NUREG-1555, Dfc, Supp 1, Rev 2, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal

NUREG-1555 Dfc, Supp 1, Rev 2, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal

ML22165A070
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/28/2023
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Huckabay, Victoria
References
LR GEIS, NRC-2018-0296, NUREG-1555, RIN 3150-AK32 NUREG-1555 DFC S1 R2
Download: ML22165A070 (1)

Text

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 Revision 2 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal Draft Report for Comment Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at the libraries include all open literature items, such as books, NRCs Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports.

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee, Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.

information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their Copies of industry codes and standards used in a attachments. substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, The NRC Technical Library and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of Federal Regulations Two White Flint North may also be purchased from one of these two sources: 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738

1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Publishing Office These standards are available in the library for reference Washington, DC 20402-0001 use by the public. Codes and standards are usually Internet: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/ copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating Telephone: (202) 512-1800 organization or, if they are American National Standards, Fax: (202) 512-2104 from American National Standards Institute

2. The National Technical Information Service 11 West 42nd Street 5301 Shawnee Road New York, NY 10036-8002 Alexandria, VA 22312-0002 Internet: www.ansi.org Internet: https://www.ntis.gov/ (212) 642-4900 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000 Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications.

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written The views expressed in contractor prepared publications in request as follows: this series are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission administrative reports and books prepared by the staff Office of Administration (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX),

Digital Communications and Administrative (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX),

Services Branch (3) reports resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA-Washington, DC 20555-0001 XXXX),(4) brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and E-mail: Reproduction.Resource@nrc.gov (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and the Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and Facsimile: (301) 415-2289 of Directors decisions under Section 2.206 of the NRCs regulations (NUREG-0750), (6) Knowledge Management Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted prepared by NRC staff or agency contractors (NUREG/KM-at the NRCs Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ XXXX).

doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work differ from the last printed version. Although references to sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the material found on a Web site bear the date the material U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any was accessed, the material available on the date cited legal liability or responsibility for any third partys use, or the may subsequently be removed from the site. results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 Revision 2 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: February 2023 Date Published: February 2023 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

1 COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 2 Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff.

3 Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 4 specify the report number NUREG-1555 in your comments, and send them by the end of the 5 comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of this 6 report.

7 Addresses: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include 8 Docket ID NRC-2018-0296 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in 9 writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC website and on the Federal rulemaking 10 website http://www.regulations.gov.

11 Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents 12 filed under Docket ID NRC-2018-0296.

13 Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic 14 email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

15 Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-16 0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

17 For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: Jennifer Davis, 18 Senior Environmental Project Manager, or Kevin Folk, Senior Environmental Project 19 Manager, at 1-800-368-5642, extension 3835 or 6944 (respectively), or by e-mail at 20 Jennifer.Davis@nrc.gov or Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov.

21 Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the NRC will be considered a public 22 record and entered into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 23 (ADAMS). Do not provide information you would not want to be publicly available.

24

1 ABSTRACT 2 This document provides guidance to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in implementing 3 the provisions in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, Environmental Protection 4 Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, when conducting 5 environmental reviews of applications for the initial and subsequent renewal of a nuclear power 6 plant operating license(s). This standard review plan guides the staff in preparing a nuclear 7 power plant-specific supplemental environmental impact statement to NUREG-1437, Revision 8 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. This 9 document supplements NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for 10 Nuclear Power Plants, which provides guidance for the environmental reviews of construction 11 permits, initial operating licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses for new nuclear 12 power plants.

13 14 15 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT 16 This NUREG provides voluntary guidance for implementing the mandatory information 17 collections in 10 CFR Part 51 that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 18 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of 19 Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 3150-0021. Send comments regarding 20 these information collections to the FOIA, Library, and Information Collections Branch 21 (T6-A10M), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by email to 22 Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and 23 Regulatory Affairs (3150-0021). Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 24 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.

25 26 PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION 27 The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 28 information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 29 currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

30 31 iii

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii 3 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xi 4 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

........................................................................................................... xiii 5 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................... xxv 6 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. 1-1 7 1.1 Areas of Review .................................................................................................... 1-1 8 1.2 Acceptance Criteria ............................................................................................... 1-1 9 1.3 Review Procedures ............................................................................................... 1-1 10 1.4 Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................... 1-2 11 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ 2-1 12 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 2-1 13 2.1.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 2-1 14 2.1.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 2-1 15 2.1.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 2-1 16 2.1.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 2-1 17 2.2 General Plant Information ..................................................................................... 2-2 18 2.2.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 2-2 19 2.2.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 2-3 20 2.2.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 2-4 21 2.2.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 2-7 22 2.3 Refurbishment Activities ........................................................................................ 2-8 23 2.3.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 2-8 24 2.3.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 2-8 25 2.3.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 2-9 26 2.3.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 2-9 27 2.4 Employment .......................................................................................................... 2-9 28 2.4.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 2-9 29 2.4.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 2-9 30 2.4.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 2-10 31 2.4.4 Evaluation of Findings ............................................................................. 2-10 32 2.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................................................................... 2-10 33 2.5.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 2-10 34 2.5.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 2-11 35 2.5.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 2-12 36 2.5.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 2-12 37 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 3-1 38 3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 3-1 39 3.1.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 3-1 v

1 3.1.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 3-1 2 3.1.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 3-2 3 3.1.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 3-2 4 3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources ........................................................................... 3-2 5 3.2.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 3-2 6 3.2.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 3-3 7 3.2.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 3-4 8 3.2.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 3-4 9 3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise ...................................................................... 3-4 10 3.3.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 3-4 11 3.3.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 3-5 12 3.3.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 3-6 13 3.3.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 3-6 14 3.4 Geologic Environment ........................................................................................... 3-7 15 3.4.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 3-7 16 3.4.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 3-7 17 3.4.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 3-7 18 3.4.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 3-8 19 3.5 Water Resources ................................................................................................... 3-8 20 3.5.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 3-8 21 3.5.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-10 22 3.5.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-11 23 3.5.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-13 24 3.6 Ecological Resources .......................................................................................... 3-14 25 3.6.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 3-14 26 3.6.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-16 27 3.6.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-18 28 3.6.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-21 29 3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 3-21 30 3.7.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 3-21 31 3.7.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-23 32 3.7.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-24 33 3.7.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-25 34 3.8 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 3-25 35 3.8.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 3-25 36 3.8.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-27 37 3.8.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-27 38 3.8.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-27 39 3.9 Human Health ..................................................................................................... 3-28 40 3.9.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 3-28 41 3.9.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-28 42 3.9.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-29 43 3.9.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-30 44 3.10 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 3-30 45 3.10.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 3-30 46 3.10.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-31 vi

1 3.10.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-31 2 3.10.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-32 3 3.11 Waste Management ............................................................................................ 3-33 4 3.11.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 3-33 5 3.11.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-34 6 3.11.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-35 7 3.11.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-37 8 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change .............................................. 3-37 9 3.12.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 3-37 10 3.12.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 3-38 11 3.12.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 3-38 12 3.12.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 3-39 13 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS .......................... 4-1 14 4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 4-1 15 4.1.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 4-1 16 4.1.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 4-1 17 4.1.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 4-2 18 4.1.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-16 19 4.2 Land Use and Visual Resources ......................................................................... 4-16 20 4.2.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-16 21 4.2.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-16 22 4.2.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-17 23 4.2.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-17 24 4.3 Air Quality and Noise ........................................................................................... 4-17 25 4.3.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-17 26 4.3.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-18 27 4.3.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-18 28 4.3.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-18 29 4.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 4-18 30 4.4.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-18 31 4.4.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-19 32 4.4.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-19 33 4.4.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-19 34 4.5 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 4-20 35 4.5.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-20 36 4.5.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Water Resources Issues) .................... 4-20 37 4.5.3 Review Procedures (General for Water Resources Issues) .................... 4-21 38 4.5.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-22 39 4.5.5 Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants With Cooling Ponds Or Cooling 40 Towers Using Makeup Water From A River) ........................................... 4-22 41 4.5.6 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More Than 100 42 Gallons Per Minute [gpm]) ....................................................................... 4-24 43 4.5.7 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants With Closed-Cycle Cooling 44 Systems That Withdraw Makeup Water From A River) ........................... 4-26 45 4.5.8 Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants With Cooling Ponds) ............. 4-28 vii

1 4.5.9 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater ................................................ 4-31 2 4.6 Ecological Resources .......................................................................................... 4-32 3 4.6.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-32 4 4.6.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Ecological Resources Issues) ............. 4-33 5 4.6.3 Review Procedures (General For Ecological Resources Issues) ............ 4-34 6 4.6.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-36 7 4.6.5 Non-Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources .......................... 4-36 8 4.6.6 Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants With Cooling 9 Ponds Or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water From A River).............. 4-38 10 4.6.7 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms 11 (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) ............ 4-40 12 4.6.8 Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants With 13 Once-Through Cooling Systems Or Cooling Ponds) ............................... 4-42 14 4.6.9 Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants With Cooling 15 Ponds Or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water From A River).............. 4-45 16 4.6.10 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-46 17 4.6.11 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical 18 Habitats ................................................................................................... 4-47 19 4.6.12 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat ...................................... 4-49 20 4.6.13 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources ........................ 4-51 21 4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 4-53 22 4.7.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-53 23 4.7.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-54 24 4.7.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-55 25 4.7.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-56 26 4.8 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 4-56 27 4.8.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-56 28 4.8.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-57 29 4.8.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-57 30 4.8.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-58 31 4.9 Human Health ..................................................................................................... 4-58 32 4.9.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-58 33 4.9.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-58 34 4.9.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-58 35 4.9.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-59 36 4.9.5 Microbiological Hazards to the Public ...................................................... 4-59 37 4.9.6 Electric Shock Hazards ........................................................................... 4-62 38 4.10 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 4-65 39 4.10.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-65 40 4.10.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-66 41 4.10.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-66 42 4.10.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-67 43 4.11 Waste Management ............................................................................................ 4-68 44 4.11.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-68 45 4.11.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-68 46 4.11.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-68 viii

1 4.11.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-69 2 4.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change .............................................. 4-69 3 4.12.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-69 4 4.12.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 5 Climate Change Issues) .......................................................................... 4-69 6 4.12.3 Review Procedures (General For Greenhouse Gas Emissions And 7 Climate Change Issues) .......................................................................... 4-70 8 4.12.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-71 9 4.12.5 Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources .......................... 4-71 10 4.12.6 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-71 11 4.12.7 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-72 12 4.12.8 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-72 13 4.12.9 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-73 14 4.13 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................. 4-73 15 4.13.1 Areas Of Review ...................................................................................... 4-73 16 4.13.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-73 17 4.13.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-74 18 4.13.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-75 19 4.14 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................... 4-75 20 4.14.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle ................................................................................. 4-75 21 4.14.2 Replacement Power Alternative Fuel Cycles........................................... 4-76 22 4.14.3 Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning ............ 4-79 23 4.15 References .......................................................................................................... 4-80 24 4.15.1 Areas of Review ...................................................................................... 4-80 25 4.15.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. 4-80 26 4.15.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................. 4-80 27 4.15.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-80 28 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ................................... 5-1 29 5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 5-1 30 5.1.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 5-1 31 5.1.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents Issues) ................ 5-1 32 5.1.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 5-2 33 5.1.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 5-3 34 5.2 Postulated Accidents ............................................................................................. 5-3 35 5.2.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 5-3 36 5.2.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents) ........................... 5-4 37 5.2.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 5-4 38 5.2.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 5-4 39 5.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ................................................................ 5-5 40 5.3.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 5-5 41 5.3.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 5-6 42 5.3.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 5-8 43 5.3.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 5-9 44 5.4 References ............................................................................................................ 5-9 45 5.4.1 Areas of Review ........................................................................................ 5-9 ix

1 5.4.2 Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 5-9 2 5.4.3 Review Procedures ................................................................................... 5-9 3 5.4.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................... 5-9 4 6.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 6-1 5 6.1 Areas of Review .................................................................................................... 6-1 6 6.2 Acceptance Criteria ............................................................................................... 6-1 7 6.3 Review Procedures ............................................................................................... 6-2 8 6.4 Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................... 6-3 9

7.0 REFERENCES

................................................................................................................ 7-1 10 APPENDIX A INTERAGENCY CONSULTATIONS FOR ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........ A-1 11 APPENDIX B NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 REVIEW AND 12 CONSULTATION .............................................................................................. B-1 13 14 x

1 LIST OF TABLES 2 Table 2-1 Design Details of Heat-Dissipation-System Components ..................................... 2-5 3 Table 2-2 Performance Characteristics of the Heat-Dissipation System ............................... 2-6 4 Table 4-1 Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues .................................................................. 4-3 5 Table 4-2 Category 2 Issues ............................................................................................... 4-12 6

xi

1 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

2 This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission (NRC) staff use in conducting environmental reviews of applications for the initial 4 license renewal (LR) or subsequent license renewal (SLR) of a nuclear power plant operating 5 license(s) and preparing a nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called plant-specific) 6 supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) to NUREG-1437, Revision 2, the 7 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; 8 NRC 2023a). This ESRP amends NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Standard Review 9 Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants; Supplement 1: Operating License 10 Renewal, (NRC 2013) issued June 2013. Use of this ESRP helps ensure the completeness and 11 consistency of the environmental review and analyses conducted by the NRC staff.

12 Questions regarding the content of any plan in this document may be directed to the NRC at the 13 following address:

14 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Washington, DC 20555-0001 17 Additional copies of these plans may be obtained as indicated on the inside front cover of this 18 document.

19 NRCs Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act 20 This ESRP demonstrates how the NRC staff meets the provisions in Title 10 of the Code of 21 Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic 22 Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, to conduct environmental reviews for the renewal 23 of operating licenses and prepare plant-specific SEISs to the LR GEIS. The NRC regulations at 24 10 CFR Part 51 implement Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 25 (NEPA). The NRC published the license renewal provisions of 10 CFR Part 51 in the Federal 26 Register on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), which became effective on January 17, 1997.

27 The NRCs intention in developing the rule was to improve the efficiency of the environmental 28 review process for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. These provisions also 29 support the analyses conducted for and reported in the LR GEIS.

30 Environmental Review Process 31 After receiving the applicants environmental report (ER) for initial LR or SLR, the NRC staff 32 performs an acceptance review to determine whether the ER contains sufficient information for 33 the staff to undertake the environmental/NEPA review. After accepting the ER, the NRC staff 34 begins to conduct its environmental review and prepare the plant-specific SEIS. The ESRP 35 guides the NRC staffs environmental review and preparation of the SEIS. In each SEIS, the 36 staff analyzes the nuclear plant site-specific environmental impacts of renewing the nuclear 37 power plant operating license (the proposed action) and reasonable alternatives to renewing the 38 license. The SEIS presents the staffs recommendation regarding the environmental 39 acceptability of the license renewal action. The NRCs record of decision considers this 40 recommendation, along with the findings from the safety review (10 CFR Part 54).

xiii

1 The NRCs environmental (NEPA) review process consists of the following actions required by 2 10 CFR Part 51:

3

• Publish a notice of intent to conduct an initial LR or SLR environmental review and to 4 prepare a plant-specific SEIS to the LR GEIS in the Federal Register (see 10 CFR 51.27, 5 Notice of Intent; 10 CFR 51.95(c), Post Construction Environmental Impact Statements:

6 Operating License Renewal Stage; and 10 CFR 51.116, Notice of Intent) and send copies 7 of the notice to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes;1 public 8 interest groups; and any other persons (e.g., representatives of environmental justice 9 communities2) that have expressed interest in the initial LR or SLR environmental review 10 (see 10 CFR 51.116, Notice of Intent). The notice describes the proposed action, explains 11 the NRC scoping process, provides information about public meeting locations and where 12 copies of the ER are available for public examination, and invites members of the public to 13 participate in the scoping process.

14

• Conduct scoping (see 10 CFR 51.28, ScopingParticipants, 10 CFR 51.29, Scoping 15 Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement; 16 10 CFR 51.71, Draft Environmental Impact StatementContents; 10 CFR 51.95(c)(1);

17 and 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3), Public Involvement). The scoping process includes identifying 18 environmental issues and inviting State and local agency officials, Indian Tribes, 19 representatives of environmental justice communities, environmental interest groups, and 20 other members of the public to participate in the scoping process. Scoping provides an 21 opportunity for any member of the public to identify environmental issues and concerns they 22 believe are significant that may not have been adequately addressed in the ER.

23 Environmental issues may be introduced in oral statements made at the scoping meeting or 24 in written comments sent directly to the NRC or submitted via https://www.regulations.gov/.

25 During scoping, staff can visit the nuclear power plant and, if requested, meet with officials 26 from local, regional, and State agencies and Indian Tribes and representatives of 27 environmental justice communities and environmental interest groups. Depending on the 28 issues and concerns raised during scoping, the staff may request additional information from 29 the applicant.

30

• Prepare a plant-specific draft SEIS to the LR GEIS (see 10 CFR 51.70, Draft Environmental 31 Impact StatementGeneral; 10 CFR 51.71, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 32 Contents; and 10 CFR 51.95[c]), Operating license renewal stage. In developing the draft 33 SEIS, the NRC staff will evaluate (verify and validate) information provided by the applicant 34 and will seek and collect information from independent sources.

35

• Distribute the draft SEIS for comment (see 10 CFR 51.73, Request for Comments on Draft 36 Environmental Impact Statement, and 10 CFR 51.74, Distribution of Draft Environmental 37 Impact Statement and Supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Statement; News 38 Releases). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NRC will publish 39 separate notices of the availability in the Federal Register. Copies of the draft SEIS will be 40 distributed to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes; 41 environmental justice communities; environmental interest groups, organizations, and 42 individuals who expressed interest and participated in the environmental review; and any 43 other individuals who request a copy (see 10 CFR 51.74, Distribution of Draft 1 The term Indian Tribes refers to Federally recognized Tribes as acknowledged by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. § 479a).

2 Environmental justice communities can also include State-recognized Tribes, those that self-identify as Indian Tribes, and tribal members. Tribal members can be part of an environmental justice community that has different interests and concerns than a Tribal government.

xiv

1 Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Statement; 2 News Releases). As described for scoping above, any member of the public may provide 3 comments on the draft SEIS in oral statements made at a public meeting or in written 4 comments sent directly to the NRC or submitted via https://www.regulations.gov/.

5

• Prepare a final SEIS to the LR GEIS (see 10 CFR 51.90, Final Environmental Impact 6 Statement General; 10 CFR 51.91, Final Environmental Impact StatementContents; 7 and 10 CFR 51.95[c]), Operating license renewal stage. In developing the final SEIS, 8 the NRC staff will respond to all comments, prepare responses and revise the SEIS, if 9 necessary. This includes determining whether comments identify new and significant 10 information that was not considered in the LR GEIS. After addressing public comments, the 11 staff will determine whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so 12 great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers 13 would be unreasonable. The NRC then will submit the final SEIS to EPA, and both 14 agencies will publish notices of availability in the Federal Register (see 10 CFR 51.93, 15 Distribution of Final Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Final 16 Environmental Impact Statement; News Releases, and 10 CFR 51.118, Final 17 Environmental Impact StatementNotice of Availability). Copies of the final SEIS will be 18 distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes; environmental justice 19 communities; environmental interest groups, organizations, and individuals who expressed 20 interest and participated in the environmental review; and any other organizations or 21 individuals who request a copy.

22

• The Commission may hold a hearing if it determines that it is in the public interest or if a 23 request for hearing and petition to intervene are granted. In accordance with 10 CFR 24 2.105(a)(10), Notice of Proposed Action, the NRC will issue a notice of opportunity for 25 hearing as soon as practicable. Any person whose interest may be affected by the initial LR 26 or SLR action may request a hearing. (See also 10 CFR 51.104, NRC Proceeding Using 27 Public Hearings; Consideration of Environmental Impact Statement.)

28

• Prepare a record of decision (see 10 CFR 51.103, Record of DecisionGeneral).

29 Among other things, the record of decision will summarize the impacts of initial LR or SLR 30 and the energy replacement alternatives considered in the SEIS, the measures taken to 31 minimize and/or reduce any adverse environmental effects, and any license conditions 32 adopted in connection with mitigation measures. In making a final decision on initial or 33 subsequent license renewal, the NRC will determine whether the adverse environmental 34 impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for 35 energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC publishes the 36 Commissions final decision on whether to renew the nuclear plant operating license in the 37 Federal Register.

38 The environmental project manager (EPM) is responsible for the NRCs environmental review 39 and the preparation of the plant-specific SEIS for initial LRs or SLRs. The EPM coordinates the 40 work of the technical staff during the ER acceptance review and the SEIS environmental review.

41 As previously noted, the purpose for the acceptance review is to determine whether the 42 applicants ER contains sufficient information for the staff to undertake the environmental 43 review. If acceptable, the ER is docketed, and the environmental review begins.

44 The EPM also coordinates the environmental review with the applicant and NRC management.

45 In addition, the EPM coordinates the efforts of technical staff and contractor personnel to 46 develop a SEIS for each nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called plant-specific) 47 environmental review. With assistance from the technical staff, the EPM prepares the xv

1 recommendation for the licensing action to be taken by the Director of NRCs Office of Nuclear 2 Reactor Regulation.

3 The environmental review is currently conducted by technical staff in the Office of Nuclear 4 Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, 5 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Division of Risk Assessment, and by the EPM. The 6 responsibilities of the EPM and technical staff in carrying out the environmental review, 7 including ER acceptability criteria, are outlined in this ESRP.

