8

ix ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor)

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPI-U consumer price index for all urban consumers

EIS environmental impact statement EMF electromagnetic field

FR Federal Register

gpm gallons per minute

LR license renewal LR GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPV net present value NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget

PERT program evaluation and review technique

ROW right-of-way

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement SLR subsequent license renewal SOC standard occupational classification SRM staff requirements memorandum

x 1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its environmental regulations for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, including Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA [ National Environmental Policy Act] 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 Act Regulations Implementing Section 102(2), of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, and making conforming changes in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.95(c).0F1 (Hereafter, this document will refer to this table simply as Table B-1. ) Under the NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA),1F2 the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

To support the preparation of license renewal EISs, the NRC conducted a comprehensive review to identify the common environmental effects of license renewal. The review determined which environmental effects could result in the same (generic) impacts at all nuclear power plants (or a subset of plants) and which effects could result in different levels of impact, requiring nuclear plant-specific analyses for an impact determination. The review culminated in the issuance of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (1996 LR GEIS) (NRC, 1996), followed by the publication in the Federal Register (FR) on June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467) of the final rule that codified the 1996 LR GEIS findings.

The introduction to Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states that, on a 10- year cycle, the Commission intends to review the material in Appendix B, including Table B-1, and update it if necessary. The previous revision cycle was completed with the issuance of a final rule (78 FR 37281) and the LR GEIS, Revision 1 (2013 LR GEIS), on June 20, 2013 (NRC, 2013a).

The 2013 LR GEIS provides the technical and regulatory bases for the current Table B-1. The revised LR GEIS provides the technical and regulatory bases for the final rule.

In Commission Order CLI-22-03 (NRC, 2022a) and recent decisions related to Turkey Point Nuclear Generating in CLI-22-02 (NRC, 2022b) and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in CLI-22- 04 (NRC, 2022c), the Commission determined that the 2013 LR GEIS and Table B-1 did not address subsequent license renewal (SLR). Additionally, the Commission found that 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) only applies to applicants for initial license renewal (initial LR).

1 This rule would also remove the word initial from 10 CFR 51.53(c).

2 NEPA requires Federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects of their proposed actions before deciding whether to approve or disapprove the proposed action.

1 The final rule redefines the number and scope of the environmental issues in Table B-1 that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during plant -specific license renewal environmental reviews based on changes in the LR GEIS. The final rule updates the LR GEIS to also apply to SLR. It also codifies the lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and incorporate changes in environmental regulations, impact methodology, and other new information.

This regulatory analysis evaluates the final rule and one alternative, the no action alternative, for which the NRC would not conduct rulemaking but continue to regulate the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses using existing NEPA implementing regulations. The no action alternative is the baseline against which the proposed action is compared.

1.1 Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is to update the LR GEIS and the environmental issues in Table B-1 to address the impacts of initial LR and SLR. The rule would also remove the word initial from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) and make conforming changes in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.95(c). Additionally, the rule would address recent changes to environmental laws, executive orders, and regulations.

Specifically, the proposed action would redefine the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed by the Commission in conjunction with the review of license renewal applications (initial LR or SLR). The associated draft LR GEIS identified 80 environmental issues, 20 of which require a plant -specific analysis. The following summarizes the types of changes to Table B-1 (as enumerated in Appendix A to this analysis):

One Category 2 issue, Groundwater quality degradation ( plant with cooling ponds at inland sites) and a related Category 1 issue, Groundwater quality degradation ( plant with cooling ponds in salt marshes), were consolidated into a single Category 2 issue, Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds).

Two related Category 1 issues, Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants) and Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication, and the thermal effluent component of the Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, were consolidated into a single Category 1 issue, Infrequently reported effects of thermal efflue nts.

One 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, were consolidated into a single Category 2 issue, Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).

2

One Category 1 issue, Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers), and the impingement component of a Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, were consolidated into a single Category 1 issue, Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers).

One Category 2 issue, Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat, was divided into three Category 2 issues: (1) Endangered Species Act:

Federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction, (2) Endangered Species Act: Federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction, and (3) Magnuson-Stevens Act:

essential fish habitat.

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

One Category 2 issue, Severe accidents, was changed to a Category 1 issue.

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

The NRC does not propose to eliminate any environmental issues identified in Table B-1 and evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS.

Under the proposed action, with the final rule, in addition to updating the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC would revise the guidance in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, (NRC, 2013b), and NUREG 1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License Renewal, (NRC, 2013c).

The staff uses these guidance documents to evaluate license renewal applications, to conduct plant-specific environmental reviews, and to assist applicants in the preparation of environmental reports as part of their license renewal applications.

1.2 Need for the Proposed Action

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 state that the Commission intends to review Table B-1, along with technical supporting documentation (NUREG-1437), on a 10-year cycle and update if necessary. The LR GEIS and Table B-1 have generally been effective in focusing license renewal environmental reviews on important issues and concerns at each nuclear power plant site, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the NRCs environmental review and in meeting its NEPA compliance responsibilities. The last rule that amended Table B-1 was published in 2013, along with the 2013 LR GEIS.

The current rulemaking began when the NRC issued a notice of intent to review and potentially update the 2013 LR GEIS. In July 2021, the staff submitted SECY-21- 0066, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review

3 (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018- 0296) (NRC, 2021a ), 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 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) and make corresponding changes to the LR GEIS and associated guidance to include applicability to SLR.

In February 2022, the Commission issued Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-21- 0066, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018- 0296) (NRC, 2022d),

disapproving the staffs recommendation and directing the staff to develop a rulemaking plan that aligned with Commission Order CLI-22- 03 and recent decisions in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-04 regarding the NEPA analysis of SLR applications. The SRM also directed the staff to (1) proceed with rulemaking to amend Table B-1, (2) remove the word initial from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3), (3) update the LR GEIS, (4) conduct a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of SLR to expand the applicability of the LR GEIS, and (5) consider changes to applicable laws and regulations, new data, and experience in conducting similar environmental reviews.

In March 2022, the staff submitted SECY 0024, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018- 0296)

(NRC, 2022e), to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking that would align with the Commission Order CLI-22-03, and recent decisions in CLI 02, and CLI 04.

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

Revisions to the 2013 LR GEIS would consider (1) lessons learned and experience gained during previous license renewal reviews conducted since development of the 2013 LR GEIS, and (2) new research, findings, and other information when evaluating the significance of impacts associated with initial LR and one term of SLR. The purpose of this evaluation is to review the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS and to ensure that the analysis and assumptions apply to SLR. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add, or delete any of the environmental issues in the 2013 LR GEIS and codified in Table B-1.

1.3 Existing Regulatory Framework

As mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the NRC is responsible for protecting public health and safety in the civilian use of nuclear power. The AEA allows the NRC to issue licenses for commercial nuclear power reactors to operate for up to 40 years. The NRCs regulations allow for the renewal of these licenses, with the renewal term including the number of years remaining on the operating license currently in effect plus an additional 20 years. The approval or disapproval of the license renewal application is based on an NRC determination as to whether the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely during the

4

20- year period of extended operation and whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. The term of any renewed license may not exceed 40 years. No specific limitations exist in the AEA or in the NRCs regulations on the number of times a power reactor operating license may be renewed.

Under the NRCs NEPA implementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an EIS. In this regard, the NRC prepares a supplemental EIS (SEIS) to the LR GEIS for each license renewal application. The primary purpose of the LR GEIS is to identify all environmental issues for license renewal and evaluate those environmental impacts considered to be generic to all nuclear power plants, or a subset of plants. The LR GEIS also identifies issues that need to be addressed in plant -specific environmental reviews for nuclear power plant license renewals, as documented in plant-specific SEISs.