8 During initial LR or SLR environmental reviews, it may be necessary for the NRC staff to 9 request additional information from the applicant. Transmitted by the EPM, these requests may 10 include requests for confirmation of information (i.e., RCIs) or requests for additional information 11 (i.e., RAIs). Requests for confirmation of information and requests for additional information 12 record the staffs information needs to support the environmental reviews.

13 Standard review plans in this ESRP provide procedures for conducting the environmental 14 review and preparing the plant-specific SEIS. The EPM is responsible for ensuring that the 15 staffs conclusions meet NRC regulatory and policy requirements. It is expected that each SEIS 16 prepared by the NRC staff will:

17

• stand on its own as an analytical document that fully informs decisionmakers and the public 18 of the environmental effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable alternatives 19

• emphasize the issues that are significant and reduce emphasis on other issues and 20 background material 21

• be written in plain language 22 The SEIS is submitted for review and comment to the NRC division director, the Office of the 23 General Counsel, and branch chiefs. Approval is obtained from the EPMs division director 24 before publication of the SEIS.

25 The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 26 (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437) 27 The LR GEIS addresses the environmental impacts of license renewal (initial license renewal 28 [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]3) by identifying environmental issues common to all 29 nuclear power plants (or a subset of plants) and environmental issues requiring plant-specific 30 analyses. The NRC staff conducts environmental reviews and prepares SEISs to address 31 issues that could not be generically dispositioned in the LR GEIS.

32 The LR GEIS improves the efficiency of the NRC license renewal environmental review process 33 by (1) providing an evaluation of the types of environmental impacts that may occur by an initial 34 LR of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses or SLR, (2) identifying and assessing 35 impacts that are expected to be generic (the same or similar) at all nuclear plants (or plants with 36 specified plant or site characteristics), and (3) defining the number and scope of environmental 37 issues that need to be addressed in plant-specific SEISs. The LR GEIS also provides 38 information that aids in the preparation of plant-specific EISs.

3 The technical bases for the environmental issues and findings in the LR GEIS fully account for the impacts of initial LR and one term of SLR (see Section 1.6 of the LR GEIS).

xvi

1 The NRC committed to review and update the findings in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on 2 Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear 3 Power Plants, located in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. The Commission stated 4 that it intends to review the assessment of impacts in Table B-1 and the LR GEIS and update it 5 on a 10-year cycle, if necessary.

6 The NRC staff reviewed and evaluated the environmental issues and impact findings in the 7 2013 LR GEIS to determine if the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS support the scope of 8 license renewal, including initial LR and SLR terms and to update or revise those findings as 9 appropriate. The NRC considered changes in applicable laws and regulations, new data in its 10 possession, collective experience, and lessons learned and knowledge gained from conducting 11 environmental reviews for initial LR and SLR since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In doing 12 so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add, group, subdivide, or delete any of the 78 13 issues in the 2013 LR GEIS.

14 The revised LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a) evaluates 80 environmental 15 issues, 59 of which have been evaluated in the LR GEIS and their impacts determined to be 16 applicable to license renewal for all nuclear power plants or a subset of plants. These issues 17 are Category 1 issues, and do not require additional analysis in a plant-specific environmental 18 review unless new and significant information is found. Of the remaining 21 environmental 19 impact issues, 20 are Category 2 issues that require plant-specific analyses. One issue 20 (Electromagnetic fields (EMFs)) is not categorized because scientific consensus on their effects 21 on human health is lacking, and the NRC staff does not perform a plant-specific analysis of this 22 issue in SEISs. Once a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies 23 on the potential health effects, the NRC will revise its guidance and evaluation of this issue.

24 The NRCs standard of significance for impacts as established in the LR GEIS for license 25 renewal environmental issues considered Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology 26 including revisions in Part 1501NEPA and Agency Planning (40 CFR 1501). In considering 27 whether the effects of the proposed action are significant, the NRC analyzes the potentially 28 affected environment and degree of the effects or impacts of the proposed action (license 29 renewaleither initial LR or SLR). The NRC established three levels of significance for 30 potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The definitions of the three significance 31 levels, presented in the footnotes to Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, 32 are as follows:

33

• SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 34 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of 35 assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do 36 not exceed permissible levels in the Commissions regulations are considered small.

37

• MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 38 important attributes of the resource.

39

• LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 40 important attributes of the resource.

41 In addition to determining the impacts for each environmental issue, a determination was made 42 about whether the analysis in the LR GEIS could be applied to all nuclear power plants (or 43 plants with specified design or site characteristics). Issues were assigned a Category 1 or 44 Category 2 designation as follows:

xvii

1 Category 1 issues are those that meet all the following criteria:

2

• Environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 3 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other 4 specified plant or site characteristics.

5

• A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the 6 impacts (except for offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 7 disposal and offsite radiological impactscollective impacts from other than the disposal of 8 spent fuel and high-level waste).

9

• Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, 10 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely 11 to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

12 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is 13 required in future SEISs unless new and significant information is identified.

14 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1 and, 15 therefore, require additional plant-specific review.

16 Scope of the Environmental Standard Review Plans 17 The individual ESRPs in Supplement 1, Revision 2, guide the review of environmental impact 18 issues associated with license renewal. The ESRPs address all of the environmental impact 19 issues discussed in the revised LR GEIS as well as any new environmental impact issues 20 identified through the public scoping process. They also provide the framework for conducting 21 impact analyses and preparing sections for the plant-specific SEIS. A review procedure is 22 provided for each Category 2 issue. The ESRPs also provide for systematic integration of new 23 and significant information on Category 1 issues.

24 Use of the ESRPs in the environmental review process for license renewal would ensure:

25

• identification of environmental impact issues, data and other information, and analysis 26

• consideration of specific environmental issues of concern to Federal, State, regional, and 27 local agencies and Indian Tribes, as appropriate 28

• standardization of review procedures for the analysis of environmental impact issues 29

• focused environmental review of potentially significant environmental impacts 30 Organization of the Environmental Standard Review Plans 31 The ESRPs are grouped into the following six chapters.

32 1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 33 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 34 3. Affected Environment 35 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 36 5. Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 37 6. Summary and Conclusions xviii

1 Chapters 1 through 3 are descriptive in nature. They guide the review of the purpose and need 2 for the proposed action, the identification of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and 3 the description of the nuclear power plant site and the affected environment. Chapters 4 and 5 4 address the analysis of environmental impacts. They guide the review of the potential 5 environmental impacts associated with continued plant operations and refurbishment associated 6 with license renewal. Chapter 6 addresses comparison of the proposed action with reasonable 7 alternatives and the summarization of the conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of 8 license renewal. Note: The organization of chapters, supporting appendices, and the order of 9 subject matter areas presented in individual SEISs prepared pursuant to the LR GEIS, NUREG-10 1437, Revision 2, may differ from the organization of the sections of this ESRP document.

11 Chapters 4 and 5 identify Category 1 and 2 issues and new and significant information. Review 12 plans serve to guide in the:

13

• evaluation of the applicants process for identifying and evaluating new information 14

• evaluation of information submitted by members of the public during the scoping process, 15 and information identified during the environmental review to determine whether new 16 information is significant 17

• identification of the information required to complete a plant-specific review of the issue 18

• preparation of statements for the SEIS that describe the issue and present the conclusion 19 Content in the chapters of this ESRP document are presented in four sections:

20 1. Areas of Review. Describes the purpose and scope of the environmental review.

21 2. Acceptance Criteria. Provides guidance on determining the acceptability of the 22 environmental impact analysis in the SEIS.

23 3. Review Procedures. Describes the methods the staff uses in conducting the 24 environmental review. The level of detail in the methods of environmental review varies 25 from review plan to review plan.

26 4. Evaluation Findings. Provides guidance on how to summarize the conclusions of the 27 environmental review.

28 Chapter 7 contains the bibliographic reference information supporting the material cited in all 29 review plans, and Appendices A and B provide supplemental information.

30 Each ESRP provides a list of data and information needs under section Areas of Review. The 31 following sources of information should be considered, as applicable:

32

• applicants ER 33

• previous NRC environmental analyses (e.g., final environmental statements, SEISs and 34 other EISs, and environmental assessments) 35

• applicants Safety Analysis Report or Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports 36

• NRC Safety Evaluation Reports 37

• Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-38 1437, Revision 2 (NRC 2023a) 39

• other Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes xix

1

• other publicly available information.

2 New and Significant Information 3 The NRC staff is required to address any new and significant information on the environmental 4 impacts of initial LR or SLR involving Category 1 issues in the plant-specific SEIS. For 5 Category 2 issues, the staff must consider any new information with respect to the applicable 6 discussion in the LR GEIS or related Category 1 issues. This section describes the 7 identification of new information, evaluation of the significance of new information, and the 8 treatment of new and significant information. When no new and significant information is found 9 regarding Category 1 issues, a statement should be included in the SEIS that briefly describes 10 the search and evaluation of new information and states that no new information was identified 11 or the new information was determined to be not significant.

12 The process for identifying new and significant information should consider:

13

• The applicants ER. Applicants for an initial LR or SLR are required by 10 CFR 14 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and significant information regarding the environmental 15 impacts of license renewal of which they are aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, the 16 NRC staff must consider the applicants process for discovering and evaluating the 17 significance of any new information. Is the process adequate to ensure a reasonable 18 likelihood that the applicant would be aware of new information, if it existed?

19

• Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 20 information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS. Is the 21 information new in the sense that it postdates the analysis conducted for the LR GEIS?

22

• Environmental quality standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental 23 quality standards and regulations changed since the analysis conducted for the LR GEIS?

24 If so, do the changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal?

25

• Technical and scientific literature. Does recent technical and scientific literature contain 26 information that would alter conclusions in the LR GEIS for Category 1 issues? Does the 27 information indicate that there may be environmental impacts that were not considered in 28 the LR GEIS?

29 Any new information should be considered in relation to existing Category 1 issues or, in rare 30 circumstances, may reveal the need to consider a new environmental issue. After the impacts 31 have been defined, the significance level of each issue should be determined using the 32 significance level definitions in the LR GEIS. Appropriate mitigation measures should be 33 identified and considered for each issue for which there is an adverse environmental impact.

34 The consideration of mitigation measures should be in proportion to the potential adverse 35 impact.

36 If the new information provides a seriously different picture of the environmental consequences 37 or the new information shows that an issue previously considered SMALL would have a 38 significance level of MODERATE or LARGE, the reviewer should prepare a plant-specific 39 assessment in the SEIS to the LR GEIS and seek Commission approval to waive the 40 Category 1 finding. If plant-specific information is identified and determined to be relevant to the 41 power plant and is also relevant to other power plants (i.e., generic information), then NRC staff 42 would seek Commission approval to either suspend the application of the rule on a generic 43 basis with respect to the analysis or delay granting the renewal application (and possibly other 44 renewal applications) until the analysis in the LR GEIS is updated and the rule amended. If the xx

1 rule is suspended for the analysis, each plant-specific SEIS would reflect the corrected analysis 2 until such time as the rule is amended. The assessment should include a concise description of 3 the new environmental impact information (including source) and how this information applies to 4 the nuclear power plant. The statement also should identify the significance level of the 5 potential adverse impacts and list any mitigation measures that would be considered 6 appropriate. A summary statement and a list of references cited in the impact assessment also 7 should be provided.

8 Following issuance of the plant-specific final SEIS, and prior to the license renewal action being 9 taken, the staff may need to conduct a similar assessment for Category 1 and Category 2 10 issues, if it discovers potentially new information.

11 General Instructions 12 The following instructions are provided here to avoid repetition in each review plan:

13

• Project Overview. The reviewer is expected to develop an understanding of the proposed 14 action (i.e., the initial LR or SLR). The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that reviewers 15 concentrate their efforts on significant environmental issues and associated impacts. This 16 project overview is to be conducted during the acceptance review and is to be completed 17 before developing potential requests for confirmation of information (i.e., RCIs) or requests 18 for additional information (i.e., RAIs).

19

• Internal Review Coordination. The EPM is the central point of contact for all reviewers.

20 Although each ESRP represents a discrete segment of NRCs environmental review, no 21 review can be completed without coordination with related reviews. For example, the 22 technical analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of the ESRP rely on information from the 23 descriptive chapters (Chapters 1 through 3) for background information. All reviewers are 24 instructed to maintain close communication with other reviewers throughout the review.

25 With few exceptions, the reviews are conducted in parallel; thus, other environmental 26 reviews may not be available to reviewers before their own environmental review is 27 completed.

28

• External Review Coordination. The EPM initiates contact with outside agencies and must 29 be informed of all concurrent or subsequent contacts made by reviewers. Each reviewer is 30 expected to be aware of any related technical analyses and environmental assessments.

31 Particular attention should be given to analyses and environmental assessments prepared 32 under provisions of memoranda of understanding between the NRC and other Federal, 33 State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes. Working through the EPM, the 34 reviewer is responsible for resolving any differences of opinion between analyses conducted 35 by the NRC staff and analyses conducted by other agencies. The reviewer must ensure 36 that all viewpoints are presented or that the specific provisions of the memoranda of 37 understanding are followed.

38

• Consultation with Other Agencies. Environmental reviews may require consultation with 39 other Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes. Agencies include, but 40 are not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 41 Service concerning federally endangered and threatened species and critical habitats; the 42 National Marine Fisheries Service concerning essential fish habitat; the National Oceanic 43 and Atmospheric Administrations Office of National Marine Sanctuaries concerning national 44 marine sanctuaries; the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation 45 Officer, and Indian Tribes concerning historic and cultural resources listed or eligible for 46 listing on the National Register of Historic Places; the Environmental Protection Agency (or xxi

1 authorized States or Indian Tribes) responsible for implementation of the Clean Water Act; 2 and State agencies responsible for Coastal Zone Management Act consistency 3 determinations and Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans. The reviewer should initiate 4 these consultations early in the environmental review process and should coordinate these 5 with the EPM.

6

• Consultation with the Applicant. All consultations or discussions with the applicant are 7 made through the EPM.

8

• Site Visit. Most reviewers benefit from an in-person visit to the nuclear plant site. This visit 9 provides the reviewer with firsthand knowledge of the site and the location and position of 10 facilities. It also allows the reviewer an opportunity to study the environment around the 11 nuclear plant site and meet with knowledgeable licensee staff with responsibility for 12 environmental management and compliance at the plant site. The site visit and associated 13 meetings can be supplemented with virtual site tours and meetings.

14

• Depth of Review. The reviewer must conduct an environmental impact analysis in 15 sufficient depth to permit verification and validation of the analysis and conclusions.

16

• Data Age. If data are more than five years old, consider and explain, as appropriate, 17 whether the data, studies, operation experience, etc. are relevant in describing the affected 18 environmental and assessing the impacts of license renewal. For example, show that both 19 the potentially affected resources and the effects of nuclear power plant continued 20 operations and refurbishment on those resources have remained, and can be expected to 21 remain, unchanged or similar over the license renewal term (initial or SLR).

22

• Consideration of Mitigation. Mitigation measures should be considered in proportion to 23 the level of impact when adverse impacts are identified. Statements also should describe 24 the potential effectiveness of mitigation measures.

25

• Best Management Practices. The reviewer must evaluate the applicants commitments to 26 use practices that minimize, reduce, or avoid adverse impacts. These practices, often 27 referred to as best management practices, are activities that can mitigate potential adverse 28 environmental impacts.

29

• Quality Assurance. Reviewers should identify and evaluate the quality assurance 30 measures taken by the applicant in the collection and analysis of data. Quality assurance 31 measures are also evaluated when computer models have been used to predict 32 environmental impacts.

33

• Findings. Findings should reflect consensus agreement among reviewers. This requires 34 input from the reviewer, the EPM, and any other NRC reviewers affected by the findings.

35

• Documentation. Each reviewer should maintain documentation, logs, and other records of 36 communication and consultation with outside agencies and organizations.

37

• Definitions. Use of the following terminology applies only to the environmental review 38 process. Terms such as plant and station, used in a SEIS, continue to reflect the choice of 39 terms used to identify the nuclear plant (e.g., Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Oconee 40 Nuclear Station).

41 - station: Consists of all facilities (reactor containment, turbine, and control buildings, 42 intakes, discharges, etc.) located on the nuclear power plant site. Generally, the station 43 includes everything located on the applicants property that supports the existing 44 reactor(s). In some cases, intake and discharge structures may be located offsite, but 45 are considered part of the station. Transmission lines and their associated facilities are xxii

1 generally not considered part of the station. Other facilities not associated with the 2 production of electricity (e.g., a visitor center or a fish hatchery), however, are 3 considered part of the station.

4 - nuclear power plant (plant): The nuclear reactor, reactor power conversion systems, 5 intake and discharge structures, and all other facilities involved with the production of 6 electricity. A plant can be more than one reactor and power conversion system.

7 Transmission lines and other off-station facilities are not part of the plant.

8 - main plant area: This term is used to describe the area that is occupied by the power 9 block (i.e., nuclear island), including the reactor units, turbine building(s), but also the 10 switchyard(s), and other buildings associated with nuclear power generation such as 11 radioactive waste management and diesel generator buildings.

12 - unit: One reactor power conversion system. Generally, the term unit is used only 13 when the applicant is proposing to relicense more than one unit.

14 - facility: Any individual identifiable part of the station or plant. Examples: The visitor 15 center is a facility. A substation is a facility. An intake system could be a facility (if 16 discussed separately from the remainder of the plant).

17 - mitigation: Impact mitigation is the process of modifying an activity to prevent, eliminate, 18 and/or reduce the adverse environmental impact.

xxiii

1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 2 APE area of potential effects 3

4 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 5 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 6 CWA Clean Water Act 7

8 EA environmental assessment 9 EFH essential fish habitat 10 EIS environmental impact statement 11 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12 EPM environmental project manager 13 ER environmental report 14 ESA Endangered Species Act 15 ESRP environmental standard review plan (NUREG-1555) 16 17 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 18 19 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 20 Power Plant (NUREG-1437) 21 GHG greenhouse gas 22 23 HAPC habitat area of particular concern 24 25 ITS incidental take statement 26 27 LR license renewal 28 29 MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 30 31 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 32 NESC National Electrical Safety Code 33 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 34 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 35 NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act 36 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 37 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 38 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 39 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 40 41 ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (of the National Oceanic and 42 Atmospheric Administration) xxv

1 2 ROW(s) right(s)-of-way 3

4 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives 5 SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives 6 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 7 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 8 SLR subsequent license renewal 9 SME subject matter expert 10 11 THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer xxvi

1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 2 1.1 Areas of Review 3 This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of the 4 purpose and need for the proposed action. The discussion of purpose and need is found in 5 Section 1.3 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 6 Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

7 1.2 Acceptance Criteria 8 The reviewer should ensure that the introduction is consistent with the following regulations:

9

• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 51.70(b) (10 CFR 51.70(b)). The draft 10 environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and written in plain 11 language with appropriate graphics. The format provided in Section 1(a) of Appendix A of 12 this subpart should be used. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 13 independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the 14 draft environmental impact statement.

15

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a 16 nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an 17 environmental impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commissions NUREG-1437, 18 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.

19

• 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to 20 Part 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse 21 environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license 22 renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

23

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of 24 material in environmental impact statements 25

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A(4), concerning purpose of and need for action.

26 Technical Rationale 27 Renewal of an operating license by the NRC is just one of the conditions required for continued 28 safe operation of a nuclear power plant. Renewing the operating license would provide the 29 licensee, State regulators, and utility officials with the option of extending plant operations 30 beyond the term of the original license(s) should circumstances warrant it, whereas not 31 renewing the operating license eliminates this option. Therefore, the Commission has defined 32 the purpose and need for license renewal (renewal of an operating license including initial 33 license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) in terms of providing the licensee, 34 State regulators, and utility officials with the option of extending the operating period of the 35 nuclear plant. The introduction should present the Commissions stated definition of purpose 36 and need.

37 1.3 Review Procedures 38 The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of the data is 39 required.

1-1

1 1.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The reviewer should prepare one or more introductory paragraphs for the supplemental 3 environmental impact statement (SEIS) and should include the purpose and need for license 4 renewal as it appears in Section 1.3 of the LR GEIS.

The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., initial license renewal or subsequent license renewal) of a commercial nuclear power plant operating license is to provide an option that allows for baseload power generation capability beyond the current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs. Such needs may be determined by other energy-planning decisionmakers, such as State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC).

Unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) or National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) environmental review that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions about whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate.

5 1-2

1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2 2.1 Overview 3 This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) section provides general guidance for the 4 preparation of the discussion of alternatives and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions 5 (NRC) proposed action. The proposed action for license renewal and alternatives to license 6 renewal are described in Chapter 2 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 7 Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

8 2.1.1 Areas of Review 9 The purpose of this ESRP is to (1) provide a statement of the proposed action (initial license 10 renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) for the supplemental environmental impact 11 statement (SEIS), (2) provide background information related to the regulatory basis for license 12 renewal, and (3) provide a brief description of the alternatives.

13 2.1.2 Acceptance Criteria 14 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 1.2, the reviewer should 15 ensure that the introduction prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the following 16 regulation:

17

• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), Appendix A(5),

18 concerning alternatives including the proposed action.

19 Technical Rationale 20 Renewal of a plant operating license is defined in 10 CFR Part 51 as requiring the preparation 21 of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The introductory paragraphs prepared under this 22 ESRP should clearly define the action and provide the readers of the SEIS with background 23 information related to license renewal. This information is summarized in the LR GEIS.