The environmental issues evaluated in the LR GEIS and listed in Table B-1 are characterized as either Category 1, Category 2, or uncategorized. Category 1 issues are considered generic, as the impacts have been found to be essentially the same or similar at all, or a subset of, nuclear plants. Category 1 issues are not reevaluated in nuclear power plant -specific environmental reviews absent new and significant information. Category 2 issues are required to be addressed in each nuclear power plant -specific environmental review. Table B-1 summarizes the findings in the LR GEIS on environmental issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants.

Additionally, to support the staffs environmental review, license renewal applicants must prepare an environmental report under 10 CFR 51.53(c). That section directs applicants for initial LR to analyze Category 2 issues and rely on Table B-1 and the LR GEIS for Category 1 issues. The staff uses the information in that environmental report to analyze Category 2 issues in a plant -specific SEIS to the LR GEIS.

5

2 IDENTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

The NRC analyzed one alternative to the rule, as described in this section.

2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

The no action alternative maintains the status quo. Under the no action alternative, the NRC would not amend certain provisions of 10 CFR Part 51 relating to the renewal of nuclear power plant licenses, including Table B-1. This alternative serves as the baseline for this analysis.

Initial LR

Under Alternative 1, the NRC would continue to rely upon the findings set forth in the current Table B-1 when determining the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of an initial operating license renewal for a nuclear power plant. Licensees seeking an initial operating license renewal would continue to comply with the existing provisions of 10 CFR Part 51. This alternative would result in no new direct costs to the NRC or licensees seeking an initial LR.

Future SLR2F3

In accordance with t he Commission Order CLI-22-03, Alternative 1 would not address the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant for SLR. This alternative would result in additional costs to the NRC and licensees seeking a future SLR for evaluating all environmental impacts as plant-specific issues.

Near-Term3F4 and Submitted Applications, and Issued4F5 Subsequently Renewed Licenses

In accordance with the Commission Orders CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-04, for licensees seeking a near-term SLR or licensees that have submitted an application for an SLR or received an SLR,

Alternative 1 would require the evaluation of all environmental issues as plant -specific. This alternative would result in additional costs to the NRC and licensees.

3 Future SLR refers to SLR applications submitted after the rule becomes effective.

4 Near-term SLR refers to SLR applications submitted before the effective date of the rule.

5 At present, three operating nuclear power plants have received subsequently renewed licenses. In accordance with the Commission Orders CLI -22 -02 and CLI 04, licenses for two of the three operating nuclear power plants with subsequently renewed licenses are reset to expire at the end of the initial period of extended operation. This was affirmed by the Commission Orders CLI 06 (NRC, 2022g) and CLI-22-07 (NRC, 2022h). This direction will hold until either (1) the NRC issues the revised LR GEIS and rule or (2) the staff completes a plant-specific EIS that considers the impacts of nuclear power plant operations during the SLR period, which includes consideration of an applicants revised environmental report that addresses environmental impacts during the SLR period. The remaining operating nuclear power plant requires no additional action at present and is unaffected by the rule.

7 2.2 Alternative 2 : Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 51

Under Alternative 2, the NRC would issue a final rule that would establish new, and amend existing, provisions of 10 CFR Part 51 relating to the renewal of nuclear power plant licenses, including Table B-1. Changes include updating all issues in the current Table B-1 to fully account for SLR and are based on the findings described in the revised LR GEIS. The rule includes new, consolidated, and revised Category 1 and 2 issues based on lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. The rule also incorporates changes in environmental regulations, impact methodology, and other new information. The rule clarifies issue titles and the scope and resources considered for issue findings.

The rule would apply to all nuclear power plant license renewal applicants and benefit future SLR applicants. Table A-1 in Appendix A to this regulatory analysis presents the changes to the issues and findings in Table B-1 that would result in quantifiable costs and benefits.

8

3 ESTIMATION AND EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

This section examines the costs and benefits expected to result from the NRCs rule. All costs and benefits are monetized, when possible. The total costs and benefits are then summed to determine whether the difference between the costs and benefits results in a positive benefit. I n some cases, costs and benefits are not monetized because meaningful quantification is not possible.

3.1 Identification of Affected Attributes

This section identifies the components of the public and private sectors, commonly referred to as attributes, that are expected to be affected by Alternative 2, the rulemaking alternative, identified in Section 2. Alternative 2 would apply to all NRC applicants renewing their nuclear power reactor(s) operating license. The staff developed an inventory of the impacted attributes using the list in NUREG/BR- 0058, draft Revision 5, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, issued January 2020 (NRC, 2020).

The rule would affect the attributes described below.

3.1.1 Industry Implementation

This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the industry of implementing the regulatory action for all affected licensees. Under this action, the industry would review the regulations and update its processes and procedures, as necessary.

3.1.2 Industry Operation

This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on all affected licensees caused by routine and recurring activities required by Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, licensees would incur costs and benefits resulting from the environmental issues and findings in Table B-1.

3.1.3 NRC Operation

This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC caused by routine and recurring activities required by Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the NRC would incur costs and benefits resulting from the environmental issues and findings in Table B-1.

3.1.4 Improvements in Knowledge

This attribute accounts for the potential value of new informationresulting from the implementation of Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would codify the lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and incorporate changes in environmental regulations, impact methodology, and other new information.

9

3.1.5 Regulatory Clarity

This attribute accounts for regulatory clarity resulting from the implementation of Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would update the applicability of the LR GEIS, Table B-1, and the associated guidance to SLR.

3.1.6 Environmental Considerations

This attribute accounts for the consideration of environmental impacts of Federal actions that affect the human environment. Many NRC regulatory actions are handled through an EIS that considers the environmental impacts (both negative and beneficial) from the proposed licensing action. This regulatory action updates Table B-1 and make other conforming changes in 10 CFR Part 51, which will improve the quality of the environmental information provided to the NRC and facilitate license renewal environmental reviews performed for power reactor license renewal. The discussions of the attributes in Sections 3.1.1-3.1.3 analyze the impacts of these changes.

3.1.7 Attributes with No Effects

The following attributes are not expected to contribute to the results under any of the alternatives:

NRC Implementation

Public Health (Accident)

Public Health (Routine)

Occupational Health (Accident)

Occupational Health (Routine)

Offsite Property

Onsite Property

Other Government Entities

General Public

Safeguards and Security Considerations

Other Considerations

3.2 Analytical Methodology

This section describes the process used to evaluate costs and benefits associated with Alternative 2. The benefits include any desirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary savings). The costs include any undesirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary costs).

Of the six affected attributes, the analysis quantitively evaluates th ree attributesindustry implementation, industry operation, and NRC operation. Quantitative analysis requires a 10 baseline characterization of the affected society, including factors such as the number of affected entities, the nature of the activities currently performed, and the types of systems and procedures that applicants would consider or would no longer implement because of the proposed alternatives. Where possible, the NRC calculated costs for these attributes using distributions to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates. The individual sections for each of the provisions include the detailed cost tables used in this regulatory analysis. The NRC evaluated the remaining attributes qualitatively because the benefits relating to regulatory efficiency are not easily quantifiable or because the data necessary to quantify and monetize the impacts of these attributes are not available.

3.2.1 Regulatory Baseline

This regulatory analysis measures the incremental costs of the rule relative to a baseline that reflects anticipated behavior if the NRC does not undertake any regulatory action. As part of the regulatory baseline used in this analysis, the staff assumes full licensee compliance with existing NRC regulations. Section 4 of this regulatory analysis presents the estimated incremental costs and benefits of the alternatives compared to this baseline. This regulatory baseline is the no action alternative (i.e., Alternative 1).

3.2.2 Affected Entities

The licensees for all 5 5 operating nuclear power plant sites can apply for license renewal. The licensees for 50 operating nuclear power plants sites have already received an initial 20 -year operating license extension from the NRC. Three operating nuclear power plants sites have received subsequently renewed licenses. Table A-3 includes the timing of the estimated initial LR and SLR submittals for each operating plant.

The analysis estimates the number of initial LR applications, future SLR applications, and near-term and submitted applications, and issued subsequently renewed licenses as follows:

The NRC is currently reviewing six SLR applications.

Based on letters of intent, approved timely renewal exemptions, and discussions with licensees, the NRC anticipates receiving two SLR applications through fiscal year 2024.

As a result of Commission Orders CLI 02, CLI 04, CLI-22-06, and CLI-22-07, two of the three operating nuclear power plants sites with subsequently renewed licensees have been reset to the end of the initial period of extended operation. The remaining operating nuclear power plant site with an SLR would require no additional action.

Some operating nuclear power plant sites will become eligible for a subsequent 20-year license extension after fiscal year 2024 (e.g., 60 to 80 years). The NRC expects to receive an estimated 43 SLR applications during fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2035.

11

The NRC estimates that it will receive a total of 44 license renewal applications (including initial LR and SLR applications) in the 10- year cycle following the effective date of the rule, as show n in Table 1. Currently, sufficient data do not exist to support estimates on license renewal applications beyond 2035.

Table 1 Affected License Renewal Applicants5F6

Near-Term and Future Submitted Total License Calendar Year Initial LRa SLR Applications, and Renewal Issued Subsequently Applicationsb,c Renewed Licenses 2025 0 13 10 23 2026 0 2 2 2027 0 2 2 2028 0 1 1 2029 0 0 0 2030 0 1 2 2031 0 1 1 2032 0 2 2 2033 0 2 2 2034 0 5 5 2035 1 4 5 Total 1 33 10 44 Applications a When this regulatory analysis was prepared, D iablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2 w ere scheduled to cease operation in 2024 and 2025, respectively, and therefore are not included in this analysis.

b This analysis assumes licensees will submit a license renewal application, which may cover multiple units, as shown in Table A-3.

c Advanced nuclear reactors are excluded from this analysis but are considered in the R egulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Rule, dated December 14, 2021 (NRC, 2021b).

3.2.3 Base Year

All monetized costs are expressed in 202 3 dollars. The staff expects the NRC to incur implementation costs to prepare and issue a final rule and guidance in 2024. Ongoing operation costs related to Alternative 2 are assumed to begin no earlier than 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, unless otherwise stated, and are modeled on an annual cost basis. Estimates are made for recurring annual operating expenses. T he values for annual operating expenses are modeled as a constant expense for each year of the 10- year analysis horizon. The staff performed a discounted cash flow calculation to discount these annual expenses to 2023 dollar values.

6 Data in Table 1 are current as of September 28, 2023.

12 3.2.4 Discount Rates

In accordance with guidance from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, issued September 2003 (OMB, 2003), and NUREG/BR- 0058, net present value (NPV) calculations are used to determine how much society would need to invest today to ensure that the designated dollar amount is available in a given year in the future. Using NPV calculations, costs and benefits are valued to a reference year for comparison, regardless of when the cost or benefit is incurred in time. Based on the 2003 OMB Circular A -4 and consistent with NRC practice and guidance, present-worth calculations in this analysis use 3 percent and 7 percent real discount rates. A 3 percent discount rate approximates the real rate of return on a long term government debt, which serves as a proxy for the real rate of return on savings to reflect reliance on a social rate of time preference discounting concept.6F7 A 7 percent discount rate approximates the marginal pretax real rate of return on an average investment in the private sector, and it is the appropriate discount rate whenever the main effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private sector. A 7 percent rate is consistent with an opportunity cost7F8 of capital concept to reflect the time value of resources directed to meet regulatory requirements.

3.2.5 Cost/Benefit Inflators

The staff estimated the analysis inputs from sources as referenced in Appendix A, and inputs are provided in prior -year dollars. To evaluate the costs and benefits consistently, these inputs are put into 2023 base year dollars. The most common inflator is the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Using the CPI-U, the prior-year dollars are converted to 2023 base year dollars.

For 2023, the currently reported CPI-U values have been averaged together; the BLS has not determined the entirety of CPI-U for 2023. The formula to determine the amount in 2023 dollars is as follows:

2023 2022 2022 = 2023

7 The social rate of time preference discounting concept refers to the rate at which society is willing to postpone a marginal unit of current consumption in exchange for more future consumption.

8 Opportunity cost represents what is foregone by undertaking a given action. If the licensee personnel were not engaged in revising procedures, they would be performing other work activities. Throughout the analysis, the NRC estimates the opportunity cost of performing these incremental tasks as the industry personnels pay for the designated unit of time.

13 Table 2 summarizes the values of CPI -U used in this regulatory analysis.

3Table 2 CPI -U Inflator

Base Year CPI-U Annual Averagea

2022 292.655 2023 303.395 a BLS, 2023.

3.2.6 Labor Rates

For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, the NRC applied incremental cost principles to develop labor rates that include only labor and material costs directly related to the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the rule requirements. This approach is consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-3568, A Handbook for Value Impact Assessment, issued December 1983 (NRC, 1983), and general cost estimate methodology. The NRC incremental labor rate is $143 per hour for fiscal year 2023.8F9

The staff used the 2021 BLS Occupational Employment and Wages data (BLS, 2021) to obtain labor categories and the mean hourly wage rate by job type, and applied the inflator discussed above to inflate these labor rate data to 2023 dollars. The labor rates used in the analysis reflect total hourly compensation, including wages and nonwage benefits, using a burden factor of 2.4.

The NRC used the BLS data tables to select appropriate hourly labor rates for performing the anticipated tasks necessary during and following implementation of the proposed alternative. In establishing this labor rate, wages paid to the individuals performing the work, plus the associated fringe benefit component of labor cost (i.e., insurance premiums, pension, and legally required benefits), are considered incremental expenses and are included. Table 3 summarizes the BLS labor categories that were used to estimate industry labor costs to implement this rule.

9 The NRC labor rates presented here in differ from those developed under the NRCs license fee recovery program (10 CFR Part 170, Fees for F acilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended ). NRC labor rates for fee recovery purposes are appropriately designed for full -cost recovery of the services rendered and as such include nonincremental costs (e.g., overhead, administrative, and logistical support costs).

14 Table 3 Position Titles and Occupations

Position Title (in this Regulatory Analysis) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC Code)

Managers General and Operations Managers (111021)

Biological Scientists (191020)

Technical Staff Environmental Scientists and Geoscientists (192040)

Life, Physical, and Social Scientists (190000)

Office and Administrative Support Occupations (430000)

Administrative Staff First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers (431011)

Licensing Staff Lawyers (231011)

The NRC used BLS labor rates at the 25th percentile, mean, and 75th percentile and adjusted to 2023 dollars as input into the uncertainty analysis, which is described in Section 4. The industry hourly labor rate used in this analysis is $164 per hour.