24 2.1.3 Review Procedures 25 The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of the data is 26 required. Much of the required material may be taken directly from the LR GEIS. However, the 27 reviewer should reflect the applicants schedule for activities in preparation for license renewal, 28 including refurbishment.

29 2.1.4 Evaluation Findings 30 The reviewer for this ESRP should prepare several introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. The 31 first paragraph should clearly state the nature of the proposed action (license renewal) and 32 alternatives to license renewal. The remaining paragraphs should describe the regulatory 33 bases for license renewal and alternatives, outline the process of license renewal, and outline 34 the applicants process.

2-1

1 2.2 General Plant Information 2 2.2.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the description of the plant and plant operations during the 4 license renewal term. This section includes a description of the layout and appearance of the 5 nuclear plant facility and existing structures (onsite and offsite). It also includes descriptions of 6 the reactor and electric generating equipment, as well as the plants cooling system and 7 auxiliary water systems.

8 The scope includes (1) description of principal structures, site boundaries, exclusion areas, 9 restricted areas, and transportation routes to the site; (2) the type(s) and size(s) of reactors and 10 electrical generating equipment and their major performance parameters; (3) a general 11 description of the cooling system and modes of operation; (4) the intake and discharge locations 12 and structures; (5) the auxiliary system; and (6) performance characteristics for these systems.

13 Data and Information Needs 14 The types of data and information needed are specific for the nuclear power plant site and the 15 plant. The following data or information may be needed, as appropriate:

16

• A map and description of the plant site location including State, local, and Indian Tribe 17 political jurisdictions (e.g., county, town, township, service districts, parish) 18

• Maps with the following information:

19 - the site showing site boundaries and properties; plant exclusion area; site structures and 20 facilities; major land uses (with land use classifications consistent with the U.S.

21 Geological Survey categories given in USGS NLCD Land Cover Class Legend and 22 Description, update issued in 2019; USGS 2019) and land cover; the construction zone 23 for refurbishment, if any; sites for any other planned buildings, facilities, and structures 24 (both temporary and permanent); areas under lease and public access; and 25 transportation routes entering and adjacent to the site 26 - the site vicinity within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius of the site showing boundaries of 27 political jurisdictions, place names, topographic and physiographic features, residential 28 areas, airports, industrial and commercial facilities, roads and highways, railroads, Indian 29 reservation and trust lands, and military reservations 30 - the region within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the site showing political jurisdictions, 31 place names, topographic and physiographic features, and transportation networks and 32 facilities.

33

• Identification and description of known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal 34 projects and other actions that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of 35 license renewal and extended plant operation. Identify and map all Federal facilities, 36 including national parks, national forests, national wildlife areas, and military facilities; Indian 37 reservation and trust lands; and State parks, recreational areas, and conservation lands.

38 Include distances, as well as nonattainment and maintenance areas defined under the 39 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), as amended within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the 40 plant site.

2-2

1

• Number of units and description of each reactor, including type (e.g., boiling water reactor, 2 pressurized water reactor), power conversion system manufacturer, fuel assembly 3 description, and total quantities of uranium 4

• Summary of engineered safety features of the nuclear power plant 5

• Historic average irradiation level of spent fuel, in megawatt days per ton 6

• Rated and design core thermal power, the rated and design gross electrical output, and the 7 rated and design net electrical output in megawatts electric. (The rated power is defined as 8 the power level at which each reactor is operated, and the design power is defined as the 9 highest power level that would be permitted by plant design. The gross electrical output is 10 the power level measured at the output terminals of the generator and expressed in 11 megawatts electric. The net unit electrical output is equal to the gross electrical output 12 minus the nominal service and auxiliary loads.)

13

• Simplified flow diagram for the reactor-power conversion system 14

• Description of the plants heat dissipation system, including the water supply source; intake 15 and discharge locations; intake velocity; flow path of water from the intake point to the 16 discharge point; any installed equipment or mitigation measures that reduce aquatic 17 organism entrainment or impingement; and average temperatures of water at the discharge 18 point. The description should include each operational mode and indicate the periods of 19 time that the system has historically operated in each mode.

20

• For each operational mode, provide information about the following:

21 - quantities of heat generated, dissipated to the atmosphere, and released in liquid 22 discharges 23 - water sources and quantities of water withdrawn, consumed, and discharged 24 - monthly variation and stratification for the body of water used for cooling intake and 25 discharge 26 - any changes to the cooling system in preparation for license renewal or changes made 27 during the current license term.

28 2.2.2 Acceptance Criteria 29 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 1.2, the reviewer should 30 ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 31 consistent with the following regulations:

32

• 10 CFR 51.52, concerning criteria related to nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called 33 plant-specific) analysis of the effects of transportation of fuel and waste to and from the 34 facility. Note: Generic determinations have been made that the impacts in Table S-4 are 35 bounding for fuel with uranium enrichment of up to 5 percent by weight irradiated to 62,000 36 megawatt days per ton, provided that fuel is shipped more than five years after discharge 37 from the reactor.

38

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including 39 the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as 40 described in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in 41 detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the 42 environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, 2-3

1 the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any 2 other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45.

3

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A-D) describes analyses that must be performed with respect to the 4 environmental impacts of and related interactions with the environment of a plant's cooling 5 water and auxiliary systems and requiring the environmental report (ER) to provide a 6 description of such systems, including their water requirements and intakes and discharges, 7 to support the discussions of the affected environment.

8 Technical Rationale 9 The technical rationale for evaluating the applicants external appearance and setting 10 description is discussed in the following paragraph:

11 A description of the overall appearance of the nuclear power plant and its setting 12 is needed to clarify the physical parameters of the current power station and any 13 significant modifications to the facility. The description of the external 14 appearance of the plant and plant layout should be in sufficient detail to form an 15 adequate basis for staff analysis of various land use and socioeconomic impacts 16 of continued plant operations and refurbishment.

17 The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the applicants reactor system is 18 discussed in the following paragraph:

19 A description of the overall nuclear energy generating system is useful 20 background information for the evaluation of certain environmental impacts 21 resulting from continued plant operations and refurbishment activities. This 22 description should include information about reactor type, number of units, 23 thermal power level, and other factors about the facility.

24 The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the applicants cooling systems is 25 discussed in the following paragraph:

26 The cooling system has the greatest interface with and potential effect on the 27 environment. This section is descriptive in nature and presents information 28 necessary for the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with cooling 29 system modification related to license renewal and continued plant operations 30 during the license renewal term. The description of the external appearance of 31 the cooling system and its operational modes should be in sufficient detail to 32 form an adequate basis for staff analysis of the environmental impacts of 33 continued plant operations and refurbishment activities during the license 34 renewal term.

35 2.2.3 Review Procedures 36 The reviewer should ensure that the description of the layout and appearance of the nuclear 37 plant facility and existing structures (onsite and offsite) provides adequate information for the 38 reviews conducted under the ESRP sections in Chapters 3 and 4. The following review steps 39 are suggested:

40 1. Review plant and station layout and external appearance data.

2-4

1 2. Determine the relationship of the plant design and layout to the surrounding environment, 2 including any aesthetic features of the site and vicinity.

3 3. Identify maps and drawings that show relevant features of the plant, the site, and the region.

4 The maps and drawings also should identify significant offsite features, if any, in the vicinity 5 (i.e., Federal facilities, including national parks, forests, wildlife areas, Indian reservation and 6 trust lands).

7 The material to be prepared on the reactor-power conversion system is informational in nature; 8 no specific analysis of the data is required. Identify the reactor power conversion and 9 engineered safety feature systems and the basic design performance data. As a rule, if the 10 data listed under Data and Information Needs above are provided, that objective would be 11 met.

12 The material to be prepared on the cooling systems is informational in nature. No specific 13 analysis is required, but the use of tables such as Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 in this ESRP may 14 assist data organization. For the general cooling system description, the reviewer should gather 15 the following information largely from design and historical documentation for use in later 16 sections:

17

• type and configuration 18

• water source and proximity to facility 19

• modes of operation and percentage of time, water source and quantities of water withdrawn, 20 consumed, and discharged in each mode 21

• specific details depending on system type (see Table 2-1 and Table 2-2) 22

• monthly variation and stratification for the body of water used for cooling intake and 23 discharge 24

• other major plant systems and flow rates.

25 Table 2-1 Design Details of Heat-Dissipation-System Components Component Design Details Cooling towers (from the

• Type of configuration environmental report [ER])

• Materials of construction

• Number and arrangement

• Rated heat-dissipation capacity Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER)

• Surface area

• Volume

• Bathymetry Spray ponds or canals (from the ER)

• Arrangement and configuration of spray modules

• Pond or canal geometry

• Surface area and water volume Condenser (from the ER)

• Heat transfer area and materials of construction

• Antifouling treatment 26 2-5

1 Table 2-2 Performance Characteristics of the Heat-Dissipation System Component Design Details Cooling towers (from the ER)

• Input and discharge flow rates and temperatures for monthly average meteorological conditions

• Wet-bulb temperature, approach to wet-bulb, and range Performance curves

• Air flow

• Power consumption noise levels

• Drift rate and drop size Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER)

• Flow rates (through condenser)

• Flow-through times

• Flow pattern

• Monthly average water temperatures (mean for entire lake or pond, inlet [from condenser], outlet [to condenser])

• Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum)

Spray ponds or canals (from the ER)

• Flow rates (through condenser)

• Flow-through times

• Flow pattern

• Monthly average water temperatures (inlet [from condenser], outlet [to condenser])

• Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum)

• Spray system operating parameters (e.g., power consumption, drop size)

Condenser (from the ER)

• Condenser flow rate

• Temperature differential across condenser

• Time-of-passage through system (including intake and discharge system passage times) 2

• For intake systems, include:

3 - drawing of the intake structure showing the relationship of the structure to the water 4 surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline 5 - location of the intake in relation to the outfall 6 - description of the cooling-water pumping facility 7 - description of the trash racks, traveling screens, trash baskets, and fish return devices 8 - performance characteristics (e.g., flow rates, intake velocities) for the operational modes 9 identified 10 - performance characteristics for specific intake related functions, such as de-icing, trash 11 rack clearing, screen washing, trash basket removal, or fish return system operation 12 - location and description of components for the addition of chemicals (e.g., corrosion 13 inhibitors, antifouling agents) to the intake system.

14 2-6

1

• For discharge systems, include:

2 - drawings of the outfall structure, showing its location in the receiving water body, 3 relationship to water surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline 4 - a description of discharge canal or discharge lines 5 - performance characteristics (e.g., discharge flow rates, discharge velocities, discharge 6 temperatures, and temperature differentials) for the operational modes identified 7 - descriptions of specific discharge related components (e.g., diffusers, fish barriers).

8

• For heat-dissipation systems, include:

9 - location of heat-dissipation system components relative to other site features 10 - design details of heat-dissipation system components affecting system performance 11 - heat-dissipation system performance characteristics for the operational modes 12 - nuclear power plant site-specific meteorological data 13 - nuclear power plant site-specific water supply data.

14

• For cooling towers, determine the average discharge temperatures for each month of the 15 year using cooling tower performance curves. The average discharge temperature would 16 be calculated by using the average wet-bulb temperature for the month.

17

• For spray systems, analyze the applicants estimates of average monthly discharge 18 temperatures. The depth and extent of this analysis should depend on the seriousness of 19 the predicted impacts of the heated effluent on the receiving body of water and the level of 20 confidence in the applicants model.

21

• In the cases where auxiliary systems are employed to further cool the blowdown discharged 22 from the main cooling system, determine the final discharge temperature.

23 2.2.4 Evaluation Findings 24 The SEIS should include a summary description of the reactor-power conversion and 25 engineered safety feature systems, a flow diagram, and a table of design and performance 26 parameters.

27 The level of detail of information included in the SEIS should include the following information:

28

• narrative description of the cooling system and the intake and discharge structures and 29 characteristics 30

• sketches of intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation components 31

• description of operational modes and their important characteristics (e.g., frequency and 32 duration, discharge temperature, water consumption, and chemical concentration factor) 33

• drawings of important subsystems (e.g., perforated-pipe assemblies).

34 The reviewer should verify that cooling system component descriptions are consistent, accurate, 35 and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers of intake, discharge, and heat-36 dissipation system impacts.

2-7

1 2.3 Refurbishment Activities 2 2.3.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the description of any planned refurbishment activities 4 performed in support of license renewal (initial LR or SLR), exclusive of routine plant operation 5 and maintenance activities. This section includes a description of any major structures and 6 components that would be replaced or modified.

7 The scope includes (1) identification and description of major structures and components to 8 undergo refurbishment, (2) description of where construction materials would be stored, as well 9 as removal and disposal, and (3) description of related activities that have the potential to affect 10 the surrounding environment either directly or indirectly.

11 Data and Information Needs 12 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 13 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

14

• description of the proposed refurbishment activity, including specific structures and 15 components that would be replaced or modified 16

• description of the location used for material storage, removal, and disposal 17

• description of any transportation or delivery activities in support of the refurbishment activity, 18 including the transport and delivery of equipment, structures, and components (e.g., steam 19 generators, vessel heads), as well as any dredging and bridge and road modifications 20

• list of applicable Federal and State agency permits required for this activity 21

• description of specific refurbishment-related activities that have the potential to either 22 directly or indirectly affect the environment 23

• discussion of the schedule for the refurbishment activity, including normal maintenance 24 schedules and refueling outages.

25 2.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 26 The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under 27 this ESRP are consistent with the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Sections 1.2 and 28 2.2.2.

29 Technical Rationale 30 This section is descriptive in nature and presents information necessary for the evaluation of 31 environmental impacts associated with refurbishment. The descriptions should be in sufficient 32 detail to form an adequate basis for staff analysis of environmental impacts of refurbishment 33 activities associated with license renewal.

2-8

1 2.3.3 Review Procedures 2 The material to be prepared on refurbishment activities is informational; no specific analysis is 3 required. The reviewer should ensure that description of the plant refurbishment activities 4 provides adequate information for the reviews conducted under the ESRPs in Chapters 3 and 4.

5 The following review steps are suggested:

6 1. Review the discussion of plant refurbishment in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; 7 NRC 2023a).

8 2. Obtain a description of the proposed refurbishment activity, including descriptions of the 9 specific structures and components that would be replaced or modified.

10 3. Obtain descriptions of transport and storage of necessary equipment and materials, 11 including any proposed transportation plans.

12 4. Obtain the proposed schedule for refurbishment work, including planned changes in staffing, 13 if any.

14 5. Prepare a section describing the refurbishment activities for the SEIS.

15 2.3.4 Evaluation Findings 16 The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for 17 the SEIS. The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented.

18 2.4 Employment 19 2.4.1 Areas of Review 20 The ER should include current information on the annual average number of operations workers 21 at the nuclear power plant. The information should include both permanent full-time onsite and 22 refueling outage workers (i.e., the total annual average number of full-time workers including 23 contractors), as well as information on the average duration of refueling and maintenance 24 outages (number of weeks) and their frequency (number of months).

25 Data and Information Needs 26 The following data or information may be needed:

27

• description of the nuclear power plants current employment, including information on 28 maintenance and refueling outages 29

• annual average number of workers supporting nuclear power plant operations, 30 maintenance, and refueling outages 31

• number of workers onsite during refurbishment activities 32

• any changes in the number of workers onsite during and in support of license renewal.

33 2.4.2 Acceptance Criteria 34 The reviewer should ensure that the information considered under this ESRP is consistent with 35 the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Sections 1.2 and 2.2.2.

2-9

1 Technical Rationale 2 The information is descriptive and is necessary for the evaluation of environmental impacts.

3 Employment information should be of sufficient detail to determine if the impacts of continued 4 reactor operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment at the nuclear power plant 5 are different from the conclusions in the LR GEIS.

6 2.4.3 Review Procedures 7 No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested:

8 1. Review the employment discussion in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 9 2023a).

10 2. Review the plant employment information in the applicants ER, including the number of 11 workers needed during maintenance and refueling outages and annual average 12 employment.

13 3. Evaluate the number of workers required to support any refurbishment activity described in 14 Section 2.3 and determine the residential distribution of the refurbishment workforce.

15 4. Determine if the applicant plans to change the annual average number of onsite workers 16 during and in support of license renewal and refurbishment activities, if any.

17 2.4.4 Evaluation of Findings 18 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on nuclear power plant site- and 19 plant-specific factors. The reviewer should verify that the plant employment description is 20 consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRP 21 sections in Chapters 3 and 4.

22 2.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 23 2.5.1 Areas of Review 24 This ESRP provides guidance for describing alternatives to the proposed action (initial LR or 25 SLR).

26 The scope includes (1) a brief description the process used to identify and select reasonable 27 alternatives to the proposed action and (2) brief descriptions of all the alternatives considered 28 for replacing or offsetting the nuclear power plants existing electrical generating capacity, as 29 well as for reducing or avoiding potential adverse effects, if applicable. It includes descriptions 30 of the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) discussed in the 31 LR GEIS (NRC 2023a) and identification of alternatives eliminated from detailed study.

32 Data and Information Needs 33 The reviewer for this ESRP requires the following information:

34

• the applicants discussion of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action 35

• the applicants discussion of alternatives eliminated from detailed study.

2-10

1 2.5.2 Acceptance Criteria 2 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Sections 1.2 and 2.2.2, the reviewer 3 should ensure that the paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with the following 4 regulations:

5

• 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), concerning alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of 6 alternatives shall be sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and 7 exploring, pursuant to Section 102(2)(E) of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 8 (NEPA), appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which 9 involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. To the 10 extent practicable, the environmental impacts of license renewal and the replacement power 11 alternatives should be presented in comparative form.

12

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii). The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing 13 adverse impacts, as required by Section 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues 14 in Appendix B to Subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for Category 1 15 issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of this part.

16

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5), concerning alternatives including the proposed action 17

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft EIS will include a preliminary analysis that considers 18 and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 19 alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding 20 adverse environmental effects 21

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a 22 nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an 23 EIS, which is a supplement to the Commissions NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Generic 24 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.

25

• 10 CFR 51.103(a)(2). Identify all alternatives considered by the Commission in reaching the 26 decision, state that these alternatives were included in the range of alternatives discussed in 27 the environmental impact statement and specify the alternative or alternatives which were 28 considered to be environmentally preferable.

29

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(4), Purpose of and Need for Action. The alternative of no-action 30 will be discussed.

31

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 32 including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 33 eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 34 confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 35 of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis 36 required for sound decisionmaking.

37 Technical Rationale 38 The LR GEIS does not contain any conclusions regarding the environmental impact or 39 acceptability of alternatives to license renewal (initial LR or SLR). Accordingly, the NRC must 40 conduct an analysis of reasonable alternatives to license renewal in plant-specific environmental 41 reviews. A reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a utility scale and operational 42 prior to the expiration of the reactors operating license or expected to become commercially 43 viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactors operating license.

2-11

1 This discussion should provide the reader with a clear understanding of the alternatives 2 considered and those alternatives considered for detailed analysis.

3 2.5.3 Review Procedures 4 Examine the applicants ER and consider the process used by the applicant to determine a 5 range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.

6 Alternatives considered are (1) the no-action alternative; (2) alternative energy sources for 7 replacing existing nuclear generating capacity using other energy sources (including fossil fuel, 8 new nuclear, and renewable energy); (3) alternative energy sources for offsetting existing 9 nuclear generation capacity using conservation and energy efficiency (demand-side 10 management), delayed retirement, or purchased power; and (4) alternatives for reducing 11 adverse impacts. The reviewer should identify the criteria used in evaluating the 12 reasonableness of the alternatives and explain which alternatives would not be considered for 13 detailed analysis and why. A reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a utility 14 scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactors operating license or expected to 15 become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the 16 reactors operating license. Analysis of alternative energy sources does not involve the 17 determination of whether any power is needed or should be generated. The decision to 18 generate power and the determination of how much power is needed are at the discretion of 19 State and utility officials.

20 The reviewer should identify the alternatives that would be carried forward for comparison with 21 renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. The reviewer should discuss the 22 extent to which these alternatives have been considered by State authorities (e.g., public 23 service commissions and environmental, natural resource, or energy agencies). To the extent 24 possible, each alternative should be analyzed on a nuclear power plant site- or region- specific 25 basis.

26 The reviewer should identify and characterize key impact parameters associated with each 27 alternative evaluated in detail based on Chapter 4 of the LR GEIS, the applicants ER, and the 28 integrated resource plans for the area(s) or region(s) currently or (if different) likely to be served 29 by the plant and should assume the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures (e.g.,

30 emission control technologies and best management practices) for each alternative.

31 2.5.4 Evaluation Findings 32 The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare discussions for the SEIS 33 describing reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in sufficient detail and in similar 34 format to the proposed action to support the environmental analysis and comparison of the 35 effects of these alternatives with the effects of continued plant operations. The information 36 presented in the SEIS would depend on nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific factors.

2-12

1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2 3.1 Overview 3 This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides general guidance for preparing the 4 sections that describe the affected environment of a nuclear power plant site and vicinity based 5 on the reviews conducted under ESRP Sections 3.2 through 3.12. In preparing a supplemental 6 environmental impact statement (SEIS), it is permissible for the descriptions of the affected 7 environment for each resource area to be included in the same SEIS chapter as the evaluation 8 of the potential environmental consequences (impacts) of the proposed action and alternatives 9 to the proposed action (see Chapter 4 of this ESRP).

10 3.1.1 Areas of Review 11 This ESRP provides guidance on the review and preparation of technical information used for 12 describing the affected environment at a nuclear power plant in the SEIS.

13 3.1.2 Acceptance Criteria 14 The reviewer should ensure introductory paragraphs for the affected environment description 15 prepared under this ESRP are consistent with the following requirements:

16

• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 51.45(d) (10 CFR 51.45(d)), concerning status 17 of compliance. The environmental report (ER) shall list all Federal permits, licenses, 18 approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 19 action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 20 environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with 21 applicable environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, 22 applicable zoning and land use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations 23 or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies 24 having responsibility for environmental protection.

25

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including 26 the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as 27 described in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in 28 detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the 29 environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, 30 the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any 31 other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45.

32

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement (EIS) will be concise, clear, 33 and analytic, and written in plain language with appropriate graphics. The format provided 34 in Section 1(a) of Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 35 Commission (NRC) staff will independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of 36 all information used in the draft EIS.

37

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a 38 nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an 39 EIS, which is a supplement to the Commissions NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental 40 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, 41 Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

3-1

1

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, paragraph 6, concerning affected environment.

2 The environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected 3 by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the 4 importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply 5 referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will 6 be eliminated.

7

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 8 License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1, Summary of Findings on Environmental 9 Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.

10

• Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified 11 above are as follows:

12 - LIC-203, Revision 4, Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental 13 Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues (NRC 2020c).

14 Technical Rationale 15 The review conducted under this ESRP is used to prepare sections describing the affected 16 environment at a nuclear power plant for the SEIS. The information in these sections provides 17 background and baseline information for use in determining the environmental impacts of 18 continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal (initial 19 license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]).

20 3.1.3 Review Procedures 21 The information is descriptive; no analysis of data is required. The introduction should list the 22 information being presented and describe its relationship to the environmental consequences 23 presented in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. It should indicate that the objective of SEIS Sections 3.2 24 through 3.12 is to provide a general description of the affected environment as background 25 and/or baseline information. Some detailed descriptions may be needed to support the 26 analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4.

27 It is important to point out sections in this chapter that address environmental issues raised by 28 the public during scoping.

29 3.1.4 Evaluation Findings 30 The reviewer should prepare a paragraph(s) introducing the information being presented 31 covered by ESRPs 3.2 through 3.12. The extent of environmental information presented should 32 be commensurate with the potential impacts of continued reactor operations during the license 33 renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal.

34 3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources 35 3.2.1 Areas of Review 36 This ESRP provides guidance for the land use and visual resource review. The scope should 37 include the land use and visual resources that might be affected by continued reactor operations 38 during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal (initial 39 LR or SLR).

3-2

1 For nuclear power plants located in a coastal zone or coastal watershed, as defined by each 2 State participating in the National Coastal Zone Management Program, applicants must submit 3 to the affected State certification that the proposed license renewal action is consistent with the 4 State Coastal Zone Management Program. Applicants must receive a determination from the 5 State agency that manages the State Coastal Zone Management Program that the proposed 6 license renewal action would be consistent with the State program. A Federal agency cannot 7 issue a license or permit until the State concurs.

8 Data and Information Needs 9 The following data or information may be needed:

10

• land use data (onsite and offsite) and descriptions from prior environmental review 11 documents, including the applicants ER and final environmental statements prepared for 12 nuclear power plant construction and operation 13

• map showing the nuclear power plant location in relationship to State and local political 14 jurisdictions (e.g., county, town, township, service districts, parish) 15

• map of the site boundaries and properties showing plant exclusion area; site structures and 16 facilities; major land uses and land cover; the areas affected by refurbishment, if any; sites 17 for any planned new buildings, facilities, and structures (both temporary and permanent);

18 areas under lease or with public access; and transportation routes 19

• map of the area within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius showing political jurisdictions, major 20 land uses and land cover, topographic and physiographic features, transportation networks 21 and facilities, place names, and Indian reservation and trust lands 22

• map of the area within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the nuclear power plant showing 23 political jurisdictions, place names, topographic and physiographic features, and 24 transportation networks and facilities, all Federal facilities, including national parks, national 25 forests, national wildlife areas, and military facilities; Indian reservation and trust lands; and 26 State parks, recreational areas, and conservation lands 27

• description of land uses and land cover within in-scope transmission line rights-of-ways 28 (ROWs) and any recent changes to current and planned land use restrictions or covenants 29 on use 30

• description of the plants visual setting, including the identities and heights of the tallest 31 structures, lights, and vapor plumes, as well as direction and distances from which these 32 structures, lights, and plumes are visible.

33 3.2.2 Acceptance Criteria 34 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, for those nuclear 35 power plants located in a coastal zone, the land use review includes the following requirement:

36

• 15 CFR Part 930, the regulations governing implementation of the requirement for Federal 37 consistency with approved coastal management programs (as set forth in the Coastal Zone 38 Management Act of 1972).

3-3

1 3.2.3 Review Procedures 2 The following review steps are suggested:

3 1. Review the applicants ER, scoping issues raised concerning land use and visual resource 4 information.

5 2. Confirm land use, land cover, and visual resource information, including in-scope 6 transmission lines and ROWs potentially affected by continued reactor operations and 7 refurbishment associated with license renewal.

8 3. Describe place names, topographic and physiographic features, and transportation 9 networks.

10 4. Identify current local land use, zoning, and development plans - control and land use 11 changes.

12 5. Identify affected coastal zones or coastal watersheds, as defined by State National Coastal 13 Zone Management Programs.

14 3.2.4 Evaluation Findings 15 The reviewer should ensure that the land use and visual resource information provides a 16 sufficient basis for assessing the effects of continued reactor operations and refurbishment 17 activities associated with license renewal.

18 3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 19 3.3.1 Areas of Review 20 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the meteorology, air quality, and noise 21 environment of the site and surrounding area. This review should provide background 22 information for inclusion in the SEIS and input to reviewers for ESRPs for license renewal (initial 23 LR or SLR) dealing with evaluation of the impacts of continued plant operations during the 24 license renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal.

25 The scope includes descriptions of (1) regional climatology, (2) meteorological characteristics of 26 the site and vicinity using data from the onsite meteorological monitoring program, (3) local and 27 regional air quality, and (4) noise generated at, and in the vicinity of, the site.

28 Data and Information Needs 29 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 30 plant-specific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude 31 of the potential impacts. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate:

32

• climatic descriptions from prior environmental documents, including the EISs prepared at the 33 construction-permit and operating-license stages 34

• recent climatological data from nearby National Weather Service stations 35

• extreme weather events, such as floods, hails, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.,

36 from the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events database, and historical events and 37 damages to the site or nearby areas 3-4

1

• summary of meteorological data from the onsite meteorological program for the most recent 2 5-year period 3

• descriptions of meteorological phenomena, if any, associated with the plants cooling system 4 operation 5

• description of regional air quality, including the locations of mandatory Federal Class I areas 6 and nonattainment and/or maintenance areas in the region 7

• map of the region within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the nonattainment and 8 maintenance areas of the site 9

• list of onsite emission sources and emission data for all criteria pollutants on an annual 10 basis 11

• if refurbishment activities are planned, an estimate of additional workers, area of land 12 disturbed for waste storage or laydown areas, vehicle emissions, construction equipment 13 emissions, and fugitive dust emissions 14

• any current or past noise studies and analyses conducted in the vicinity of the site 15

• nearby sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and nursing homes 16

• list of primary offsite noise generating sources in the vicinity of the site 17

• list of principal onsite noise-generating sources, with given distances to the nearest site 18 boundary and nearby sensitive receptors.

19 3.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 20 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 of this ESRP, the 21 acceptance criteria for the evaluation of site meteorology, air quality, and noise are based on 22 the following requirements:

23

• 40 CFR Part 50 concerning the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 24

• 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, concerning requirements related to applicable implementation 25 plans 26

• 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, concerning air quality models 27

• 40 CFR Part 52 concerning Implementation Plans 28

• 40 CFR Part 81, Subparts C and D, concerning attainment status designations approved by 29 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and identification of mandatory Class I 30 Federal areas 31

• 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, concerning requirements for determining conformity of Federal 32 actions to State or Federal implementation plans.

33 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above 34 are as follows:

35

• Regulatory Guide 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 36 2007a) 37

• ESRP 2.7 in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000) provides guidance on onsite meteorological 38 measurements for use in licensing applications.

3-5

1 3.3.3 Review Procedures 2 The following review steps are suggested:

3 1. Review the air quality discussion in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 4 Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a) to identify the 5 information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for 6 evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

7 2. Obtain descriptions of the site meteorological, climatological, dispersion characteristics, and 8 acoustic (noise) environment.

9 3. Obtain recent meteorological data for the site and climatological data for the region 10 surrounding the site.

11 4. Obtain the air-quality attainment status and available air-quality data for the region.

12 5. Obtain an inventory of onsite air emission sources, air emissions, and noise-generating 13 sources.

14 6. Determine if license renewal will result in an increase in air emissions (e.g., additional 15 worker vehicle emissions from refurbishment activities).

16 7. If site is located in a designated attainment area, continue the review at Step 9. If site is 17 located in a designated non-attainment or maintenance area and license renewal will result 18 in an increase in air emissions, proceed to Step 8 for a conformity determination.

19 8. Determine if air emissions will exceed de minimis threshold levels specified in 40 CFR 20 93.153(b), commonly referred to as an applicability analysis. If de minimis levels are not 21 exceeded, proceed to Step 9. If de minimis levels are exceeded, a conformity determination 22 must be completed. A conformity determination can be conducted via different methods, 23 including air quality modeling to demonstrate that air emissions will not cause or contribute 24 to a violation of the national ambient air quality standards. Models approved by the EPA for 25 air quality calculations are listed in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51.

26 9. Prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the meteorology, 27 climatology, air quality, and noise environment for the plant site and region. The summary 28 should address normal conditions and historic severe weather. If an applicability analysis or 29 conformity determination was conducted, this should be documented in the SEIS. The 30 section should describe and summarize the meteorological data used in atmospheric model 31 calculations for the conformity determination. The atmospheric models used should be 32 identified in the SEIS, but detailed model descriptions should be avoided.

33 3.3.4 Evaluation Findings 34 The reviewer should ensure that the meteorology, air quality, and noise information is adequate 35 as a basis for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment 36 associated with license renewal. The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, 37 regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes to assess the accuracy of the meteorology, air 38 quality, and noise information, if necessary.

3-6

1 3.4 Geologic Environment 2 3.4.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the geology and soils of the site and surrounding 4 area. This review should provide background information for inclusion in the SEIS and to 5 support the evaluation of the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 6 associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR).

7 The scope includes (1) description of geologic setting, (2) overview of seismicity and seismic 8 history, (3) description of onsite soils and their relationship to site geology, and (4) description 9 of soil erosion potential at the site.

10 Data and Information Needs 11 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 12 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate:

13

• descriptions of the geologic setting at the plant site, including occurring rock types, formation 14 names, and thicknesses 15

• descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history 16

• identity of largest known local and historic regional earthquake 17

• description of safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant 18

• description of onsite soils (e.g., overburden and unconsolidated material) and their 19 relationship to site geology (whether the material was brought in from offsite or is naturally 20 occurring) 21

• description of onsite erosion control and run-off best management practices 22

• description of erosion potential at the site 23

• identity of any important farmland soils (e.g., prime farmland) on or in the vicinity of the site 24

• description of any rare or unique geologic resources, including rock, mineral, or energy 25 rights and assets at or adjoining the site, including resource extraction activities (e.g., oil or 26 gas wells, onsite or nearby borrow areas, quarries, or similar resource extraction sites).

27 3.4.2 Acceptance Criteria 28 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of site 29 geology and soils.

30 3.4.3 Review Procedures 31 The following review steps are suggested:

32 1. Review the discussion of potential impacts of continued plant operation and refurbishment 33 activities on geology and soils in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a), to 34 identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the 35 base for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

3-7

1 2. Obtain descriptions of regional and local geology, soils, geologic resources, and seismic 2 setting.

3 3. Obtain descriptions of the site geology, soils, geologic resources, and seismic setting from 4 prior environmental documents.

5 4. Obtain descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history, including the largest 6 known local and historic regional earthquake and safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant.

7 5. Obtain descriptions of any onsite erosion control plans and run-off best management 8 practices.

9 6. Prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the geology and soils, 10 including significant geologic resources, and seismic setting for the plant site and 11 surrounding region.

12 3.4.4 Evaluation Findings 13 The reviewer should ensure that the geology and soils information is adequate as a basis for 14 assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with 15 license renewal. The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, and 16 local agencies, as well as Indian Tribes, to assess the accuracy of the geology and soils 17 information, if necessary.

18 3.5 Water Resources 19 3.5.1 Areas of Review 20 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of water use and quality that could be affected by 21 continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or 22 SLR).

23 The scope includes (1) consideration of such water uses as domestic, municipal, agricultural, 24 industrial, mining, recreation, navigation, and hydroelectric power; (2) identification of their 25 locations; (3) quantification of water diversions, consumption, and returns; (4) consideration of 26 site-specific and regional data on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of 27 groundwater and surface water for the evaluation of water-quality impacts to water bodies, 28 aquifers, aquatic ecosystems due to water withdrawals and effluent discharges; (5) water use 29 related to continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal; and 30 (6) preparation of a section describing water use and water quality for the SEIS. The review 31 should be limited to existing and reasonably foreseeable future water uses and trends.

32 Data and Information Needs 33 The types of data and information needed would be based on nuclear power plant site- and 34 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

35

• Maps (including digital databases such as a Geographic Information System) showing the 36 relationship of the site to the major hydrologic systems, surface water bodies, floodplains, 37 and groundwater aquifer systems that could be affected by plant water withdrawals and/or 38 discharges.

39

• Quantitative descriptions of present and known future surface water uses (withdrawals, 40 consumptions, and returns), groundwater withdrawals, and nonconsumptive water uses 3-8

1 (recreational, navigational, instream, etc.) that may be affected by continued plant 2 operations and refurbishment. This should include any bodies of water or aquifers at 3 distances close enough to affect or be adversely affected by plant operations. This should 4 also include a quantitative description of any water uses that provide potential liquid 5 pathways for both radiological and nonradiological effluents. The following should be 6 included:

7 - locations of diversions and returns concerning the site and the water body 8 - identification of the water body 9 - average monthly withdrawal and return rate for each surface water diversion by use 10 category 11 - locations and depths of wells in relation to the site 12 - identification of aquifers, including any EPA-designated sole source aquifers 13 - the average monthly groundwater withdrawal rates by use category 14 - identification of water bodies and locations within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius of the 15 plant site, including any delineated floodplains or zones of inundation for adjoining and 16 onsite surface water features (maps may be useful) 17 - the type and location of activity on the identified water body (maps may be useful).

18

• Summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 19 restrictions on water use imposed by Federal or State regulations 20

• Water-use (water balance) diagram for the plant showing flow rates to and from the various 21 water systems (e.g., circulating water system, sanitary system, radwaste and chemical 22 waste systems, service water systems), points of consumption, and source and discharge 23 locations.

24

• For the water-use diagram, the data and narrative description for maximum water 25 consumption, water consumption during periods of minimum water availability, and average 26 operation by month and by plant operating status 27

• A description of any other station water uses showing flow rates to and from the facility, 28 average water consumption, and maximum water consumption:

29 - For surface waters: Water temperature, suspended solids, total dissolved solids, 30 hardness, turbidity, color, odor, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen 31 demand, chemical oxygen demand, phosphorus forms (total and orthophosphate),

32 nitrogen forms (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, organic), alkalinity, chlorides, sulfate, sodium, 33 potassium, calcium, magnesium, heavy metals (e.g., mercury, lead), phytoplankton 34 (chlorophyll a), and indicator microorganisms (e.g., total coliform, fecal coliforms, 35 dinoflagellates, blue-green algae) 36 - For groundwater: The above-surface-water data, minus phytoplankton and with silica, 37 iron, and bicarbonate added.

38

• Other nuclear power plant site-specific water-quality characteristics 39

• Descriptions of preexisting aquatic environmental stresses and their effects on surface or 40 groundwater quality for waters that interact with the plant (e.g., water bodies at or near the 41 site that do not meet established water-quality standards). These should include State 42 Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters 43 which classify the quality of each of the States water bodies.

3-9

1

• Descriptions of pollutant sources with discharges to water, including National Pollutant 2 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharges and associated monitoring 3 requirements, that may interact with the plant, including locations relative to the site and the 4 affected water bodies, and the magnitude and nature of the pollutant discharges, including 5 spatial and temporal variations.

6 3.5.2 Acceptance Criteria 7 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria 8 for the evaluation of water resources are based on the following requirements:

9

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds 10 and withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed 11 action on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related 12 impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be 13 provided. The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal 14 of water from the river on alluvial aquifers during low flow.

15

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). If the applicants plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) 16 of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on 17 groundwater must be provided.

18

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of 19 the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality must be provided.

20

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). An applicant shall assess the impact of any documented 21 inadvertent releases of radionuclides into groundwater. The applicant shall include in its 22 assessment a description of any groundwater protection program used for the surveillance 23 of piping and components containing radioactive liquids for which a pathway to groundwater 24 may exist. The assessment must also include a description of any past inadvertent releases 25 and the projected impact to the environment (e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds, the ocean) 26 during the license renewal term.

27

• 33 CFR Part 330, Appendix A, concerning conditions, limitations, and restrictions on 28 construction activities 29

• 40 CFR Part 121, State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit 30

• 40 CFR Parts 122-133, Water Programs, concerning NPDES permit conditions for 31 discharges, including storm-water discharges and water quality standards 32

• 40 CFR Part 147, concerning restrictions on waste disposal options 33

• 40 CFR Part 149, concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and 34 water use in or above a sole source aquifer 35

• 40 CFR Part 165, concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide 36 containers 37

• 40 CFR Part 403, concerning waste effluents 38

• 40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent limitations for the steam electric power generating 39 point source category 40

• 40 CFR Parts 700-716, concerning practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals 41

• Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe water laws and water rights.

3-10

1 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are 2 as follows:

3

• Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the CWA is not a 4 substitute for and does not negate the requirement for the NRC to weigh the environmental 5 impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider 6 alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an 7 environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the 8 NRC would consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the 9 environmental impacts in striking an overall cost-benefit balance. When no such 10 assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly 11 in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) 12 should establish its own impact determination.

13

• Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must 14 be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson 15 County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), the United States 16 Supreme Court interpreted the CWA as allowing States to impose conditions on 17 certifications, such as limitations on a given project, insofar as necessary to enforce a 18 designated use contained in the State's water quality standard. The Court held that these 19 limitations do not have to be specifically tied to a discharge requirement.

20 3.5.3 Review Procedures 21 The following review steps are suggested:

22 1. Identify consumptive water uses that could affect the water supply of the plant or that may 23 be adversely affected by the plant, including the following important characteristics:

24 - water source 25 - locations of diversions and returns 26 - amount and time variation of use 27 - water rights.

28 2. Identify recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive water uses. The important 29 characteristics to be specified are 30 - location 31 - activity 32 - amount and time variation of use.

33 3. Identify the water uses that provide potential pathways for both radiological and 34 nonradiological effluents, including the following important characteristics:

35 - water sources 36 - location of diversions for consumptive uses 37 - location of receptors for nonconsumptive uses 38 - effluent discharges and pollutant characteristics 39 - amount and time variation of each water use and discharge.

3-11

1 4. In addition to information obtained from the applicants ER and from responses to questions 2 to the applicant, use additional sources of data, such as:

3 - local water-supply companies or agencies 4 - river basin commissions 5 - State agencies (e.g., water resources, fish and wildlife) 6 - various agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological 7 Survey and Indian Tribal agencies when needed to complete the analysis. Using the 8 above information, compile and tabulate water uses by the categories and 9 characteristics described in this ESRP section but limit the analysis to consideration of 10 current and reasonably known or foreseeable future water uses.

11 Ensure that water-use data and information are adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the 12 impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal on 13 water use.

14

• When evaluating the adequacy of this material, the reviewer should ensure that data are 15 sufficient to predict water-use impacts to the plant as well as water-use characteristics to be 16 impacted by refurbishment and operation during the renewal term.

17

• Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe agencies in making 18 this evaluation.

19 The reviewers analysis of water quality should ensure that the physical, chemical, and 20 biological water-quality parameters that could be affected by continued plant operations during 21 the license renewal term and refurbishment in support of license renewal have been described.

22 The reviewer should take the following steps:

23 1. Identify the location and spatial distribution of the physical, chemical, and biological 24 characteristics, the monthly and annual ranges, and the historical extremes of those water-25 quality characteristics that could potentially be affected by continued plant operations and 26 refurbishment.

27 2. Determine the presence of existing water-quality-related environmental stresses. Consult 28 the quality criteria requirements of other water users, as indicated by the approved water-29 use classification (such as CWA 303[d], lists) or water resource planning documents for the 30 water body in question.

31 3. When applicable, discuss the water-quality conditions, floodplains and waterway buffer 32 zones, water rights, and agreements as they affect water quality and water supply and 33 resource plans for the site and vicinity with Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe 34 water resource and pollution control and monitoring agencies.

35 4. Obtain the information primarily from the applicants ER, responses to questions to the 36 applicant, and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe agencies.

37 Use sources of data such as river basin planning organizations and State and Federal 38 agencies, such as the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological 39 Survey, if additional information or verification is deemed necessary.