3.2.7 Sign Conventions

The sign conventions used in this analysis are that all favorable consequences for the Alternative 2 are positive and all adverse consequences are negative. Negative values are shown using parentheses (e.g., negative $500 is displayed as ($500)).

3.2.8 Analysis Horizon

The analysis horizon is 10 years based on Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, which states that the material in Appendix B, including Table B-1, should be reviewed on a 10- year cycle and updated if necessary. This is also consistent with Commission direction in SRM-SECY-21- 0066, SRM-SECY-22- 0024, and SRM-SECY-22- 0036, Staff Requirements SECY-22- 0036Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses 10- Year Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022- 0087), dated June 17, 2022 (NRC, 2022i).

3.3 Industry Implementation

Under Alternative 2, industry would need to review the rule and update its procedures, as necessary. The staff assumed that these implementation activities would apply to the 18 parent companies of the licensees expected to submit applications under this rule from 2025 through 2035, as well as those licensees that plan to sub mit near-term SLR applications or licensees that have submitted an SLR application or have received a subsequently renewed license. The staff estimated each parent company would incur $50,000 in costs to perform these activities, allocated evenly between reviewing the regulatory changes and updating their procedures in preparation for using the new requirements. These activities result in costs to industry of approximately ($814,000) using a 7 percent NPV and ($861,000) using a 3 percent NPV, as shown in Table 4.

15 Table 4 Industry Implementation

Total per Total (2023 dollars)a Year Activity No. of Parent Companies Parent 7% NPV 3% NPV Company Undiscounted

2024 Licensee Review New Requirements 18 $25,000 ($450,000) ($421,000) ($437,0 00)

Licensee 2025 Procedure(s) 18 $25,000 ($450,000) ($393,0 00) ($424,0 00)

Update(s)

Industry Net Implementation Benefit (Cost) ($900,000) ($814,000) ($861,000) a Values rounded to nearest thousand dollars.

3.4 Industry Operation

Alternative 2 provides 80 issues in Table B-1 (see Table A-1 in Appendix A) that each licensee must assess and include as part of the environmental review of its license renewal application to the NRC.

General assumptions: Assumptions are listed below and apply to all license renewal applicants:

Category 1 IssueA Category 1 issue is assumed to require, on average, 95 hours0.0011 days 0.0264 hours 1.570767e-4 weeks 3.61475e-5 months of licensee staff labor to research new and significant information and, as applicable, include information in the environmental report.

Category 2 IssueA Category 2 issue is assumed to require, on average, 381 hours0.00441 days 0.106 hours 6.299603e-4 weeks 1.449705e-4 months of licensee staff labor to complete a plant -specific analysis and to present the analysis in the environmental report.

Uncategorized IssueAn uncategorized issue is assumed to require, on average, 95 hours0.0011 days 0.0264 hours 1.570767e-4 weeks 3.61475e-5 months of licensee staff labor to research new and significant information and, as applicable, include information in the environmental report.

Category ChangeThe net savings per change from Category 2 to Category 1 and the net cost per change from Category 2 to Category 1 is 286 hours0.00331 days 0.0794 hours 4.728836e-4 weeks 1.08823e-4 months .

Issue ConsolidationC ombining similar category issues from the 2013 LR GEIS into a single Category 1 or Category 2 issue in Table B-1 will result in an estimated 70 percent savings, on average, in labor time for each issue removed by consolidation.

Issue DivisionDividing a category issue from the 2013 LR GEIS into individual issues of the same category in Table B-1, on average, will result in an estimated 50 percent increase in cost and in labor time for each issue added by issue division. For example, if a single Category 2 issue is divided into three Category 2 issues, then the result is an increased incremental cost of 100 percent for a total of 381 hours0.00441 days 0.106 hours 6.299603e-4 weeks 1.449705e-4 months to analyze the three subdivided Category 2 issues.

16 Initial LR: All incremental changes from the current Table B-1 to the revised Table B-1 resulting from the revised LR GEIS would apply to initial LR applicants:

CostsNew Category 2 issues subdividing an existing Category 2 issue, as well as Category-1 issues that are changed to Category 2 issues, including consolidations, would incur costs because these issues would require a plant -specific evaluation. New Category 1 issues would also incur costs to research new and significant information.

BenefitsThe benefits of this rule would result from Category 2 issues that are changed to Category-1 issues, because those issues will no longer require plant -specific evaluation. Combining similar issues into a single category would also result in savings.

Future SLR: All the issues and findings in the revised Table B-1 would apply to future SLR applicants:

CostsNo incremental costs would be incurred by addressing Category 2 issues because these costs would be incurred with or without the rule.

BenefitsThe rule would result in averted costs for Category 1 issues because those issues will no longer require plant -specific evaluation.

Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses: This group of licensees is expected to submit SLR applications before 2025. Near-term SLR applicants may choose from two options: evaluate all environmental impacts as plant -specific or rely on the current Table B-1 findings when developing their environmental report. This analysis assumes that, at their own risk, licensees seeking a near -term SLR would rely on the current Table B-1 findings when determining the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of their subsequent license, pending completion of the final rule. 9F10 This assumption results in cost reductions of approximately 40 percent. Once the rule becomes effective, new Category-1 and 2 issues, and changes from Category 1 to Category 2, including consolidations, would apply to this group of license renewal applicants. Therefore, th is group of licensees will need to provide the NRC with additional environmental information as a result of the changes introduced by the rule. The NRC can acquire this information in multiple ways (e.g., the NRC can send requests for additional information or requests for confirmatory information, or licensees can reevaluate and resubmit their applications). This analysis recognizes that the licensee would reevaluate its application against the changes to Table B-1 and resubmit the application to the NRC.

CostsThe rule would result in additional costs associated with new Category 2 issues and subdividing an existing Category 2 issue, as well as Category 1 issues that are changed to Category 2 issues, including consolidations, because these issues would

10 An amended SLR environmental report has been submitted for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 that evaluates all environmental impacts as plant -specific. Other SLR applicants also could choo se to submit amended environmental reports ; however, this alternative is more expensive than Alternative 2 and was not analyzed.

17 require plant-specific evaluation. A dditional costs associated with new Category 1 issues to research new and significant information would be incurred. The licensee would have 1 year to comply, resulting in costs incurred in 2025.

BenefitsThe rule would address the gap in applicability for SLR.

Table 5 summarizes of the costs and benefits to license renewal applicants as a result of the revised Table B-1.

Table 5 Industry Operation Costs

Year Applicant Group Total (2023 dollars)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Initial LR 2025-2035 Costs ($129,000) ($57,000) ($91,000)

Benefits $0 $0 $0 Initial LR Subtotal ($129,000) ($57,000) ($91,000)

Future SLR 2025-2035 Costs $0 $0 $0 Benefits $92,609,000 $63,667,000 $77,917,000 Future SLR Subtotal $92,609,000 $63,667,000 $77,917,000

Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses

Costs ($2,089,000) ($1,825,000) ($1,969,000) 2025 Benefits $0 $0 $0 Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses Subtotal ($2,089,000) ($1,825,000) ($1,969,000)

Industry Net Operation Benefit (Cost) $90,391,000 $61,785,000 $75,857,000 a Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

3.5 NRC Operation

Alternative 2 activities affect the NRC environmental review time per license renewal application. The analysis specifies each Table B-1 issue that is evaluated quantitatively.

General assumptions: The following assumptions are made about NRC operation are listed below:

Category 1 IssueA Category 1 issue is assumed to require, on average, 43 hours4.976852e-4 days 0.0119 hours 7.109788e-5 weeks 1.63615e-5 months of NRC staff labor to research new and significant information and, as applicable, include information in the supplement to the LR GEIS.