40 5. Ensure that the 41 - data are sufficient to provide quantitative information on the physical, chemical, and 42 biological water-quality characteristics potentially affecting or affected by continued plant 43 operations and refurbishment 3-12

1 - hydrologic and water-quality descriptions are sufficient, concerning relevancy, 2 completeness, reliability, and accuracy for input to the impact assessments of other 3 sections 4 - Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe agencies appropriate to the objectives of 5 this review have been consulted.

6 When evaluating the adequacy of this material, 7

• consult the applicable standards and guides for this environmental review and use the site 8 visit and/or consultations with permitting agencies to evaluate the completeness of the 9 water-quality descriptions 10

• evaluate, when necessary, the collection of additional data, the verification of data, and the 11 substantiation of the methodology used to estimate water-quality parameters.

12 Include the appropriate depth and extent of the input to the SEIS as governed by the hydrologic 13 and water-quality characteristics that could be affected by continued plant operations and 14 refurbishment and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The following 15 information should be included as input to the SEIS:

16

• Descriptions of site and vicinity surface-water and groundwater occurrence, flow, and quality 17 that could be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment. The description 18 may consist of statistical summaries of the relevant characteristics, including mean, mean 19 low and high, and historical low and high values (as available) for the site and vicinity. The 20 data included should be commensurate with the anticipated impacts. Figures may be used 21 to show long-term and seasonal trends.

22

• A description of the water-quality related environmental stresses in the site and vicinity.

23 3.5.4 Evaluation Findings 24 The reviewer should ensure that the water resources information is adequate as a basis for 25 assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with 26 license renewal. The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the 27 water-use and quality characteristics of the site and vicinity and the potential water-use and 28 quality impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment 29 in support of license renewal. The information should be presented in a concise form.

30 Data should be given in tables where appropriate. The following information should be 31 considered and included as appropriate:

32

• a summary of present and reasonably known future surface-water uses and effluent 33 discharges on or from the site and within the hydrological system in which the plant is 34 located and that may be adversely affected by the plant 35

• a summary of present and reasonably known future groundwater withdrawals and effluent 36 discharges on the site and for distances great enough to cover potentially affected 37 groundwater aquifers 38

• references to applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe water use and 39 quality standards.

3-13

1 3.6 Ecological Resources 2 3.6.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance on how the NRC staff should consider the potential effects of 4 continued operation of a nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR term on ecological 5 resources. Ecological resources include terrestrial, aquatic, and federally protected resources.

6 To perform the ecological resource review, the reviewer should (1) identify the characteristics of 7 the ecological environment; (2) identify important ecological attributes and resources; (2) identify 8 the attributes and resources that license renewal could affect; (4) gather surveys, studies, 9 monitoring, and other information on these resources; (5) coordinate with relevant Federal and 10 State agencies and Indian Tribes (e.g., applicable treaty rights) with special expertise or 11 jurisdiction; and (6) prepare SEIS sections describing terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, 12 and federally protected ecological resources.

13 Data and Information Needs 14 The ecological resources review may require the following information about the ecological 15 environment. Data and information needed for a given review would be site-specific and would 16 depend on nuclear power plant site-specific and plant-specific factors.

17 Terrestrial Resources 18

• Level I, II, and III terrestrial ecoregion 19

• characteristics of the Level III ecoregion (see Table D.5-1 of the LR GEIS) 20

• descriptions of terrestrial habitats (e.g., oak-hickory forest, tallgrass prairie, tidal salt marsh, 21 lacustrine wetland) on or near the site 22

• information on characteristic plant and animal species associated with each habitat type 23

• copies of terrestrial surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site 24 (e.g., baseline studies, habitat assessments, native plant surveys, wetland delineations, 25 endangered and threatened species monitoring) 26

• information on important terrestrial species and habitats (e.g., keystone species, indicator 27 species, representative species, migratory birds, state-listed species, bird rookeries and 28 flyways, important bird areas, known bat hibernacula, locally significant habitats, natural 29 heritage areas, wildlife sanctuaries and preserves, federally or state-managed lands) 30

• information on non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern 31

• information concerning the length of in-scope transmission lines; locations where ROWs 32 cross wetlands, riparian areas, or other important or sensitive habitats; and line termination 33 points (e.g., substation or point at which in-scope portion of the lines ends).

34 Aquatic Resources 35

• marine ecoregion (for nuclear power plants near oceanic, estuarine, or gulf waters) 36

• waterbodies affected by nuclear power plant operations 37

• characteristics of the affected waterbodies 3-14

1 - descriptions of the aquatic habitats of the waterbodies (e.g., nearshore, benthic, open 2 water, etc.)

3 - size, bathymetry, temperature regimes, streamflow and discharge, salinity, tidal flows, 4 typical seasonal fluctuations, sediment types, and general water quality 5 - main channel, dams, and any flood controls 6 - additional human uses of the waterbody other than for nuclear power plant cooling 7 (e.g., recreational, industrial, etc.)

8

• relevant watershed(s), including source and receiving waterbodies 9

• information on characteristic plant and animal species associated with each affected 10 waterbody, especially those species vulnerable to impingement and entrainment 11

• descriptions of other aquatic habitats or features on the site 12

• information on fish stocking programs 13

• copies of aquatic surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site 14 (e.g., regional fishery studies; endangered and threatened species monitoring; baseline, 15 impingement, entrainment, thermal, and other studies performed in connection with CWA 16 Section 316(a) and (b) requirements) 17

• information on important aquatic species and habitats (e.g., keystone species, indicator 18 species, representative species, state-listed species, recreational and commercially 19 important fisheries, spawning and rearing areas, waters within Federal or State parks and 20 preserves) 21

• information on non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern 22

• information concerning the length of in-scope transmission lines; locations where ROWs 23 cross waterbodies, aquatic features, or other important or sensitive habitats; and line 24 termination points (e.g., substation or point at which in-scope portion of the lines ends).

25 Federally Protected Ecological Resources 26

• sufficient information on the proposed action to define the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 27 action area (e.g., all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not 28 merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02) 29

• information on endangered and threatened species (collectively, listed species) and critical 30 habitats protected under the ESA that are potentially present in the action area under both 31 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 32 jurisdiction (collectively, the Services) 33

• information on designated essential fish habitat (EFH), including habitats of particular 34 concern, designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 35 Act (MSA) that are present in the area 36

• information on national marine sanctuaries protected under the National Marine Sanctuaries 37 Act (NMSA) that are present in the area.

3-15

1 Additionally, the following information may be relevant to the ecological resources review:

2

• the ecological environment prior to nuclear power plant construction and major changes that 3 have happened since (e.g., habitat loss, degradation, or fragmentation; changes in presence 4 or abundances of plant and animal populations; urbanization and development; 5 impoundments and associated pond and reservoir creation; river channelization) 6

• changes to the ecological environment anticipated during the license renewal term 7

• relevant regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls to reduce or mitigate 8 impacts on the ecological environment (e.g., NPDES permit conditions and requirements 9 related to impingement mortality, entrainment, and thermal effluents) 10

• site or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best management 11 practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken or proposed by the applicant 12

• transmission line ROW maintenance procedures, including physical (e.g., mowing and 13 cutting) and chemical (e.g., herbicides or pesticides) controls and maintenance periodicity 14

• management of nuisance or invasive species undertaken or proposed by the applicant.

15 3.6.2 Acceptance Criteria 16 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria 17 for the ecological resources review are based on the following requirements:

18

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds 19 and withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed 20 action on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related 21 impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be 22 provided.

23

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling 24 pond water intake and discharge systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current 25 Clean Water Act 316(b) Best Technology Available determinations and, if applicable, a 26 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR Part 125 or equivalent State permits and 27 supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess 28 the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement 29 mortality and entrainment and thermal discharges.

30

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of 31 refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction 32 activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the 33 impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance 34 with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to the Endangered 35 Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 36 National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

37

• 40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 125, concerning impingement mortality and entrainment 38 at existing facilities subject to CWA Section 316(b) 39

• 40 CFR Part 423, concerning thermal effluent discharges subject to CWA Section 316(a) 40

• 50 CFR Part 402, concerning interagency consultation for federally listed species and critical 41 habitats protected under the ESA 42

• 50 CFR Part 600, concerning interagency consultation for EFH protected under the MSA.

3-16

1 The following Federal statutes also apply to the ecological resources review:

2

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d) 3 makes it unlawful to take, pursue, molest, or disturb bald and golden eagles, their nests, or 4 their eggs anywhere in the United States. The FWS may issue take permits to individuals, 5 government agencies, or other organizations to authorize limited, non-purposeful 6 disturbance of eagles, in the course of conducting lawful activities such as operating utilities 7 or conducting scientific research.

8

• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) was enacted to restore and maintain the 9 chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations water. Section 316(a) of the CWA 10 addresses thermal effects and requires that facilities operate under effluents limitations that 11 assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, 12 and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water. Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that 13 cooling water intake structures of regulated facilities must reflect the best technology 14 available for minimizing impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms.

15 These sections of the CWA are implemented and enforced through the NPDES program.

16

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.) addresses 17 the increasing pressures of over-development upon the nations coastal resources. The Act 18 encourages states to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance 19 valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, 20 dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats.

21 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Act requires that applicants for Federal licenses who conduct 22 activities in a coastal zone provide certification that the proposed activity complies with the 23 enforceable policies of the state's coastal zone program.

24

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), was enacted to 25 prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore those 26 species and their critical habitats. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to 27 consult with the FWS or NMFS (collectively, the Services) for Federal actions that may 28 affect listed species or designated critical habitats.

29

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 30 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) governs marine fisheries 31 management in U.S. Federal waters. The MSA created eight regional fishery management 32 councils and includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries, protect EFH, and reduce 33 bycatch. Under Section 305(b) of the MSA, Federal agencies are required to consult with 34 NMFS for any Federal actions that may adversely affect EFH.

35

• Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.) was enacted to protect 36 and manage marine mammals and their products (e.g., the use of hides and meat). The 37 primary authority for implementing the Act belongs to the FWS and NMFS. The FWS 38 manages walruses, polar bears, sea otters, dugongs, marine otters, and the West Indian, 39 Amazonian, and West African manatees. NMFS manages whales, porpoises, seals, and 40 sea lions. The two agencies may issue permits under Section 104 of the Act to persons, 41 including Federal agencies, that authorize the taking or importing of marine mammals.

42

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.) is intended to 43 protect birds that have common migration patterns between the United States and Canada, 44 Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The Act stipulates that, except as permitted by regulations, it is 45 unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill 46 any migratory bird.

3-17

1

• National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.)

2 establishes provisions for the designation and protection of marine areas that have special 3 national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate 4 national marine sanctuaries and establish the National Marine Sanctuary System. Pursuant 5 to Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with the National Oceanic 6 and Atmospheric Administrations Office of National Marine Sanctuaries when their 7 proposed actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource.

8

• Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 10 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.) protects 9 navigable waters in the development of harbors and other construction and excavation.

10 Section 10 of the Act requires entities or persons to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army 11 Corps of Engineers to construct any structure in or over any navigable water of the United 12 States, or to accomplish any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical 13 capacity of such waters. Activities requiring Section 10 permits include structures (e.g.,

14 piers, wharfs, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, and transmission lines) and work such 15 as dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, filling, or other modifications to 16 the navigable waters of the United States.

17 The following additional NRC guidance may be relevant to the ecological resources review:

18

• Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 2, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power 19 Stations (NRC 2012b) contains technical guidance for designing terrestrial environmental 20 studies and performing analyses for applicants and reactor licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 21 50, 10 CFR Part 52, and 10 CFR Part 54 who must meet the environmental requirements of 22 10 CFR Part 51. The guidance addresses designing adequate baseline studies; identifying 23 important species and habitats; and performing terrestrial impact analyses, including the 24 effects of habitat loss, noise, wildlife displacement, bird and bat collisions with plant 25 structures, avian electrocution, cooling tower drift, and hydrological impacts to terrestrial 26 habitats.

27

• Regulatory Guide 4.24, Rev. 0, Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations 28 (NRC 2017a), contains technical guidance for designing aquatic environmental studies and 29 performing analyses for applicants and reactor licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 30 Part 52, and 10 CFR Part 54 who must meet the environmental requirements of 10 CFR 31 Part 51. The guidance addresses designing adequate baseline studies; identifying 32 important species and habitats; and performing terrestrial impact analyses, including the 33 effects of habitat modification, noise and pressure, impingement and entrainment, effluent 34 discharge, cooling tower drift, and transmission line water crossings.

35 3.6.3 Review Procedures 36 The reviewer should ensure that the information and data gathered are adequate to serve as a 37 basis for assessing the potential impacts of nuclear power plant license renewal on ecological 38 resources. The following are suggested review steps for preparing input to the SEIS.

39 Terrestrial Resources 40 1. Identify the terrestrial ecoregion (Levels I, II, and III) and describe typical characteristics of 41 the Level III ecoregion.

42 2. Identify and describe the terrestrial habitats on and near the site and within ROWs of in-43 scope transmission lines. Give special attention to important habitats (e.g., important bird 3-18

1 areas, known bat hibernacula, locally significant habitats, natural heritage areas, wildlife 2 sanctuaries and preserves, federally or state-managed lands, etc.).

3 3. Describe major changes to the terrestrial environment during or after nuclear power plant 4 construction. These may be related to plant construction or operation or the result of other 5 factors.

6 4. Note characteristic plant and animal species associated with each habitat type. Give special 7 attention to important species (e.g., keystone species, indicator species, representative 8 species, migratory birds, state-listed species, etc.).

9 5. Note any non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern, especially 10 those known to be present on the site. Summarize management of such species 11 undertaken at the site, if applicable.

12 6. Describe terrestrial surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site, including 13 biological entities or ecological attributes chosen for investigation, methodology, results, and 14 conclusions.

15 7. Describe any site or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best 16 management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken at the site and relevant to 17 terrestrial resources.

18 8. Describe relevant regional, state, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls that are in 19 place to reduce or mitigate impacts on the terrestrial environment.

20 9. Summarize the input of relevant Federal and State agencies with special expertise or 21 jurisdiction over terrestrial resources, as applicable.

22 10. Summarize the input of affected Indian Tribes, as applicable.

23 Aquatic Resources 24 1. Identify the marine ecoregion (if applicable) and describe typical characteristics of that 25 ecoregion (e.g., predominant oceanographic or topographic features, species composition, 26 and dominant biogeographic forcing agents, such as isolation, upwelling, nutrient inputs, 27 freshwater influx, temperature regimes, ice regimes, exposure, sediments, currents, and 28 bathymetric or coastal complexity).

29 2. Identify the waterbody(ies) affected by nuclear power plant operations, including those 30 within ROWs of in-scope transmission lines, and describe the characteristics of the affected 31 waterbodies, including:

32 - the aquatic habitats of the waterbodies; 33 - size, bathymetry, temperature regimes, streamflow and discharge, salinity, tidal flows, 34 typical seasonal fluctuations, sediment types, and general water quality; 35 - main channel, dams, and any flood controls; and 36 - additional human uses of the waterbody other than for nuclear power plant cooling 37 (e.g., recreational, industrial, etc.).

38 3. Give special attention to important habitats (e.g., spawning and rearing areas, waters within 39 Federal or State parks and preserves, etc.).

40 4. Identify the relevant watershed(s), including source and receiving waterbodies.

3-19

1 5. Describe major changes to the aquatic environment during or after nuclear power plant 2 construction. These may be related to plant construction or operation or the result of other 3 factors.

4 6. Describe the trophic structure and identify important trophic links and potential for trophic 5 cascade.

6 7. Note characteristic plant and animal species associated with each affected waterbody. Give 7 special attention to important species (e.g., keystone species, indicator species, 8 representative species, state-listed species, recreational and commercially important 9 fisheries, marine mammals, etc.) and those species vulnerable to impingement and 10 entrainment.

11 8. Identify important trophic links.

12 9. Note any non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern, especially 13 those known to be present on the site. Summarize management of such species 14 undertaken at the site, if applicable.

15 10. Describe aquatic surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site, including 16 biological entities or ecological attributes chosen for investigation, methodology, results, and 17 conclusions.

18 11. Describe any site or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best 19 management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken at the site and relevant to 20 aquatic resources.

21 12. Describe relevant regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls that are in 22 place to reduce or mitigate impacts on the aquatic environment.

23 13. Summarize relevant Federal or State management initiatives, such as fish stocking 24 programs.

25 14. Summarize the input of Federal and State agencies with special expertise or jurisdiction 26 over aquatic resources, as applicable.

27 15. Summarize the input of affected Indian Tribes, as applicable.

28 Federally Protected Ecological Resources 29

• Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat 30 - Define the ESA action area (see Appendix A.1.3, Review Procedure Step 1).

31 - For each federally listed species potentially present in the action area, describe the 32 taxonomy, physical description, distribution and relative abundance, habitat, biology, 33 factors affecting the species, and occurrence of the species within the action area.

34 - For each designated critical habitat present in the action area, describe the 35 characteristics of the physical and biological features of the habitat, designation 36 boundaries, and location in relation to the nuclear power plant site and action area.

37 Include maps, when available.

38 - Include candidate and proposed species and proposed critical habitats, as appropriate.

39 - If Section 7 consultation is anticipated, refer to the ESA regulations at 50 CFR Part 402, 40 Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended,; the 41 Services guidance for conducting Section 7 consultation in Endangered Species 42 Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference 3-20

1 Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (FWS and NMFS 1998); and 2 Appendix A of this ESRP for additional information that may be required.

3

• Essential Fish Habitat 4 - Define the affected area (see Appendix A.2.3, Review Procedure Step 1).

5 - Identify the EFH present in the affected area and the federally managed species and life 6 stages to which the EFH applies.

7 - Describe the distribution, habitat preferences, and diet of each federally managed 8 species and life stage.

9 - Describe the physical and biological characteristics of the EFH by species and life stage.

10 Give special attention to habitats of particular concern, when applicable.

11 - If EFH consultation is anticipated, refer to the EFH regulations at Section 305 at 50 CFR 12 Part 600, Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions,; NMFSs guidance for conducting EFH 13 consultation in Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance (NMFS 2004a) and 14 Preparing Essential Fish Habitat Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies 15 (NMFS 2004b); and Appendix A of this ESRP for additional information that may be 16 required.

17

• Sanctuary Resources 18 - Define the affected area (see Appendix A.3.3, Review Procedure Step 1).

19 - Identify the national marine sanctuary in the affected area and describe the location in 20 relation to the nuclear power plant site. Include maps, when available.

21 - Describe the marine resources of the sanctuary, including living and nonliving resources.

22 - If NMSA consultation is anticipated, refer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 23 Administration (NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) guidance for 24 conducting NMSA consultation in Overview of Conducting Consultation Pursuant to 25 Section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NOAA 2009) and Appendix A of 26 this ESRP for additional information that may be required.

27 3.6.4 Evaluation Findings 28 The reviewer should ensure that the ecological information is adequate to serve as a basis for 29 assessing the potential impacts of license renewal and alternatives. The reviewer should 30 consult with relevant Federal and State agencies, as appropriate, to obtain information on 31 ecological resources, especially federally protected ecological resources for which license 32 renewal may necessitate interagency consultation. Coordination with affected Indian Tribes 33 may also be appropriate concerning culturally significant ecological resources. The depth and 34 extent of written input to the SEIS should be governed by the ecological resources present at 35 the site and the potential for license renewal to affect those resources. Data should be 36 presented in tables, maps, or figures, where appropriate.

37 3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 38 3.7.1 Areas of Review 39 This ESRP provides guidance on how the NRC staff should identify and assess the potential 40 effects of continued operation and refurbishment activities during an initial LR or SLR term on 41 historic and cultural resources and historic properties. Historic and cultural resources include 3-21

1 precontact (i.e., prehistoric) and historic era archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, 2 and objects. Historic and cultural resources also include elements of the cultural environment 3 such as landscapes, sacred sites, and other resources that are of religious and cultural 4 importance to Indian Tribes, such as traditional cultural properties important to a living 5 community of people for maintaining its culture.

6 A historic or a cultural resource is deemed to be historically significant, and thus, a historic 7 property within the scope of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) if it has been 8 determined to be eligible for listing or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places 9 (NRHP). The NRHP is maintained by the U.S. National Park Service in accordance with its 10 regulations in 36 CFR Part 60. The NRHP criteria to evaluate the eligibility of a property are set 11 forth in 36 CFR 60.4. Section 106 of the NHPA (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) requires 12 Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (e.g., initial LR or SLR) 13 on historic properties and consult with the appropriate parties as defined in 36 CFR 800.2. For 14 license renewal reviews, the NRC fulfills its Section 106 requirements through the National 15 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). For 16 NEPA compliance, impacts on cultural resources that are not eligible for or listed in the NRHP 17 would also need to be considered (CEQ and ACHP 2013). Appendix B of this ESRP provides 18 guidance to the NRC staff in conducting NHPA Section 106 consultation.

19 Data and Information Needs 20 The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 21 plant-specific factors, the amount of previous survey work conducted in the area of potential 22 effects (APE), and consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)/Tribal Historic 23 Preservation Officer (THPO), Indian Tribes,1 and other consulting parties. The following data or 24 information should be included in this section:

25

• Description of the APE. For license renewal (initial LR or SLR), the APE includes lands 26 within the nuclear power plant site boundary and the transmission lines up to the first 27 substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by land-disturbing or other 28 operational activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance and/or 29 refurbishment activities.

30

• Cultural background for the APE and surrounding region from the beginning of human 31 settlement to the present.

32

• Historic use of the land and the activities that have occurred within the APE and the 33 surrounding area documenting past levels of ground disturbance.

34

• Copy of the site map that identifies the direct and indirect APE (e.g., including scope 35 transmission lines, and in the vicinity).

36

• All past and current (for license renewal) historic and cultural resource investigations 37 conducted within and surrounding the APE.

38

• Historic properties within the APE, NRHP eligibility status, and if available, SHPO/THPO, 39 Indian Tribes, and other consulting parties comments in support of NRCs NHPA Section 40 106 review.

1 Per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), the agency official will consult with any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking.

3-22

1

• Historic and cultural resources (e.g., sacred sites) within the APE that are not eligible for or 2 listed in the NRHP but should be considered within the context of NEPA.

3

• Description of the applicants efforts to engage SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, or members of 4 the public to assess historic and cultural resources within the APE.

5

• Description of any procedures or management plans to protect or minimize impacts to 6 historic and cultural resources (e.g., avoidance and inadvertent discovery procedures) within 7 the APE during the renewal term.

8 3.7.2 Acceptance Criteria 9 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria 10 for the evaluation of historic and cultural resources are based on the following requirements:

11

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic and 12 cultural resources and historic properties and assess whether future plant operations and 13 any planned refurbishment activities would affect these resources in accordance with 14 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in the context of the National 15 Environmental Policy Act.

16

• 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties The implementing regulations define 17 require Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic 18 properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in consultation with consulting 19 parties as defined under 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)(i). Under this regulation, the NRC is required 20 to identify and evaluate all historic properties in the APE and take measures to avoid, 21 minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. As indicated in 36 CFR 800.8(c), Section 106 can be 22 integrated with NEPA reviews. The NRC must complete the NHPA Section 106 review 23 process prior to issuance of an initial or subsequent renewed license.

24

• 36 CFR Part 60, National Register of Historic Places - The regulations contain the 25 National Park Service's NRHPthe official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of 26 preservation.

27

• 36 CFR Part 63, Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic 28 Places - contains guidance for evaluating historic properties and determining whether a 29 property is eligible for listing in the NRHP.

30 The following Federal statutes also apply to the historic and cultural resources review. A 31 summary of these statutes is provided in Appendix F of the LR GEIS. Note that some statutes 32 listed below apply only to nuclear power plant sites located on public (i.e., Federal) and Tribal 33 lands.

34

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.)

35

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. § 1996) 36

• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 312501 et 37 seq.)

38

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470aa et seq.)

39

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.)

3-23

1 Executive Orders 2 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 3 67249) This Order seeks to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration 4 with tribal officials, in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, to 5 strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with tribes, and to reduce 6 imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes. The NRC voluntarily complies with this 7 Executive Order and has issued a Tribal Policy Statement (82 FR 2402).

8 NRC Policy and Guidance 9 NRC Tribal Policy Statement (82 FR 2402) - On January 9, 2017, the NRC published its Tribal 10 Policy Statement of principles to guide the agency's government-to-government interactions 11 with Federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Tribes. The agency developed this 12 document in response to direction from the Commission following an increase in the number 13 and complexity of consultations between the NRC and Federally recognized Tribal 14 governments. The policy statement is intended to encourage and facilitate Tribal involvement in 15 activities under NRC jurisdiction. It provides guidance to ensure consistency across the agency 16 in government-to-government relations with federally recognized Tribes. The policy statement 17 also underscores the NRC's commitments to conducting outreach to Tribes, engaging in timely 18 consultation and coordinating with other Federal agencies.

19 NUREG-2173 (NRC 2018c), Tribal Protocol Manual - This manual is intended to facilitate 20 effective consultations and interactions between the NRC and Indian Tribes concerning 21 activities within the scope of the NRC's jurisdiction.

22 Staff Guidance for Withholding Sensitive Information About Historic Resources in Accordance 23 with the National Historic Preservation Act (NRC 2011).

24 3.7.3 Review Procedures 25 The reviewer should ensure that the information and data gathered are adequate to serve as a 26 basis for assessing the potential impacts of nuclear power plant license renewal on historic and 27 cultural resources and historic properties. The following review steps are suggested when 28 preparing input to the SEIS:

29 1. Review the historic and cultural resources discussion in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, 30 Revision 2; NRC 2023a), to identify the information considered for characterizing the 31 affected environment.

32 2. Identify and describe the APE (both direct and indirect). Include a site map that delineates 33 the APE (preferably on a U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle). Provide the legal description 34 of the APE appropriate for the proposed project area. Note that not all areas of the United 35 States. (i.e., the original 13 colonies) use the Public Land Survey System (e.g., township, 36 range, and section information).

37 3. Review the ER as well as the cultural resource investigations (e.g., archaeological and 38 architectural surveys) cited in the ER for details about historic and cultural resources, NRHP 39 evaluations, and the status of the applicants interaction with SHPO and Indian Tribes.

40 4. Briefly summarize and describe precontact (i.e., prehistoric) and historic land use up to the 41 recent past. The description should focus on providing relevant context for understanding 3-24

1 the types of historic and cultural resources that may be present within the APE and 2 surrounding areas as required for NHPA Section 106 reviews.

3 5. Identify and describe all past and current historic and cultural resource investigations 4 conducted within the APE and surrounding area.

5 6. The reviewer should conduct an independent review of SHPO archaeological and 6 architectural databases (i.e., site files) or similar repositories (e.g., Office of State 7 Archaeologist) to verify historic and cultural resources information provided by the applicant 8 in the ER.

9 7. Consider other sources of information obtained during the NRC site audit, via requests for 10 additional information and requests for confirmatory information, and through the 11 consultation process.

12 8. Identify and describe historic properties located within the APE along with NRHP eligibility 13 evaluations.

14 9. Identify and describe historic and cultural resources within the APE that are not eligible for 15 or listed in the NRHP but should be considered within the context of NEPA.

16 10. Describe and summarize the status of the NRCs NHPA Section 106 consultation with the 17 ACHP, SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes and interested parties along with and any comments 18 received.

19 11. Review comments received during the scoping process to identify any issues associated 20 with historic and cultural resources.

21 12. Review other State regulations protecting historic and cultural resources and burial laws.

22 13. Refer to staff guidance regarding NHPA Section 106 consultation in Appendix B of this 23 ESRP.

24 3.7.4 Evaluation Findings 25 The reviewer should ensure that the historic and cultural resources information is adequate to 26 serve as a basis for assessing the potential impacts of initial LR or SLR and alternatives. The 27 reviewer should consult with SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, and interested parties, as appropriate, 28 to obtain information on historic and cultural resources, especially historic properties which 29 would necessitate NHPA Section 106 consultation. The depth and extent of information 30 presented in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of the historic 31 properties present in the APE and the effects of continued plant operations, refurbishment, and 32 decommissioning activities on historic and cultural resources. The reviewer should verify that 33 historic and cultural resources have been identified and described in sufficient detail to provide 34 the basis for subsequent analysis and assessment of these impacts.

35 3.8 Socioeconomics 36 3.8.1 Areas of Review 37 This ESRP guides the review and consideration of socioeconomic factors that could be directly 38 or indirectly affected by changes in nuclear power plant operations. A nuclear power plant and 39 the communities that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The 40 communities provide the people, goods, and services needed to operate the nuclear power 41 plant. Power plant operations, in turn, provide employment and income and pay for goods and 42 services from the communities. The measure of a communitys ability to support power plant 3-25

1 operations depends on the ability of the community to respond to changing economic 2 conditions.

3 The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) is defined by the counties where nuclear power 4 plant employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby 5 affecting economic conditions in the region. Changes in power plant operation affects 6 socioeconomic conditions in the ROI, including employment and income, recreation and 7 tourism, tax revenue, community services and education, population and housing, and 8 transportation.

9 The scope of the review should include the current socioeconomic factors that might be affected 10 by continued reactor operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or 11 SLR).

12 Data and Information Needs 13 The reviewer should consult the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a), before 14 undertaking extensive data collection.

15 The following data or information may be needed:

16

• most recent average annual total number of permanent plant workers and county of 17 residence, average number of plant outage workers, frequency, and duration (in days or 18 weeks) 19

• U.S. Bureau of Census information and data related to the ROI (by county) economic base, 20 including:

21 - housing: total number of units, number of occupied units, number of vacant units, 22 vacancy rate, and median value 23 - demographic information by race and ethnicity and population growth forecasts by 24 county 25 - transient (seasonal) population including students attending colleges and universities 26 within 50 miles of the plant 27 - civilian labor force by county 28 - largest industrial employment by industrial sector category (North American Industry 29 Classification System code) 30 - median household income and per capita income 31 - percent of families and individuals living below the Census poverty threshold 32 - unemployment 33

• public water supply system information by source (groundwater or surface water, average 34 daily production, system design capacity, and population served) 35

• information about the local public schools: school district(s), total enrollment 36

• information on local transportation systems: site access roads, average annual daily traffic 37 volume and road capacity 38

• Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture) information on migrant farm labor in 39 the ROI (by county), including:

3-26

1 - number of farms and farm workers working less than 150 days 2 - number of farms reporting migrant farm labor 3 - number of farms with hired farm labor 4

• list of major employers in ROI 5

• annual property tax or payments in lieu of tax (PILOT) information including local tax 6 authorities (e.g., county, municipality, and public school district) and tax assessment 7 information including anticipated or recent changes in State tax laws 8

• public recreational facilities, including capacity and utilization.

9 3.8.2 Acceptance Criteria 10 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 also apply for the review of 11 affected environment socioeconomic characteristics.

12 3.8.3 Review Procedures 13 The following review steps are suggested:

14 1. Review socioeconomics discussions in the LR GEIS.

15 2. Determine if there is new information that should be evaluated. The following sources of 16 information should be included in the search for new information:

17 - any new socioeconomics-related information in the applicants ER 18 - any new socioeconomic information from scoping 19 3. Compile socioeconomic information on counties within the ROI.

20 4. Describe the following:

21 - power plant employment and expenditures 22 - regional economic characteristics 23 - demographic characteristics 24 - housing and community services 25 - tax revenue 26 - local transportation 27 5. Prepare socioeconomic affected environment discussion for the SEIS.

28 3.8.4 Evaluation Findings 29 The reviewer should ensure that the socioeconomic information is adequate to serve as a basis 30 for assessing the potential impacts of initial LR or SLR. The amount of socioeconomic 31 information in the SEIS is governed by the potential effects of continued nuclear plant 32 operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term.

3-27

1 3.9 Human Health 2 3.9.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the discussion of radiological and nonradiological human 4 health impacts of nuclear power plants. The scope includes preparation of a SEIS section 5 describing the applicants radioactive waste management program, radiological environmental 6 monitoring program, radioactive effluent release program, occupational radiation exposure, 7 physical hazards, chemical hazards, microbiological hazards, and occupational electric hazards.

8 Data and Information Needs 9 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 10 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

11

• A description of the radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid waste management and effluent 12 control systems and information on effluents released into the environment and waste 13 stored onsite 14

• Historical data on occupational doses to plant workers (from NUREG-0713, Occupational 15 Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities; NRC 16 2016) 17

• Description of the radiological environmental monitoring program and environmental data 18 (from the applicants annual environmental operating reports) 19

• Historical maximum doses to a member of the public (from the applicants annual radioactive 20 effluent release reports) 21

• Information on the potential changes in radiological impacts from continued plant operations 22 during the renewal term 23

• Information on the radiological impacts of refurbishment 24

• Description of the sites industrial safety program to include physical occupational hazards, 25 chemical hazards, occupational microbiological hazards, and occupational electrical hazards 26 (e.g., electromagnetic fields and electric shock) 27

• Description of the microbiological hazards for members of the public for plants that use a 28 cooling pond, lake, canal, or that discharge into waters of the United States accessible to 29 the public 30

• Description of the in-scope transmission lines and adherence to National Electrical Safety 31 Code (NESC) standards.

32 3.9.2 Acceptance Criteria 33 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria 34 for the evaluation of human health are based on the following requirements:

35

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). If the applicants plant uses a cooling pond, lake, canal, or 36 discharges into waters of the United States accessible to the public, an assessment of the 37 impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected 38 water must be provided.

3-28

1

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the 2 specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the 3 recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from 4 induced currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock 5 hazard from the transmission lines must be provided.

6 3.9.3 Review Procedures 7 The SEIS section to be prepared on the radiological and nonradiological impacts is 8 informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are 9 suggested:

10 1. Review the discussion of Human Health in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 11 2023a).

12 2. Obtain historic information (typically five years of data) on radioactive effluents released 13 from the applicants plant.

14 3. Obtain information on expected radioactive releases and exposures from refurbishment 15 activities, if any.

16 4. Obtain information on projected changes in radioactive releases and exposures from 17 operations during the renewal term, if any.

18 5. Obtain historical information (typically five years of data) on the radiological environmental 19 monitoring program.

20 6. Obtain historical information (typically five years of data) on the occupational doses to plant 21 workers.

22 7. Prepare a section describing the radiological programs and systems for the SEIS. This 23 section should include summary descriptions of the applicants radioactive effluent 24 monitoring and radiological environmental monitoring programs. It should also include a 25 discussion of doses received by members of the public and plant workers for the most 26 recent calendar year and the trend of such doses for the most recent five years of plant 27 operation. Doses should be compared with relevant regulatory requirements; for example, 28 Appendix I to 10 CFR 50, 10 CFR 20.1201, and 10 CFR 20.1301. For the radiological 29 environmental monitoring program, provide a summary of the results for the most recent 30 calendar year and a trend of the data for the most recent five years of plant operation.

31 8. Prepare a section describing the chemical hazards. Review applicable plant procedures, 32 plans, and processes designed to prevent and minimize the potential for chemical or 33 hazardous waste release and minimize potential impact on workers, members of the public, 34 and the environment.

35 9. Prepare a section describing electromagnetic fields including a discussion of the in-scope 36 transmission lines.

37 10. Prepare a section describing microbiological hazards to workers. Review applicable plant 38 procedures, plans, and processes designed to prevent and minimize the potential for 39 exposure to elevated numbers of microorganisms in unheated and heated water systems 40 onsite.

41 11. Prepare a section that addresses physical occupational hazards and occupational electric 42 shock hazards.

3-29

1 3.9.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The reviewer should ensure that the human health information is adequate to serve as a basis 3 for assessing the potential impacts of initial LR or SLR and alternatives. The level of detail of 4 SEIS input would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The information included in the 5 SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of the expected impacts. The 6 reviewer should verify that the radiological and nonradiological impact descriptions are 7 consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRPs 8 in other chapters.

9 3.10 Environmental Justice 10 3.10.1 Areas of Review 11 This ESRP provides guidance on describing minority populations, low-income populations, and 12 Indian Tribes that could experience disproportionately high and adverse human health and 13 environmental effects from continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities associated 14 with license renewal (initial LR or SLR).

15 The descriptions to be provided by this review should be of sufficient detail to permit the 16 assessment and evaluation of human health and environmental effects in ESRP 4.10.

17 Data and Information Needs 18 Data and information on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes 19 depend on the location of the nuclear power plant. Information can be gleaned from the 20 applicants ER and from the sources discussed below. The following data or information should 21 be obtained:

22

• Demographic data are available from online the geographic information systems (GIS) 23 (e.g., EJScreen, an online GIS tool offered by EPA) and U.S. Bureau of the Census data, 24 including Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing geographic 25 system mapping files.2 In addition, 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius demographic data can be 26 generated using the Circular Area Profiles GIS system from the Missouri Census Data 27 Center, a cooperative program with the Census Bureaus State Data Center Program.3 28

• Comments and concerns expressed by representatives of minority and low-income 29 (environmental justice) communities and Indian Tribes located near the nuclear power plant 30 site (from the ER and comments made during scoping). As part of scoping, it is important to 31 consult with representatives of environmental justice communities and Indian Tribes having 32 specific knowledge about the locations, resource dependencies, customs and practices, and 33 preexisting health and socioeconomic conditions of these populations. This will ensure that 34 environmental justice communities, including transient populations and Indian Tribes are not 35 overlooked and in assessing the potential human health and environmental effects of the 36 proposed action on those populations and communities. Resources devoted to this 37 outreach should be commensurate with the likelihood of human health and environmental 38 effects.

2 The Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing GIS mapping file system is accessible online at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html.

3 Missouri Census Data Center, Circular Area Profiles GIS system, is accessible online at https://mcdc.missouri.edu/.

3-30

1

• A description of unique consumption patterns (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, and 2 fishing) and resource dependencies reflecting the traditional or cultural practices of minority 3 populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes and existing health conditions.

4 3.10.2 Acceptance Criteria 5 In addition to the criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria for the environmental 6 justice review are based on the following:

7

• Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) concerning Federal actions to address environmental 8 justice in minority and low-income populations 9

• Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory 10 and Licensing Actions, (69 FR 52040) affirms the Commissions commitment to the general 11 goals of Executive Order 12898 and strives to meet those goals as part of the NEPA review 12 for licensing actions.

13

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N). Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic 14 composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and 15 ethnicity), and Indian Tribes in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant that could be 16 disproportionately affected by license renewal, including continued reactor operations and 17 refurbishment activities.

18 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above 19 are as follows:

20

• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for addressing environmental justice, 21 Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 22 10, 1997 (CEQ 1997) 23

• Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and NEPA Committee, 24 Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews, March 2016 (EJ IWG 2016) 25

• Guidance for specific information requirements for the environmental justice review is 26 contained in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Instruction LIC-203, 27 Revision 4: Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, 28 and Considering Environmental Issues. LIC-203 (NRC 2020c) is revised periodically. Refer 29 to the latest revision for current guidance.

30 3.10.3 Review Procedures 31 The review procedure should be as follows:

32 1. Identify minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes within a 50-mile 33 (80-kilometer) radius of the nuclear power plant. For each census block group within this 34 area, minority and low-income populations are identified when (1) the minority or low-income 35 population of an impacted area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority or low-income 36 population percentage of the impacted area is meaningfully greater than the minority or low-37 income population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 38 geographic analysis (e.g., 50-mile radius geographic area or county). All block groups with 39 minority and low-income percentages higher than the percentage for the geographic area 40 and all affected Indian Tribes should be identified on the maps.

41 2. Identify environmental justice issues and unique characteristics of minority and low-income 42 populations/communities and affected Indian Tribes during scoping.

3-31

1 3. Determine geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and poverty, as well as delineation of 2 Tribal lands. Identify any unique characteristics of minority and low-income populations and 3 the special character of communities and affected Indian Tribes near the nuclear power 4 plant.

5 - Minority populations are individual(s) who self-identify as members of the following 6 population groups:

7 Race: (Not Hispanic or Latino) 8 a) Black or African American 9 b) American Indian or Alaska Native 10 c) Asian 11 d) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 12 e) some other race 13 f) two or more races 14 g) Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 15 - Low-income population is defined as individuals or families living below the poverty level 16 as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (e.g., the U.S. Census Bureaus Current 17 Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty).

18 - Sources of information for determining geographic distribution and location of minority 19 populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes:

20 Online or other GIS tools (e.g., ArcGIS, EJScreen, or CAPS).

21 3.10.4 Evaluation Findings 22 The amount of information in the SEIS is governed by the potential human health and 23 environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes from 24 continued reactor operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. The following 25 information should be included in the SEIS:

26

• A general description of minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes 27 near the nuclear power plant. This description is to be accompanied by at least two maps 28 that highlight (1) the location of minority populations and Indian Tribes and (2) low-income 29 populations, respectively. These maps should be based on most recent decennial Census 30 supported by American Community Survey data, supplemented by other information, if 31 available.

32

• A description of affected environmental justice communities and Indian Tribes with unique 33 consumption patterns (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, and fishing) and resource 34 dependencies reflecting the traditional or cultural practices.

35

• A description of any additional cultural, economic, or human health conditions that could 36 result in disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects 37 (including socioeconomic).

3-32

1 3.11 Waste Management 2 3.11.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the preparation of a SEIS section describing the applicants 4 radioactive and nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems.

5 The scope includes describing the existing systems, describing any changes to the systems to 6 be made during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) or refurbishment.

7 Data and Information Needs 8 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 9 plant-specific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude 10 of the potential impacts. The following data or information may be needed.

11 Radioactive Waste Systems 12

• A description of the radioactive liquid and gaseous waste management systems and effluent 13 control systems designed to collect, store, treat, and dispose of all wastes 14

• Identification of principal release points for radioactive materials to the environment and 15 historical information on composition of discharges 16

• Identification of any onsite direct radiation sources outside of the plant (e.g., storage of 17 contaminated equipment, low-level radioactive waste storage, or storage of used steam 18 generators) 19

• Information on the changes in radiological waste impacts from operation that are expected 20 during the renewal term 21

• Identification of current waste disposal activities including size and location of waste 22 disposal sites (onsite, as applicable, and offsite) as well as the plans for ultimate treatment 23 and/or restoration of retired disposal sites 24

• A discussion of spent nuclear fuel storage plans for the license renewal term (e.g., ISFSI 25 details, expansion plans) 26

• A summary of the sources, types, quantities, and composition of all radioactive waste 27 materials (e.g., liquid, solid and gaseous material within the plant) within the plant and 28 expected during the renewal period 29

• Identification of low-level radioactive waste storage capacity/disposal for the plant over the 30 license renewal term 31

• Identification of anticipated disposal plans for all wastes (i.e., transfer to an offsite waste 32 disposal facility or a treatment facility or store onsite) 33

• A description of waste minimization plans or procedures that identifies process changes that 34 can be made to reduce or eliminate waste, including a description of methods to minimize 35 the volume of waste 36

• Identification of waste management cumulative impacts 37

• Site-specific effluent monitoring reports for the last five years of plant operation. (Note:

38 annual radioactive effluent release reports are issued by plant licensees and include a 39 summary of radioactive effluent releases from all the facilities on the plant site, including the 3-33

1 waste management and storage facilities. The same reports also provide data on the 2 volume and radioactivity content of solid radioactive waste shipped offsite for processing 3 and disposal. Similarly, the radiological environmental monitoring program conducted by 4 nuclear power plant licensees measures the direct radiation as well as environmental 5 concentrations of all radionuclides originating at the site as well as background radiation).