Category 2 IssueA Category 2 issue is assumed to require, on average, 174 hours0.00201 days 0.0483 hours 2.876984e-4 weeks 6.6207e-5 months of NRC staff labor to complete a plant -specific analysis and to present the information in the supplement to the LR GEIS.

18

Uncategorized IssueAn uncategorized issue is assumed to require, on average, 43 hours4.976852e-4 days 0.0119 hours 7.109788e-5 weeks 1.63615e-5 months of licensee staff labor to research new and significant information and, as applicable, include information in the environmental report.

Category ChangeThe net savings per change from Category 2 to Category 1 and the net cost per change from a Category 2 to Category 1 is 131 hours0.00152 days 0.0364 hours 2.166005e-4 weeks 4.98455e-5 months .

Issue ConsolidationC ombining similar category issues from the 2013 LR GEIS into a single Category 1 or Category 2 issue in the revised Table B-1 will result in an estimated 70 percent savings, on average, in labor time for each issue removed by consolidation.

Issue DivisionDividing a category issue from the 2013 LR GEIS into individual issues of the same category in the revised Table B-1, on average, will result in an estimated 50 percent increase in cost, in labor time for each issue added by issue division. For example, if a single Category 2 issue is divided into three Category 2 issues, then the result is an increased incremental cost of 100 percent for a total of 174 hours0.00201 days 0.0483 hours 2.876984e-4 weeks 6.6207e-5 months to analyze the three subdivided Category 2 issues.

Table 6 summarizes the cost savings impact of the changes to Table B-1 as a r esult of the rule to the NRC for license renewal applications.

Table 6 NRC Operation Costs

Year Applicant Group Total (2023 dollars)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Initial LR 2025-2035 Costs ($52,000) ($23,000) ($36,000)

Benefits $0 $0 $0 Initial LR Subtotal ($52,000) ($23,000) ($36,000)

Future SLR 2025-2035 Costs $0 $0 $0 Benefits $36,882,000 $25,356,000 $31,031,000 Future SLR Subtotal $36,882,000 $25,356,000 $31,031,000 Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses Costs ($834,000) ($729,000) ($786,000) 2025 Benefits $0 $0 $0 Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses Subtotal ($834,000) ($729,000) ($786,000)

NRC Net Operation Benefit (Cost) $35,996,000 $24,604,000 $30,209,000 a Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

b The NRC would also incur incremental costs to withdraw or amend any Commission o rders as a result of the rule.

19 3.6 Improvements in Knowledge

Alternative 2 would amend the regulations to include lessons learned and knowledge and experience gained from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS, which provide a significant source of new information. In addition, new research, findings, and other information were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with initial LR and SLR.

3.7 Regulatory Clarity

Alternative 2 would improve the clarity of the environmental issues identified in Table B-1 and provide consistency with other similar environmental issues (e.g., ecological resource issues) by more clearly describing the title of the issues, scope, and resources considered for issue findings. For example, Table B-1 issues have been divided into separate issues for clarity and consistency with the separate Federal statutes and interagency consultation requirements that the NRC must consider with respect to f ederally protected ecological resources. Also, the rule would remove the word initial from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3), update the LR GEIS and associated guidance to apply to SLR, and make conforming changes in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.95(c).

3.8 Environmental Considerations

Alternative 2 would amend the regulations to update Table B-1 and make other conforming changes in 10 CFR Part 51, which will improve the quality of the environmental information provided to the NRC and facilitate license renewal environmental reviews. This information is necessary for the NRC to ensure compliance with Federal environmental statutes and regulations and to evaluate the potential environmental effects of continued nuclear power plant operations.

20

4

SUMMARY

OF THE RESULTS

4.1 Summary

This regulatory analysis identifies both quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits that would result from Alternative 2 (rulemaking). Although quantifiable costs and benefits appear to be more tangible, decisionmakers should not discount costs and benefits that cannot be quantified. Such benefits or costs can be as important as or even more important than benefits or costs that can be quantified and monetized.

4.1.1 Quantified Net Benefits

Table 7 and 9 summarize the estimated quantified costs and benefits for Alternative 2 compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1).

Table 7 Summary of Totals by Licensee Group

Licensee Group Total (2023 dollars)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Initial LR ($201,000) ($99,000) ($147,000)

Future SLRs $128,816,000 $88,412,000 $108,302,000

Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses ($3,128,000) ($2,738,000) ($2,951,000)

Net Benefit (Cost) $125,487,000 $85,575,000 $105,204,000

a Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

4.1.2 Nonquantified Benefits

In addition to the quantified costs, the NRC has analyzed numerous costs and benefits that could not be monetized but would affect the general public, industry, and the NRC. Table 8 summarizes the quantified and qualitative costs and benefits for Alternative 2. The quantitative analysis used mean values.

Table 8 Summary of Totals

Net Monetary Savings or (Costs) Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)

Alternative 1: No Action

$0 None Alternative 2: Benefits:

Improvements in KnowledgeAlternative 2 Industry: (all provisions) would improve the quality of the information

$61.0 million using a 7% discount rate provided to the NRC and facilitate license

$75.0 million using a 3% discount rate renewal environmental reviews.

21 Net Monetary Savings or (Costs) Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)

NRC: (all provisions)

Regulatory Clarity Alternative 2 would improve

$24.6 million using a 7% discount ratethe clarity and intent of the environmental

$30.2 million using a 3% discount raterequirements, including applicability to SLR, and provide consistency with other ecological Net Benefit (Cost): (all provisions) resource issues.

$85.6 million using a 7% discount rate

Environmental ConsiderationsAlternative 2

$105.2 million using a 3% discount rate would provide the necessary information for the NRC to comply with Federal environmental statutes and regulations.

Costs:

None identifi

4.2 Uncertainty Analysis

The NRC completed a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for this regulatory analysis using the specialty software @Risk. The Monte Carlo approach answer s the question, W hat distribution of net costs and benefits results from multiple draws of the probability distribution assigned to key variables?

4.2.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions

The NRC provides the following analysis of the variables with the greatest uncertainty on estimates of values. As noted above, the NRC performed this analysis with a Monte Carlo simulation analysis using the @Risk software program. Monte Carlo simulations involve introducing uncertainty into the analysis by replacing the point estimates of the variables used to estimate base case costs and benefits with probability distributions. By defining input variables as probability distributions instead of point estimates, the influence of uncertainty on the results of the analysis (i.e., the net benefits) can be modeled effectively.

The probability distributions chosen to represent the different variables in the analysis were bounded by the range referenced input and the NRC staffs professional judgment. When defining the probability distributions for use in a Monte Carlo simulation, summary statistics are needed to characterize the distributions. These summary statistics include (1) the minimum, most likely, and maximum values of a program evaluation and review technique (PERT) distribution. 10F11 The NRC used the PERT distribution to reflect the relative spread and skewness of the distribution defined by the three estimates.

11 A PERT distribution is a special form of the beta distribution with specified minimum and maximum values.

The shape parameter is calculated from the defined most likely value. The PERT distribution is similar to a triangular distribution in that it has the same set of three parameters. Technically, it is a special case of a scaled beta (or beta general) distribution. The PERT distribution is generally considered superior to the triangular distribution when the parameters result in a skewed distribution because the smooth shape of the curve places less emphasis in the direction of skew. Similar to the triangular distribution, the PERT distribution is bounded on both sides and therefore may not be adequate for some modeling purposes if the capture of tail or extreme events is desired.

22

Appendix A identifies the data elements, the distribution and summary statistic, and the mean value of the distribution used in the uncertainty analysis.

4.2.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results

The NRC performed the Monte Carlo simulation by repeatedly recalculating the results 10,000 times. For each iteration, the values identified in Appendix A were chosen randomly from the probability distributions that define the input variables. The values of the output variables were recorded for each iteration, and these values were used to define the resultant probability distribution.

For the analysis shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, the NRC ran 10,000 simulations in which it changed the key variables to assess the resulting effect on costs and benefits. Figures 1, 2, and 3 display the histograms of the incremental costs and benefits from the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1) for each affected entity and the total net benefit of the rule. The analysis shows that both industry and the NRC have a greater than 99 percent likelihood of incurring benefits that exceed the costs if the NRC issues this rule.

52.33 69.76 5.0% 90.0% 5.0%

Industry / 7% NPV

Minimum$44,407,508 Maximum $77,197,192 Mean $60,974,255 Std Dev $5,250,573 Values 10000

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Values in Millions ($)

Figure 1 Total Industry Net Benefits (Costs) (7 Percent NPV) Alternative 2

23 22.44 26.73 5.0% 90.0% 5.0%

NRC / 7% NPV Minimum$20,892,882 Maximum $28,225,326 Mean $24,604,101 Std Dev $1,307,436 Values 10000

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Values in Millions ($)

Figure 2 Total NRC Net Benefits (Costs) (7 Percent NPV)Alternative 2

76.76 94.65

5.0% 90.0% 5.0%

Net Benefit (Cost) / 7% NPV

Minimum $68,485,246 Maximum $102,415,256 Mean $85,578,356 Std Dev $5,414,212 Values 10000

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105

Values in Millions ($)

Figure 3 Total Net Benefits (Cost) (7 Percent NPV)Alternative 2

24 Table 9 presents descriptive statistics on the uncertainty analysis. It displays the key statistical results, including the 90 percent confidence interval in which the net benefits would fall between the 5 percent and 95 percent values.

Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Uncertainty Results (7 Percent NPV)

Uncertainty Result Incremental Cost-Benefit (2023 Million Dollars)

Min Mean Max 5% 95%

Net Industry Benefit (Cost) $44 $61 $77 $52 $70 Net NRC Benefit (Cost) $21 $25 $28 $22 $27 Total Net Benefit (Cost) $69 $86 $102 $77 $95

Figure 4 shows a tornado diagram that identifies the cost drivers for this rule. This figure ranks the variables based on their contribution to the uncertainty in cost. The largest cost driver is the amount of time for licensees to perform an environmental analysis for new Category 2 issues, followed by the amount of time for the NRC to review the environmental analyses for new Category 2 issues. These two variables are the largest cost drivers and generate the largest variations in the total net benefit due to uncertainty. The remaining cost drivers show diminishing variation in the total net benefit.

Net Benefit (Cost) / 7% NPV Inputs Ranked by Effect on Output Mean

ustry hours per Cat 2 issue $80,256,485 $90,969,966

NRC hours per Cat 2 issue $83,430,647 $87,789,506

ustry hours per Cat 1 issue $84,364,488 $87,344,536

NRC hours per Cat 1 issue $85,028,259 $86,305,237 Input High rs per unclasssified issue $85,214,684 $86,010,694 Input Low cost to update procedures $85,215,447 $85,897,602

rom consolidated issues $85,172,757 $85,831,737

m consolidated issues $85,233,523 $85,845,092

per uncategorized issue $85,272,322 $85,854,102 Baseline = $85,578,356

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 Values in Millions ($)

Figure 4 Tornado Diagram Total Averted Costs7 Percent NPV

25 4.2.3 Summary of Uncertainty Analysis

The simulation analysis shows that the estimated mean benefit (i.e., positive averted costs or savings) for this rule is $86 million, with 90 percent confidence that the net benefit is between

$69 million and $102 million using a 7 percent discount rate. The NRCs quantitative estimates show that the rule alternative (Alternative 2) is cost-beneficial to industry and the NRC.

4.3 Disaggregation

To comply with the guidance in NUREG/BR-0058, Section 4.3.2, Criteria for the Treatment of Individual Requirements, the NRC performed a screening review to determine whether any individual requirement would be unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the rulemaking. The staff did not identify any unnecessary or unrelated provisions; therefore, it did not perform a disaggregation for this regulatory analysis.

26 5 DECISION RATIONALE AND IMPLEMENTATION

The assessment of total costs and benefits discussed above leads the NRC to conclude that the rule, if implemented, would continue to ensure awareness of the environmental impacts of license renewal, increase regulatory clarity in the license renewal process, increase regulatory consistency, and reduce the regulatory burden for industry and the NRC. Based solely on quantified costs and benefits, the regulatory analysis shows that the rulemaking is justified because the total quantified benefits of the regulatory action will exceed the costs of the final action, for all discount rates up to 7 percent. Considering nonquantified costs and benefits, the regulatory analysis shows that the rulemaking is justified because the number and significance of the nonquantified benefits outweigh the nonquantified costs. Therefore, considering both quantified and nonquantified costs and benefits indicates that the benefits of the rule outweigh the identified quantitative and qualitative impacts attributable to the rule.

The NRC assumed for this analysis that this final rule would be effective in 2024. In addition to the revised LR GEIS (Revision 2), the agency will issue a revision to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1 (Revision 2), and NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (Revision 2), with the final rule.

27 6 REFERENCES

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Standard Occupational Classification, U.S. Department of Labor, May 2021. Available at http://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm ; last accessed on September 28, 2023.

BLS, Archived Consumer Price Index Supplement Files: August 2023 Historical CPI-U, Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, all items, by month, U.S. Department of Labor, September 2023. Available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/home.htm; last accessed on September 28, 2023.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, Part 51, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.

CFR, Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended, Part 170, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Regulatory Analysis, Circular A -4, September 2003. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.

OMB, Regulatory Analysis, Circular A -4, November 2023. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment, NUREG/CR-3568, December 1983 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML062830096).

NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, May 1996.

NRC, Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Federal Register, 61 FR 28467, June 5, 1996.

NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Revision 1, June 2013a.

NRC, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, June 2013b (ML13067A354).

NRC, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG -1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, June 2013c (ML13106A246).

28 NRC, Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Federal Register, 78 FR 37281, June 20, 2013.

NRC, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR0058, draft Revision 5, January 2020 (ML19261A277).

NRC, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018- 0296), SECY 0066, July 22, 2021a (ML20364A008).

NRC, Regulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Rule, December 14, 2021b (ML21222A057).

NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI 03, February 24, 2022a (ML22055A521, ML22055A526, ML22055A527, ML22055A533, ML22055A554).

NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI 02, February 24, 2022b (ML22055A496).

NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI 04, February 24, 2022c (ML22055A557).

NRC, Staff RequirementsSECY-21- 0066Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review (RIN 3150- AK32; NRC-2018- 0296),

SRM-SECY-21- 0066, February 24, 2022d ( ML22053A308).

NRC, Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018- 0296), SECY-22- 0024, March 25, 2022e (ML22062B643).

NRC, Staff RequirementsSECY-22- 0024Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review (RIN 3150- AK32; NRC-2018- 0296),

SRM-SECY-22- 0024, April 5, 2022f (ML22096A035).

NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI 06, June 3, 2022g (ML22154A215).

NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI 07, June 3, 2022h (ML22154A217).