6 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 7

• Description of the nonradioactive waste management systems/effluent treatment systems 8 (i.e., identification of the type of waste generated, regulatory permits, release points, 9 storage, and disposal) 10

• Identification of source, types, and quantities of nonradioactive liquid and solid waste 11 material within the plant 12

• Identification of principal release points for nonradioactive materials to the environment and 13 historical information on composition of discharges (i.e., non-radioactive waste management 14 systems effluent release points) and the State/Federal regulations governing them 15

• Documentation of the permits issued by the agencies responsible for permitting 16 nonradioactive waste systems for atmospheric, liquid, or solid effluents (e.g., NPDES or 17 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permits) 18

• Description of a pollution prevention and waste minimization program, if available 19

• Information on the changes in nonradiological impacts from operation that are expected 20 during the renewal term.

21 3.11.2 Acceptance Criteria 22 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, the acceptance 23 criteria for the evaluation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste management are based on 24 the following requirements:

25

• 10 CFR 50.34a, Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material 26 in effluents - nuclear power reactors 27

• 10 CFR 50.36a, Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors 28

• 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation 29

• 10 CFR 50.72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors 30

• 10 CFR 50.73, Licensee event report system 31

• 10 CFR 50.75(g), Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning 32

• 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting 33 Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable for 34 Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents 35

• 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; Design Criteria 60, Control of Releases of Radioactive 36 Materials to the Environment 37

• 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; Design Criteria 61, Fuel storage and handling and radioactivity 38 control 39

• 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; Design Criteria 64, Monitoring Radioactivity Releases 3-34

1

• 40 CFR Part 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power 2 Operations.

3 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above 4 are as follows:

5

• Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of 6 Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, 7 Appendix I (NRC 1977) 8

• Regulatory Guide 4.1, Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear 9 Power Plants (NRC 2009b) 10

• Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations 11 (NRC 2018b) 12

• Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Program (Normal 13 Operation) - Effluent Streams and the Environment (NRC 2007b) 14

• Regulatory Guide 1.21, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes 15 and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-16 Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2021) 17

• Regulatory Guide 1.143, Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Systems, 18 Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 19 2001) 20

• Power reactor licensees are required to keep the public dose from radioactive effluents 21 ALARA. The ALARA criteria is contained in Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50.

22

• As further specified in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 concerning their effluent discharges, 23 The licensee shall establish an appropriate surveillance and monitoring program 24 to:

25 1. Provide data on quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and 26 gaseous effluents; 27 2. Provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in 28 the environment to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive 29 material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals from 30 principal pathways of exposure; and 31 3. Identify changes in the use of unrestricted areas (e.g., for agricultural 32 purposes) to permit modifications in monitoring programs for evaluating 33 doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure.

34 3.11.3 Review Procedures 35 The material to be prepared for the radioactive and nonradioactive waste management and 36 effluent control systems is informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The 37 following review steps are suggested.

3-35

1 Radioactive Waste Systems 2 1. Review the discussion of waste management and pollution prevention including the 3 discussions of plant radioactive waste management systems in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, 4 Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

5 2. Obtain a description of the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems for 6 the applicants plant. The description should include identification of release points, a 7 description of all current waste systems including quantities, composition, and frequency of 8 waste generation.

9 3. Obtain a description of the sources, types, quantities, and composition of all radioactive 10 wastes expected from continued operation.

11 4. Obtain information on anticipated disposal plans for all wastes.

12 5. Obtain a description of low-level radioactive waste storage capacity/disposal for the plant 13 over the license renewal term.

14 6. Obtain information on any planned changes to the radioactive waste management and 15 effluent control systems that would affect releases and exposures from continued plant 16 operations during the license renewal term.

17 7. Obtain information on planned changes to the radioactive waste management and effluent 18 control systems during refurbishment.

19 8. Obtain information on pollution prevention and waste minimization measures in place.

20 9. Obtain information on the spent nuclear fuel storage plans for license renewal term.

21 10. Obtain site-specific effluent monitoring reports for the last five years of plant operation.

22 11. Prepare a section describing the radioactive waste management and effluent control 23 systems for the SEIS. This section should include general descriptions of gaseous, liquid, 24 and solid waste processing systems. It should also generally describe the applicants 25 gaseous and liquid effluent monitoring systems.

26 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 27 1. Review the discussion of waste management and pollution prevention including the 28 discussions of plant nonradioactive waste management systems in the LR GEIS 29 (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

30 2. Obtain a description of the nonradioactive wastes and effluent control systems for the 31 applicants plant.

32 3. Obtain information on changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems that 33 could affect releases from continued plant operations during the renewal term.

34 4. Obtain information on planned changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control 35 systems during refurbishment.

36 5. Obtain a description of the pollution prevention and waste minimization program or policy, if 37 available.

38 6. Prepare a section describing the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems for the 39 SEIS.

3-36

1 3.11.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on plant- and site-specific factors.

3 The level of detail of information included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the 4 anticipated magnitudes of the expected impacts. The reviewer should verify that the radioactive 5 and nonradioactive waste management and effluent control system descriptions are consistent, 6 accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRPs in other 7 chapters.

8 3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 9 3.12.1 Areas of Review 10 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data including 11 preparation of a SEIS section describing the applicants GHG plant-specific emissions and 12 climate change monitoring, mitigation, or related initiatives. This information supports the 13 evaluation of GHG emission impacts on climate change from continued plant operations and 14 refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR).

15 In CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009a), the Commission provided direction to the staff on addressing GHG 16 issues in environmental reviews. Accordingly, the scope of this ESRP includes (1) 17 consideration of GHG emissions related to continued plant operations and refurbishment 18 associated with license renewal, (2) observed regional climate change indicators (e.g.,

19 precipitation, temperature, storm frequency and severity, sea level rise, floods, and droughts) 20 and projected regional climate changes, and (4) climate change impacts to resource areas 21 affected by license renewal.

22 Data and Information Needs 23 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site and 24 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

25

• county-level GHG emission sources and associated reported GHG emission data 26

• a description of nuclear power plant site direct (e.g., stationary combustion sources, 27 refrigeration systems, electrical transmission and distribution systems) and indirect (e.g.,

28 worker vehicles, purchased electricity) GHG emission sources from normal nuclear plant 29 operations and quantified annual GHG emissions from these sources 30

• if refurbishment activities are planned, a description of GHG emitting sources (e.g.,

31 motorized equipment, construction vehicles, and worker vehicles) and quantitative GHG 32 emission data for each source 33

• description of regional observed changes in climate (e.g., ambient temperature, 34 precipitation, sea level rise) from national climate assessment reports (e.g., U.S. Global 35 Change Research Program, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 36

• observed changes or trends in climate parameters from onsite monitoring (e.g., warming 37 temperature trend from onsite meteorological station, warming trend in surface water 38 temperatures) 39

• quantitative descriptions of regional projected climate changes and impacts (climate change 40 impacts should focus on those resource areas that are impacted by license renewal).

3-37

1 3.12.2 Acceptance Criteria 2 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 of this ESRP, the 3 acceptance criteria for GHG and climate change information are based on the relevant 4 requirements of the following:

5

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q). Applicants shall include an assessment of the effects of any 6 observed and projected future changes in climate on environmental resource areas that are 7 affected by license renewal, as well as any mitigation measures implemented at the 8 applicants plant to address climate change impacts.

9 Commission Memorandum and Order (NRC 2009a, CLI-09-21, November 3, 2009) providing 10 direction to the NRC staff: We expect the Staff to include consideration of carbon dioxide and 11 other greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions under 12 the National Environmental Policy Act. The Staffs analysis for reactor applications should 13 encompass emissions from the uranium fuel cycle as well as from construction and operation of 14 the facility to be licensed. The Staff should ensure that these issues are addressed consistently 15 in agency NEPA evaluations and, as appropriate, update Staff guidance documents to address 16 greenhouse gas emissions.

17 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of requirements above are as 18 follows:

19

• Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 20 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule (74 FR 66496) - This rule summarizes the 21 Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) finding that GHGs in the atmosphere endanger 22 public health and welfare.

23

• 40 CFR Part 98, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting - Establishes mandatory GHG 24 reporting requirements for certain facilities and contains multiple provisions relevant to the 25 air resources reviewer. 40 CFR 98.6 defines various terms, including an explicit definition of 26 compounds included in the term greenhouse gas. 40 CFR 98.2 establishes an annual 27 reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent per year for 28 certain facilities, including stationary fuel combustion units.

29 3.12.3 Review Procedures 30 The review procedure should be as follows:

31 1. Identify and quantify direct and indirect sources of GHG emission sources as a result of 32 normal plant operations and refurbishment activities. Direct GHG emissions include those 33 that are owned or controlled by an organization (e.g., stationary and mobile combustion 34 sources at nuclear power plants, fugitive emissions from refrigeration equipment, and 35 transmission lines). Indirect emissions are those associated with an organizations activities 36 but are emitted from sources owned by other entities (e.g., purchase of electricity, worker 37 vehicle emissions). GHG emissions should be presented in units of carbon dioxide 38 equivalents per year.

39 2. Identify and describe primary county-level GHG emission sources and associated reported 40 GHG emission data.

41 3. Quantify GHG emissions from replacement power alternatives.

3-38

1 4. Tabulate and compare GHG emission sources from normal plant operations and 2 refurbishment activities, GHG emissions from replacement power alternatives, and county-3 level emissions.

4 5. Discuss regional observed changes in climate and climate change information from national 5 climate assessment reports and available onsite monitoring.

6 3.12.4 Evaluation Findings 7 The reviewer should ensure that the GHG emissions and climate change information is 8 adequate as a basis for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and 9 refurbishment associated with license renewal. Scientific knowledge and Federal policies on 10 climate change are rapidly evolving. The climate change reviewer must be cognizant of 11 relevant laws, requirements, and guidance existing at the time of the review. The reviewer 12 should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, as well as Indian 13 Tribes, to assess the accuracy of the GHG emissions and climate change information, if 14 necessary.

3-39

1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 2 4.1 Overview 3 The following sections address the general procedures for evaluating the environmental 4 consequences of (1) the proposed action, which includes the potential impacts from continued 5 reactor operations and refurbishment activities; (2) the no-action alternative, which represents 6 a decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) not to renew the operating 7 license of a nuclear power plant beyond the current operating license term; (3) alternative 8 energy sources for replacing existing nuclear generating capacity using other energy sources 9 (including fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy), (3) alternative energy sources for 10 offsetting existing nuclear generation capacity using conservation and energy efficiency 11 (demand-side management), delayed retirement, or purchased power, and (4) alternatives for 12 reducing adverse impacts (e.g., revisions to operating procedures or design changes such as a 13 new cooling system).

14 In preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), it is permissible for the 15 staffs evaluation of the potential environmental consequences (impacts) of the proposed action 16 and alternatives to the proposed action to be integrated with the corresponding descriptions of 17 the affected environment for each affected resource area in the same SEIS chapter (see 18 Chapter 3 of this environmental standard review plan [ESRP]).

19 4.1.1 Areas of Review 20 This ESRP introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRP Sections 4.2 21 through 4.14. It includes a description of the environmental issues associated with continued 22 operation during the renewal term (initial license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal 23 [SLR]) and any refurbishment discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 24 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a) identifies 25 those issues that the staff has determined to be inapplicable to the applicants plant because of 26 plant design, and directs readers to SEIS sections that discuss the applicable issues.

27 4.1.2 Acceptance Criteria 28 The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared for the environmental 29 consequences description under this ESRP are consistent with the following regulations:

30

• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 51.45(c) (10 CFR 51.45(c)), Analysis. The 31 environmental report (ER) must include an analysis that considers and balances the 32 environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of replacement 33 power alternatives, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 34 environmental effects.

35

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including 36 the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as 37 described in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in 38 detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the 39 environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, 40 the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any 41 other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45.

4-1

1

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and 2 analytic, and written in plain language with appropriate graphics.The format provided in 3 Section 1(a) of Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently 4 evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft 5 environmental impact statement.

6

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) will include a 7 preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed 8 action; the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives 9 available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, and compliance with 10 environmental-quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, 11 State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes. A draft SEIS for license renewal will 12 rely on conclusions as amplified by the supporting information in the LR GEIS for Category 1 13 issues.

14

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a 15 nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an 16 EIS, which is a supplement to the Commissions NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental 17 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.

18

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, paragraph 7, concerning the environmental 19 consequences of alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions 20 which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a 21 discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the 22 alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for each alternative considered in 23 detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking.

24

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 25 License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1, Summary of Findings on Environmental 26 Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.

27 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above 28 are as follows:

29

• LIC-203, Revision 4, Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental 30 Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues (NRC 2020c).

31 Technical Rationale 32 The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that 33 incorporate the conclusions in the LR GEIS related to the environmental impacts of continued 34 plant operations during the license renewal term, any proposed refurbishment, the no-action 35 alternative, and alternatives to replace or offset the generating capacity of the plant or to 36 mitigate potential adverse impacts. The review should also address any new and significant 37 information.

38 4.1.3 Review Procedures 39 The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of data is required.

40 Environmental issues associated with continued operations and refurbishment during the 41 renewal term (initial LR or SLR) considered in the LR GEIS that were determined to be 42 Category 1 or uncategorized are listed in Table 4-1.

4-2

1 Table 4-1 Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Summary of Findings on 2 Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License 3 Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants)

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding Land Use Onsite land use 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee.

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

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

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

Air Quality Air quality impacts 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small at all plants. Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and routine operations of boilers used for space heating are minor.

Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions have been small.

Emissions resulting from refurbishment activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after these activities are completed.

Operating experience has shown that the scale of refurbishment activities has not resulted in exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants, and best management practices, including fugitive dust controls and the imposition of permit conditions in State and local air emissions permits, would ensure conformance with applicable State or Tribal implementation plans.

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

Noise Noise impacts 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations and refurbishment associated 4-3

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding with license renewal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discharge of biocides, 1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are sanitary wastes, and regulated by State and Federal environmental minor chemical spills agencies. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES permit process.

These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

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

systems)

Effects of dredging on 1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated surface water quality sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water 4-4

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local agencies.

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

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

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

minute [gpm])

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

Terrestrial Resources Exposure of terrestrial 1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from organisms to continued nuclear power plant operation and radionuclides refurbishment during the license renewal term would be expected to remain well below U.S.

Department of Energy exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.

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

Cooling tower impacts on 1 SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power terrestrial plants plant cooling towers could deposit particulates and water droplets or ice on vegetation and lead to structural damage or changes in terrestrial plant communities. However, nuclear power plants where these impacts occurred have successfully mitigated the impact. These 4-5

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term.

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

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

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

Aquatic Resources Impingement mortality and 1 SMALL. No significant impacts on aquatic entrainment of aquatic populations associated with impingement mortality organisms (plants with and entrainment at nuclear power plants with cooling towers) cooling towers have been reported, including effects on fish and shellfish from direct mortality, injury, or other sublethal effects. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, the effects of these cooling water intake systems would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).

Entrainment of 1 SMALL. Entrainment has not resulted in noticeable phytoplankton and impacts on phytoplankton or zooplankton zooplankton populations near operating nuclear power plants.

Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, the effects would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).

Effects of thermal effluents 1 SMALL. Acute, sublethal, and community-level on aquatic organisms (plants effects of thermal effluents have not resulted in with cooling towers) noticeable impacts on aquatic communities at nuclear power plants with cooling towers. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, effects would be mitigated through adherence to state water quality criteria or CWA Section 316(a) variances.

4-6

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

Effects of nonradiological 1 SMALL. Heavy metal leaching from condenser contaminants on aquatic tubes was an issue at several operating nuclear organisms power plants. These plants successfully mitigated the issue, and it is no longer of concern. Cooling system effluents would be the primary source of nonradiological contaminants during the license renewal term. Implementation of best management practices and adherence to NPDES permit limitations would minimize the effects of these contaminants on the aquatic environment.

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

Department of Energy exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic organisms.

Effects of dredging on 1 SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is aquatic resources expected to occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would affect relatively small areas. Continued operation of many plants may not require any dredging. Adherence to best management practices and CWA Section 404 permit conditions would mitigate potential impacts at plants where dredging is necessary to maintain function or reliability of cooling systems. Dredging is not expected to be a significant issue during the license renewal term.

Non-cooling system 1 SMALL. No significant impacts on aquatic impacts on aquatic resources associated with landscape and grounds resources maintenance, stormwater management, or ground-disturbing activities at operating nuclear power plants have been reported. Impacts from continued operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term would be similar and small.

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

4-7

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding Impacts of transmission line 1 SMALL. In-scope transmission lines tend to right-of-way (ROW) occupy only industrial-use or other developed management on aquatic portions of nuclear power plant sites and, resources(a) therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on aquatic plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts.

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

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

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

Population and housing 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional population and housing availability and value would be small. With little or no change in employment at the licensees plant expected during the license renewal term, population and housing availability and values would not be affected by continued power plant operations.

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

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

Radiation exposures to the 1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from 4-8

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding public continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below regulatory limits.

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

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

Electromagnetic fields N/A Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not (EMFs)(a) uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible.

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

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

Severe accidents(b) 1 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. Severe accident mitigation alternatives do not warrant further plant-specific analysis because the demonstrated reductions in population dose risk and continued severe accident regulatory improvements substantially reduce the likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant improvements.

Waste Management Low-level waste storage 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls 4-9

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding and disposal that are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain small during the license renewal term.

Onsite storage of spent 1 During the license renewal term, SMALL. The nuclear fuel expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental impacts through dry or pool storage at all plants.

For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and as stated in § 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this issue.

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

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

Mixed-waste storage and 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls disposal and the facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants.

License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants.

The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small.

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

4-10

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

Greenhouse gas emissions from construction vehicles and other motorized equipment for refurbishment activities would be intermittent and temporary, restricted to the refurbishment period.

Worker vehicle greenhouse gas emissions for refurbishment would be similar to worker vehicle emissions from normal nuclear power plant operations.

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

Offsite radiological impacts - 1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective collective impacts from other doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities.

than the disposal of spent The practice of estimating health effects on the basis fuel and high-level waste of collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable.

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

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

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

4-11

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

1 (a) This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as 2 transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional 3 power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the grid.

4 (b) Although the NRC does not anticipate any license renewal applications for nuclear power plants for which a 5 previous severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) or severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) 6 analysis has not been performed, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that 7 have not considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category 2 issue requiring site-8 specific analysis.

9 Issues and processes common to all nuclear power plants having generic (i.e., the same or 10 similar) environmental impacts are considered Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and 11 significant information, the conclusions in the LR GEIS may be adopted in the SEIS. Category 2 12 issues are those issues that cannot be generically dispositioned and require a plant-specific 13 analysis to determine the level of impact. These issues are listed in Table 4-2.

14 Table 4-2 Category 2 Issues (Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial 15 and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants)

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

Groundwater Resources Groundwater use conflicts 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that (plants that withdraw more withdraw more than 100 gpm could cause than 100 gallons per minute groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater

[gpm]) users.

Groundwater use 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts (plants with conflicts could result from water withdrawals from closed-cycle cooling rivers during low-flow conditions, which may affect systems that withdraw aquifer recharge. The significance of impacts would makeup water from a depend on makeup water requirements, water river) availability, and competing water demands.

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

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

The magnitude of impacts would depend on site-4-12

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding specific characteristics.

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

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

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

Aquatic Resources Impingement mortality and 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of entrainment of aquatic impingement mortality and entrainment would organisms (plants with once- generally be small at nuclear power plants with through cooling systems or once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds cooling ponds) that have implemented best technology requirements for existing facilities under Clean Water Act Section 316(b). For all other plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or large depending on characteristics of the cooling water intake system, results of impingement and entrainment studies performed at the plant, trends in local fish and shellfish populations, and implementation of mitigation measures.

Effects of thermal effluents 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Acute, on aquatic organisms sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal (plants with once-through effluents on aquatic organisms would generally be cooling systems or cooling small at nuclear power plants with once-through ponds) cooling systems or cooling ponds that adhere to state water quality criteria or that have and maintain a valid CWA Section 316(a) variance.

For all other plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or large depending on site-specific factors, including ecological setting of the plant; characteristics of the cooling system and effluent discharges; and characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area.

Water use conflicts with 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear power plants aquatic resources (plants could consume water at rates that cause with cooling ponds or occasional or intermittent water use conflicts with cooling towers using nearby and downstream aquatic communities.

4-13

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding makeup water from a river) Such impacts could noticeably affect aquatic plants or animals or alter characteristics of the ecological environment during the license renewal term. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact. Impacts are expected to be small at most nuclear power plants but could be moderate at some.