NRC, Staff RequirementsSECY-22- 0036Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses10- Year Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022- 0087),

SRM-SECY-22- 0036, June 17, 2022i (ML22168A130).

NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Vols. 1, 2, and 3 (ML23202A170, package).

NRC, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, Draft Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1 ( ML23201A144).

NRC, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG -1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2 (ML23201A227).

29 APPENDIX A SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Table A-1 Changes to Table B -1

Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

Land Use 1 Onsite land use 1 No change 2 Offsite land use 1 No change Offsite land use in 3 transmission line 1 No change right-of-ways (ROWs)

Visual Resources 4 Aesthetic impacts 1 No change Air Quality Revised issue title from Air quality impacts (all plants) and the order of 5 Air quality impacts 1 the topics discussed in the finding (operations aspects followed by refurbishment) 6 Air quality effects of 1 Revised issue finding by adding the transmission lines phrase from transmission lines Noise 7 Noise impacts 1 No change Geologic Environment Revised issue finding (i.e., that the 8 Geology and soils 1 environmental review does not consider the impacts of geological hazards on nuclear power plants)

Surface Water Resources Surface water use and 9 quality (non-cooling system 1 No change impacts)

Altered current patterns at 10 intake and discharge 1 No change structures 11 Altered salinity gradients 1 No change 12 Altered thermal stratification 1 No change of lakes 13 Scouring caused by 1 No change discharged cooling water 14 Discharge of metals in 1 No change cooling system effluent Discharge of biocides, 15 sanitary wastes, and minor 1 No change chemical spills

A-1 Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

Surface water use conflicts 16 (plants with once-through 1 No change cooling systems)

Surface water use conflicts 17 (plants with cooling ponds or 2 No change cooling towers using makeup water from a river) 18 Effects of dredging on 1 No change surface water quality Temperature effects on Revised issue finding by adding the 19 sediment transport capacity 1 phrase during the license renewal term for clarity Groundwater Resources Groundwater contamination Revised issue finding by adding 20 and use (non-cooling system 1 U.S. and adding the acronym impacts) EPA for clarity Groundwater use conflicts 21 (plants that withdraw less 1 No change than 100 gallons per minute

[gpm])

Groundwater use conflicts 22 (plants that withdraw more 2 No change than 100 gallons per minute

[gpm] )

Groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle 23 cooling systems that 2 No change withdraw makeup water from a river)

Groundwater quality 24 degradation resulting from 1 No change water withdrawals Consolidated Category 1 issue, Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes), with Category 2 issue, Groundwater quality Groundwater quality degradation 25 degradation (plants with 2 (plants with cooling ponds at inland cooling ponds) sites) and includes saltwater intrusion and encroachment on adjacent surface water and groundwater quality as potential site-specific factors for cooling ponds 26 Radionuclides released to 2 No change groundwater

A-2 Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

Terrestrial Resources Revised issue title from Effects on Non-cooling system impacts terrestrial resources (non-cooling 27 on terrestrial resources 2 system impacts) and scope of issues and resources considered in the finding 28 Exposure of terrestrial 1 Minor revisions to issue finding for organisms to radionuclides clarity Cooling system impacts on 29 terrestrial resources (plants 1 Revised scope of issues and with once-through cooling resources considered in the finding systems or cooling ponds)

Revised issue title from Cooling Cooling tower impacts on tower impacts on vegetation (plants 30 terrestrial plants 1 with cooling towers) and scope of issues and resources considered in the finding Bird collisions with plant Minor revisions to issue finding for 31 structures and transmission 1 clarity lines Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants Revised scope of issues and 32 with cooling ponds or cooling 2 resources considered in the finding towers using makeup water from a river)

Transmission line right-of-33 way (ROW) management 1 Revised scope of issues and impacts on terrestrial resources considered in the finding resources Revised issue title from Electromagnetic field effects Electromagnetic fields on flora and 34 on terrestrial plants and 1 fauna (plants, agricultural crops, animals honeybees, wildlife, livestock) and scope of issues and resources considered in the finding

A-3 Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

Aquatic Resources Revised issue title from Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with Impingement mortality and once-through cooling systems or entrainment of aquatic cooling ponds) and issue findings to 35 organisms (plants with 2 reflect revised Clean Water Act once-through cooling Section 316(b) requirements and to systems or cooling ponds) consolidate the impingement component of the Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses Revised issue title from Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with Impingement mortality and cooling towers) and issue findings to entrainment of aquatic reflect revised Clean Water Act 36 organisms (plants with 1 Section 316(b) requirements and to cooling towers) consolidate the impingement component of the Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses Entrainment of Revised issue title from Entrainment 37 phytoplankton and 1 of phytoplankton and zooplankton zooplankton (all plants) and scope of issues and resources considered in the finding Revised issue title from Thermal Effects of thermal effluents impacts on aquatic organisms 38 on aquatic organisms (plants 2 (plants with once -through cooling with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) and systems or cooling ponds) scope of issues and resources considered in the finding Revised issue title from Thermal Effects of thermal effluents impacts on aquatic organisms 39 on aquatic organisms (plants 1 (plants with cooling towers) and with cooling towers) scope of issues and resources considered in the finding

A-4 Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

Revised issue title from Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants) and consolidated the Category 1 issue Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas 40 Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents 1 supersaturation, and eutrophication and the thermal effluent component of the Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses Effects of nonradiological Revised scope of issues and 41 contaminants on aquatic 1 resources considered in the finding organisms 42 Exposure of aquatic 1 Revised scope of issues and organisms to radionuclides resources considered in the finding Revised issue title from Effects of 43 Effects of dredging on 1 dredging on aquatic organisms and aquatic resources scope of issues and resources considered in the finding Water use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants Revised scope of issues and 44 with cooling ponds or cooling 2 resources considered in the finding towers using makeup water from a river)

Revised issue title from Effects on Non-cooling system impacts aquatic resources (non-cooling 45 on aquatic resources 1 system impacts) and scope of issues and resources considered in the finding Impacts of transmission line 46 right-of-way (ROW) 1 Revised scope of issues and management on aquatic resources considered in the finding resources Federally Protected Ecological Resources a Revised issue title from Threatened, Endangered Species Act: endangered, and protected species Federally listed species and and essential fish habitat and 47 critical habitats under 2 divided issue into three issues for U.S. Fish and Wildlife each Federal statute and Service jurisdiction interagency consultation requirement Endangered Species Act:

Federally listed species and 48 critical habitats under 2 Subdivided Category 2 issue National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction

A-5 Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

49 Magnuson-Stevens Act:

essential fish habitat 2 Subdivided Category 2 issue

50 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources 2 New Category 2 issue

Historic and Cultural Resources 51 Historic and cultural 2 Revised scope of issues and resources resources considered in the finding Socioeconomics 52 Employment and income, 1 No change recreation and tourism 53 Tax revenue 1 Revised issue title from Tax revenues 54 Community services and 1 No change education 55 Population and housing 1 No change 56 Transportation 1 No change Human Health 57 Radiation exposures to plant 1 No change workers 58 Radiation exposures to the 1 No change public 59 Chemical hazards 1 Revised issue title from Human health impact from chemicals 60 Microbiological hazards to 1 No change plant workers Revised issue title from Microbiological hazards to the public (plants with cooling ponds or canals Microbiological hazards to or cooling towers that discharge to a 61 the public 2 river) and issue findings to reflect the fact that microbiological organisms are a concern wherever plants discharge thermal effluents to publicly-accessible surface waters.

Electromagnetic fields Revised issue title from Chronic 62 (EMFs) Uncategorized effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) 63 Physical occupational 1 No change hazards 64 Electric shock hazards 2 No change Postulated Accidents 65 Design-basis accidents 1 No change

A-6 Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

Revised from a Category 2 issue to a Category 1 issue and revised issue finding to reflect the fact that the probability-weighted 66 Severe accidents 1 consequences of severe accidents are small and to reflect knowledge gained that severe accident mitigation alternatives do not warrant further plant-specific analysis Environmental Justice Impacts on minority Renamed issue title from Minority populations, low-income and low-income populations and 67 populations, and Indian 2 revised issue finding to consider Tribes Indian Tribes and subsistence consumption Waste Management 68 Low-level waste storage and 1 No change disposal 69 Onsite storage of spent 1 No change nuclear fuel Offsite radiological impacts 70 of spent nuclear fuel and 1 No change high-level waste disposal 71 Mixed-waste storage and 1 No change disposal 72 Nonradioactive waste 1 No change storage and disposal Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 73 Greenhouse gas impacts on 1 New Category 1 issue climate change 74 Climate change impacts on 2 New Category 2 issue environmental resources Cumulative Effects Revised issue title from Cumulative impacts and revised issue finding to 75 Cumulative effects 2 reflect changes to Council on Environmental Quality definition at 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3)

Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impacts 76 individual impacts from other 1 No change than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste

A-7 Issue Table B-1 Issues Category Changes to Table B-1 No.

Offsite radiological impacts 77 collective impacts from other 1 No change than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste 78 Nonradiological impacts of 1 No change the uranium fuel cycle 79 Transportation 1 No change Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning Termination of plant 80 operations and 1 No change decommissioning

a Three of the four federally protected ecological resources issues are not new issues. Issues 47 - 49 were subdivided from an existing issue in accordance with applicable Federal statu te and interagency consultation requirement s.

Issue 50 specifically addresses a newly identified Federal statute and interagency consultation requirement.

Note: All issues in Table B -1 fully account for subsequent license renewal and are based on the findings described in the revised NUREG -1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS).

Table A-2 Major Assumptions and Input Data

Description Mean Most Likely High Source or Basis of Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate General Input Analysis base year 2023 NRC assumption Year NRC rule is 2024 NRC assumption effective Compliance Calculated value.

Effective Date 2025 (NRC rule year + 1 year)

Timeframe of Timeframe is analysis (years) 10 consistent with next LR GEIS update Alternative discount 3% NUREG/BR-0058, factor OMB guidance Principal discount 7% NUREG/BR-0058, factor OMB guidance NRC staff hourly $143 NRC calculation labor rate BLS.gov table h ourly rate was inflated to 2023 dollars using Licensee average 4 PERT $131.88 $169.57 $191.31 CPI-U values and a labor rate $162.4 multiplier was applied to account for fringe and indirect management costs No. of parent 18 NRC estimate companies No. of licensees yet to request an initial 1 NRC estimate license renewal

A-8 Description Mean Most Likely High Source or Basis of Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate No. of licensees with near-term and submitted 10 NRC estimate applications, and issued subsequently renewed licenses No. of licensees with future subsequently 44 NRC estimate renewed licenses Alternative 1 Input Data for Alternative 2 Averted Costs NRC Inputs Hours per 43 PERT 39 43 48 NRC estimate Category 1 issue Hours per 174 PERT 156 174 191 NRC estimate Category 2 issue Hours per 43 PERT 39 43 48 NRC estimate uncategorized issue Savings from 70% PERT 60% 70% 80% NRC estimate consolidated issues Increased NRC estimate based percentage cost 50% PERT 40% 50% 60% on historical data and from subdividing expert opinion issues Industry Inputs Hours per 95 PERT 86 95 105 NRC estimate Category 1 issue Hours per 381 PERT 343 381 420 NRC estimate Category 2 issue Hours per 95 PERT 86 95 105 NRC estimate uncategorized issue Savings from 70% PERT 60% 70% 80% NRC estimate consolidated issues Increased NRC estimate based percentage cost 50% PERT 40% 50% 60% on historical data and from subdividing expert opinion issues Alternative 2 Input Data NRC Inputs Hours to prepare 17,710 PERT 15,939 17,710 19,481 NRC estimate and issue final rule Hours to prepare and issue final 1,678 PERT 1,510 1,678 1,846 NRC estimate guidance NRC contractor support to prepare $1,500,000 PERT $1,350,000 $1,500,000 $1,650,000 NRC estimate and issue final guidance Category 2 to Category 1 (hours 131 NRC calculation saved)

Category 1 to Category 2 (hours 131 NRC calculation added)

Category 1 NRC calculation consolidation (hours 30 based on consolidated saved) issues savings

A-9 Description Mean Most Likely High Source or Basis of Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Category 2 NRC calculation consolidation (hours 122 based on consolidated saved) issues savings Industry Inputs Parent company to review regulations $50,000 PERT $45,000 $50,000 $55,000 NRC estimate and update procedures Category 2 to Category 1 (hours 286 NRC calculation saved)

Category 1 to Category 2 (hours 286 NRC calculation added)

Category 1 NRC calculation consolidation (hours 67 based on consolidated saved) issues savings Category 2 NRC calculation consolidation (hours 267 based on consolidated saved) issues savings

Table A-3 Operating Nuclear Power Plants by Licensee Group11F12

Calendar Near-Term and Submitted Year Initial LR Future SLRa Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1b Brunswick Unit 1 and 2 Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Dresden Units 2 and 3 Cooper Unit 1 Monticello D.C. Cook Unit 1 and 2 Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 H.B. Robinson Unit 2 North Anna Units 1 and 2 2025 Edwin I. Hatch Unit 1 and 2 Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 James A. FitzPatrick Point Beach Units 1 and 2 Millstone Unit 2 and 3 St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and 2 Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 V.C. Summer Unit 1 Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 R.E. Ginna 2026 Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2 Salem Unit 1 and 2 2027 Davis-Besse Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 and 2 2028 Arkansas Nuclear Unit 2 2029 2030 Sequoyah Unit 1 and 2 2031 McGuire Unit 1 and 2 2032 LaSalle County Unit 1 and 2 Susquehanna Unit 1 and 2

12 Data in Table A-3 are current as of September 28, 2023.

A-10 Calendar Near-Term and Submitted Year Initial LR Future SLRa Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses 2033 Catawba Units 1 and 2 Columbia Byron Unit 1 and 2 Callaway Unit 1 2034 Grand Gulf Unit 1 Limerick Unit 1 and 2 Waterford Unit 3 Fermi Unit 2 2035 Watts Bar Unit 1 Palo Verde Unit 1, 2, and 3 River Bend Unit 1 Wolf Creek Unit 1 a.Future SLRs are estimated based on the current license expiration date.

b.Arkansas Nuclear One intends to submit separate applications for Unit s 1 and 2.

A-11

PKG: ML22165A003; Regulatory Analysis: ML22165A008 OFFICE NMSS/REFS/RASB QTE NMSS/REFS/RASB/BC NMSS/SLED/D NAME PNoto JDaughtery CBladey THolahan DATE 10/27/223 11/14/2023 12/15/2023 1212/2024 OFFICE NMSS/D OGC NRR/D EDO NAME JLubinski (RLewis for) MSmith AVeil (RTayor for) DDorman DATE 12/18/2024 01/18/2024 12/18/2024 01/25/2024

SECY-24-0017, Enclosure 3 - Regulatory Analysis: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

SECY-24-0017, Enclosure 3 - Regulatory Analysis: Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (Rin 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search