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

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

Magnuson-Stevens Act: 2 The potential effects of continued nuclear power essential fish habitat plant operation and refurbishment on essential fish habitat would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; essential fish habitat present in the area, including habitats of particular concern; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other activities that may affect aquatic habitats. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 305(b) would be required if license renewal could result in adverse effects to essential fish habitat.

National Marine Sanctuaries 2 The potential effects of continued nuclear power Act: sanctuary resources plant operation and refurbishment on sanctuary resources would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; national marine sanctuaries present in the area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other activities that may affect aquatic habitats. Consultation with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries under National Marine Sanctuaries Act Section 304(d) 4-14

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding would be required if license renewal could destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources.

Historic and Cultural Resources Historic and cultural 2 Impacts from continued operations and resources(a) refurbishment on historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the transmission line ROW are analyzed on a plant-specific basis. The NRC will perform a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Section 106 review, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 which includes consultation with the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties.

Human Health Microbiological hazards to 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These the public microorganisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to waters of the United States accessible to the public. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics.

(a)

Electric shock hazards 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear power plants in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock potential.

Environmental Justice Impacts on minority 2 Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, low-income populations, Indian Tribes, and subsistence populations, and Indian consumption resulting from continued operations tribes and refurbishment associated with license renewal will be addressed in nuclear plant-specific reviews.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Climate change impacts on 2 Climate change can have additive effects on environmental resources environmental resource conditions that may also be directly impacted by continued operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess trends and the impacts on the human environment for a specific location.

The impacts of climate change on environmental resources during the license renewal term are location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects 2 Cumulative effects or impacts of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered on a nuclear plant-specific basis. The effects depend on 4-15

Environmental Issue Category Impact Finding regional resource characteristics, the incremental resource-specific effects of license renewal, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the environmental resource.

1 (a) This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as 2 transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional 3 power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the grid.

4 4.1.4 Evaluation Findings 5 The environmental project manager (EPM) should prepare the introductory paragraphs for the 6 SEIS. The paragraph(s) should introduce the issues to be covered by ESRPs 4.2 through 4.14.

7 4.2 Land Use and Visual Resources 8 4.2.1 Areas of Review 9 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called 10 plant-specific) land use and aesthetic impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and 11 refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR). Land use and aesthetic 12 impacts are evaluated in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a) for all nuclear 13 power plants.

14 The scope includes the review of (1) the applicants ER, (2) land use and aesthetic impacts in 15 the LR GEIS, and (3) any new and significant land use and visual resource information.

16 Following this review, the reviewer then prepares input to the SEIS. Land use and visual 17 resource issues (Category 1), evaluated in the LR GEIS, are listed in Table 4-1.

18 Data and Information Needs 19 According to the LR GEIS, land use and visual resources have not been affected by continued 20 nuclear plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. In addition, 21 ongoing activities at the nuclear power plant have not changed appreciably with time, and no 22 change in land use and aesthetic impacts are expected during initial LR and SLR. Based on 23 this, the following data or information may be needed:

24

• a description of the applicants process for identifying new and significant land use and 25 visual resource information in the ER 26

• any new and significant plant-specific land use and aesthetic impact information identified 27 during scoping 28

• any new and significant plant-specific land use and aesthetic impact information identified 29 during site visit, staff environmental review, and discussions with the applicant.

30 4.2.2 Acceptance Criteria 31 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of 32 land use and aesthetic impacts.

4-16

1 4.2.3 Review Procedures 2 The following review steps are suggested:

3 1. The applicant is required by NRC regulation to disclose new and significant land use and 4 visual resource information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which 5 it is aware (see 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)). In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the 6 applicants process for discovering new land use and visual resource information and 7 evaluating the significance of any new information discovered.

8 2. Review public scoping meeting transcripts and related correspondence. Compare any new 9 land use and visual resource information with the conclusions in the LR GEIS.

10 3. Evaluate the significance of any new information for its effect on the land use and aesthetic 11 impact analysis.

12 4. Prepare SEIS discussion describing the search for new and significant information, 13 summarizing any new information found and the results of the significance evaluation.

14 Incorporate by reference the conclusions from the LR GEIS for the proposed action or 15 modify as necessary to account for any significant new information.

16 4.2.4 Evaluation Findings 17 The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining land 18 use and aesthetic impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities 19 associated with license renewal.

20 4.3 Air Quality and Noise 21 4.3.1 Areas of Review 22 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of air quality and noise impacts from continued 23 plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Air quality and noise 24 impacts are discussed in LR GEIS, NUREG-1437, Revision 2 (NRC 2023a).

25 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the LR GEIS, 26 (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 27 information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable air quality and 28 noise (Category 1) issues considered in the LR GEIS for initial LR or SLR.

29 Projected air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment are a Category 1 30 issue in the LR GEIS and Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51. Air quality effects of 31 transmission lines and noise impacts are also Category 1 issues.

32 Data and Information Needs 33 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 34 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

35

• the applicants ER 36

• the LR GEIS 37

• new information on the air quality impacts identified by the public and other information 38 sources.

4-17

1 4.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 2 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 of this ESRP also apply for the 3 evaluation of air quality and noise impacts.

4 4.3.3 Review Procedures 5 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

6 1. Review the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the LR GEIS to identify the 7 information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for 8 evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

9 2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The 10 following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

11 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 12 and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of 13 which it is aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 14 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information 15 discovered.

16 - Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.

17 Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the LR 18 GEIS.

19 3. Evaluate the significance of new information.

20 4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 21 information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 22 from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information.

23 4.3.4 Evaluation Findings 24 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 25 reach a conclusion related to the potential air quality impacts, effects of in-scope transmission 26 lines, and noise impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment. The information 27 that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

28 4.4 Geology and Soils 29 4.4.1 Areas of Review 30 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of potential impacts of continued plant operations 31 during the license renewal term and refurbishment associated with geology and soils. Impacts 32 are discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

33 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of geology and soils in the LR GEIS, (2) review 34 of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant information, and 35 (4) preparing input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable geology and soils issue (Category 36 1) considered in the LR GEIS for initial LR and SLR.

4-18

1 Data and Information Needs 2 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 3 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

4

• the applicants ER 5

• the LR GEIS 6

• new information on geology and soils identified by the public and other information sources.

7 4.4.2 Acceptance Criteria 8 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of 9 geology and soil impacts.

10 4.4.3 Review Procedures 11 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

12 1. Review the discussion of geology and soils impacts in the LR GEIS to identify the 13 information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for 14 evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following 15 table lists the geology and soils issue addressed in the LR GEIS.

16 2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The 17 following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

18 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 19 and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of 20 which it is aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 21 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information 22 discovered.

23 - Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.

24 Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the LR 25 GEIS.

26 3. Evaluate the significance of new information.

27 4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 28 information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 29 from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information.

30 4.4.4 Evaluation Findings 31 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 32 reach a conclusion related to the potential geology and soils impacts from continued plant 33 operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be 34 included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

4-19

1 4.5 Water Resources 2 4.5.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis of surface water and groundwater impacts from 4 continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Surface water 5 and groundwater impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS, NUREG-1437, Revision 2 (NRC 6 2023a).

7 The scope includes (1) review the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the 8 LR GEIS, (2) review the applicants ER, (3) identify and address any new and significant 9 information, and (4) prepare input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issues 10 and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issues for surface water and groundwater issues 11 identified in the LR GEIS for initial LR and SLR.

12 4.5.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Water Resources Issues) 13 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, acceptance criteria 14 for the evaluation of surface water and groundwater impacts are based on the following 15 requirements:

16

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicants plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds 17 and withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed 18 action on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related 19 impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be 20 provided. The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal 21 of water from the river on alluvial aquifers during low flow.

22

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). If the applicants plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) 23 of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on 24 groundwater must be provided.

25

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D). If the applicants plant utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of 26 the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality must be provided.

27

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). An applicant shall assess the impact of any documented 28 inadvertent releases of radionuclides into groundwater. The applicant shall include in its 29 assessment a description of any groundwater protection program used for the surveillance 30 of piping and components containing radioactive liquids for which a pathway to groundwater 31 may exist. The assessment must also include a description of any past inadvertent releases 32 and the projected impact to the environment (e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds, the ocean) 33 during the license renewal term.

34

• 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A, concerning procedures on floodplain management and 35 wetlands protection 36

• Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribe water laws and water rights 37

• 40 CFR Part 121, State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit 38

• 40 CFR Part 122, concerning the NPDES permit conditions for discharges including 39 stormwater discharges 40

• 40 CFR Part 124, concerning the NPDES permit process 41

• 40 CFR Part 125, concerning water-quality standards for the NPDES program 4-20

1

• 40 CFR Part 133, concerning treated effluents 2

• 40 CFR Part 149, concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and 3 water use in or above a sole source aquifer 4

• 40 CFR Part 165, concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides 5

• 40 CFR Part 403, concerning pretreatment of waste effluents 6

• 40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent limitations for the steam electric power generating 7 point source category.

8 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are 9 as follows (10 CFR 51.71(d)):

10 Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the 11 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water 12 Act, is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh 13 the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of 14 water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are 15 available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of 16 aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC should 17 consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the 18 environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost balance. When no such 19 assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the 20 NRC (to the degree possible in conjunction with the permitting authority and 21 other agencies having relevant expertise) should establish its own impact 22 determination.

23 In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994),

24 the United States Supreme Court interpreted the CWA as allowing States to impose conditions 25 on certifications, such as limitations on a given project, insofar as necessary to enforce a 26 designated use contained in the State's water quality standard. The Court held that these 27 limitations do not have to be specifically tied to a discharge requirement.

28 4.5.3 Review Procedures (General for Water Resources Issues) 29 1. Review the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the LR GEIS to identify 30 the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for 31 evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

32 2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The 33 following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

34 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 35 and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of 36 which it is aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 37 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information 38 discovered.

39 - Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.

40 Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the LR 41 GEIS.

42 - Identify relative sources of information used for evaluating impacts, including:

4-21

1 Studies and monitoring programs: Consider and briefly summarize as 2 appropriate any studies or monitoring programs that provide site-specific data 3 and can assist with understanding the environmental impacts. Include the 4 location, dates, objectives, methods, and results applicable to this license 5 renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be available for 6 NRC review.

7 If data are more than five years old, explain why the studies would or would not 8 be relevant for assessing the effects of present and projected future plant 9 operation over the term of license renewal. For example, consider whether both 10 the potentially affected resources and the effect of the plant on them have 11 remained and can be expected to remain unchanged over the term of license 12 renewal.

13 Communications with and views of regulatory agencies: Document any 14 communications with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality or 15 water allocation permitting agencies) that are relevant to assessing impact and 16 are not documented elsewhere in the ER. If relevant communications are 17 documented elsewhere, refer the reader to the appropriate sections.

18 Other sources: Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to 19 assess impact and provide a list of references at the end of the chapter.

20 3. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 21 information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 22 from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information.

23 Additional specific guidance follows for each surface water and groundwater issue identified as 24 plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS.

25 4.5.4 Evaluation Findings 26 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 27 reach a conclusion related to the potential surface and groundwater impacts from continued 28 plant operations during the license renewal term and from any refurbishment. The information 29 that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

30 4.5.5 Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants With Cooling Ponds Or Cooling Towers 31 Using Makeup Water From A River) 32 4.5.5.1 Areas of Review 33 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential surface water use conflicts at plants 34 using cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup water from a river. Impacts are 35 discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

36 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of surface water use conflicts in the LR GEIS 37 for initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new 38 and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.

4-22

1 Data and Information Needs 2 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 3 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

4

• the applicants ER 5

• the LR GEIS 6

• new information on surface water and groundwater use identified by the public and other 7 information sources.

8 4.5.5.2 Acceptance Criteria 9 Acceptance criteria for evaluating the use of surface water and groundwater are addressed in 10 ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources.

11 4.5.5.3 Review Procedures 12 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

13 1. Review the discussion of potential surface water use conflicts with nearby surface water 14 users at plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river in the 15 LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step 16 establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and 17 the staff.

18 2. Summarize average and peak surface water withdrawals and consumptive water use for the 19 current license term and quantify any projected increases during the license renewal term by 20 the nuclear power plant (see ESRP Section 3.5).

21 3. Briefly describe the hydrologic regime of the affected surface waters, including relevant 22 information on the watershed, drainage basin, subbasin, catchment, etc. and including 23 contributing and any interconnected alluvial aquifers, wetlands, and riparian areas.

24 4. For the period of record, describe and assess mean annual river flow (discharge), monthly 25 mean flow, 90-percent exceedance flow, high and low-flow extremes, and consider and 26 describe conditions that could lead to extreme low-flow periods.

27 5. Identify other surface water users relying on the affected surface waters, including 28 downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users with which the nuclear power plant 29 may compete, and quantify their average, peak, and seasonal water demands.

30 6. Use the general review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also 31 consider and review the following:

32 - a description of the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant 33 information 34 - any new information included in the applicants ER on surface water use conflicts and 35 quality issues known to the applicant and the public 36 - any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 37 operational water-use impact 38 - summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-39 body restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 4-23

1 - Federal, State, regional, local and Indian Tribe standards and regulations applicable to 2 water use including surface water withdrawal registration and reporting and consumptive 3 water use and return flows 4 - proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use standards and 5 regulations.

6 7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:

7 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 8 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 9 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 10 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

11 4.5.5.4 Evaluation Findings 12 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 13 reach a conclusion related to the potential surface water use conflicts from continued plant 14 operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The information that should be 15 included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

16 4.5.6 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More Than 100 Gallons Per 17 Minute [gpm])

18 4.5.6.1 Areas of Review 19 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential groundwater use conflicts at plants 20 pumping more than 100 gallons per minute for potable and service water and operational 21 dewatering, as well as those using Ranney wells. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS 22 (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

23 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the LR GEIS for 24 initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and 25 potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.

26 Data and Information Needs 27 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 28 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

29

• the applicants ER 30

• the LR GEIS 31

• new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information 32

• sources.

33 4.5.6.2 Acceptance Criteria 34 Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP 35 Section 4.5, Water Resources.

4-24

1 4.5.6.3 Review Procedures 2 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

3 1. Review the discussion of the potential for groundwater water use conflicts with nearby 4 groundwater users at plants pumping more than 100 gallons per minute in the LR GEIS.

5 This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the 6 public, and the staff.

7 2. Determine the total seasonal groundwater pumpage needs for the plant. If any season has 8 an average groundwater pumpage of greater than 100 gallons per minute, then continue the 9 analysis at Step 3. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the plants 10 groundwater use and concludes that there are no impacts resulting from groundwater 11 pumpage for potable and service water and operational dewatering.

12 3. Determine the extent of the influence of the plants well(s) predicted by either standard 13 analytic approaches or numerical models. Steady-state analytic approaches can be used 14 with the maximum seasonal pumping rates. Numerical models can be used either with the 15 maximum pumping rate to estimate steady-state drawdown or with the average seasonal 16 pumping rates for a transient simulation of the drawdown. Any model results should be 17 validated with any piezometer observations. Possible impacts on predictions from 18 heterogeneous aquifer parameters, particularly stratigraphy, should be considered. If the 19 extent of the cone of depression caused by the plants well(s) extends beyond the sites 20 boundary, then continue the analysis. This assessment also can include independent 21 review by the NRC staff of modeling analyses or semi-quantitative analyses prepared by the 22 applicant, with adequate supporting documentation.

23 4. Determine the magnitude of the reduction in yield resulting from the plants pumpage 24 predicted by numerical procedures. If the drawdown extends beyond the site boundary and 25 into a zone influenced by other wells, then continue the analysis.

26 5. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and 27 review the following:

28 - descriptions of the site and local groundwater aquifers including geohydrologic 29 characterization data 30 - descriptions of the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation and pumpage 31 rates for wells both inside and outside the site boundary 32 - descriptions of any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or 33 limit operational water-use impacts 34 - descriptions of Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribe standards 35 and regulations applicable to groundwater use 36 - descriptions of proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and 37 applicable water quality standards and regulations.

38 6. Review the applicants ER, including:

39 - applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 40 - any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues 41 known to the applicant or the public 42 - any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 43 operational water-use impact 4-25

1 - summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-2 body restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 3 - proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and water quality 4 standards and regulations.

5 7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:

6 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 7 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 8 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 9 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

10 4.5.6.4 Evaluation Findings 11 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 12 reach a conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant 13 operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be 14 included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

15 4.5.7 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants With Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems That 16 Withdraw Makeup Water From A River) 17 4.5.7.1 Areas of Review 18 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of groundwater-use conflicts resulting from 19 surface-water withdrawals from a river during low-flow conditions. Impacts are discussed in the 20 LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

21 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the LR GEIS for 22 initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and 23 potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.

24 Data and Information Needs 25 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 26 plant- specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

27

• the applicants ER 28

• the LR GEIS 29

• new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information 30 sources.

31 4.5.7.2 Acceptance Criteria 32 Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP 33 Section 4.5, Water Resources.

4-26

1 4.5.7.3 Review Procedures 2 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

3 1. Review the discussion in the LR GEIS of potential groundwater use conflicts resulting from 4 surface-water withdrawals during low-flow conditions that may affect alluvial aquifer 5 recharge and groundwater users. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information 6 identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

7 2. Determine whether the river used for makeup water supply is oversubscribed (i.e., the 8 demand for water exceeds water availability) during any season. Water-use permits often 9 include specific restrictions on withdrawals during certain low-flow conditions. If the basin is 10 oversubscribed, continue the analysis. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that 11 describes the plants surface water withdrawals and concludes that no impacts are expected 12 on groundwater users including alluvial aquifers resulting from surface water withdrawals 13 during low-flow conditions.

14 3. Determine whether the river recharges the aquifer or the aquifer discharges into the river. If 15 the aquifer consistently discharges to the river, then groundwater withdrawals would not be 16 impacted by changes in river flow, whereas the river flows would be impacted by the 17 groundwater withdrawals, although often not significantly. If the aquifer is consistently 18 recharged by the river, then groundwater withdrawals would be impacted by changes in river 19 flow, whereas the river flow would not be significantly impacted by the groundwater 20 withdrawals. Often the direction of water transfer between rivers and their associated 21 aquifers alternates back and forth as one moves downstream. By comparing the 22 piezometer data from the affected aquifer with the river stage height data, the direction of 23 flow can be determined. If the aquifer does not consistently discharge into the river 24 downstream from the makeup water withdrawal location, continue the analysis.

25 4. Determine the magnitude of the reduction in groundwater yield resulting from the plants 26 cooling tower makeup water withdrawal. Estimating the magnitude of the reduction of 27 groundwater yield generally requires application of analytic or numerical models. This 28 assessment can also include independent review by the NRC staff of modeling analyses or 29 semi-quantitative analyses prepared by the applicant, with adequate supporting 30 documentation. Only those wells located in areas downstream from the makeup water 31 diversion and completed in an aquifer that includes recharge from the river need be 32 considered. Sensitivity analyses should be included on the parameters governing the 33 exchange of water between the river and the aquifer. Based on the magnitude of the 34 reduction in yield, the impact would be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.

35 5. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and 36 review the following:

37 - descriptions of the site, the affected river, and the local groundwater aquifers, including 38 geohydrologic characterization data 39 - the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation, surface withdrawals, 40 groundwater withdrawals, stream stage height for the river, and for the aquifer with 41 hydraulic connection to the river 42 - any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 43 operational water-use impacts 44 - Federal, State, regional, local and Indian Tribe standards and regulations applicable to 45 groundwater and surface-water use 4-27

1 - proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-use permits, standards, 2 and regulations.

3 6. Review the applicants ER, including:

4 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 5 - any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues 6 known to the applicant or the public 7 - any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 8 operational water use impact 9 - summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-10 body restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 11 - proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use standards and 12 regulations.

13 7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:

14 - analyzes the impacts continued plant operations and refurbishment 15 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 16 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 17 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

18 4.5.7.4 Evaluation Findings 19 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 20 reach a conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant 21 operations during the during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that 22 should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

23 4.5.8 Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants With Cooling Ponds) 24 4.5.8.1 Areas of Review 25 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential impact of groundwater quality 26 degradation resulting from closed cycle cooling ponds. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS 27 (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

28 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater quality degradation in the 29 LR GEIS for initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing 30 any new and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.

31 Data and Information Needs 32 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 33 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

34

• the applicants ER 35

• the LR GEIS 4-28

1

• new information on groundwater quality degradation identified by the public and other 2 information sources.

3 4.5.8.2 Acceptance Criteria 4 Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater quality degradation are addressed in 5 ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources.

6 4.5.8.3 Review Procedures 7 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

8 1. Review the discussion of groundwater quality degradation resulting from closed-cycle 9 cooling-pond sites leaking into the subsurface and aquifers in the LR GEIS. This step 10 establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, 11 and the staff.

12 2. Determine the evolving chemical composition of the cooling pond water. Closed-cycle 13 cooling ponds may have high concentrations of total dissolved solids, heavy metals, and 14 chlorinated organic compounds as a result of evaporation, contact with plant equipment, 15 and water-treatment systems, respectively. These concentrations can evolve over time.

16 The current chemical composition of the cooling water should be described, as well as the 17 estimated chemical composition throughout the renewal term.

18 3. Review monitoring data on the chemical composition of groundwater in the vadose zone 19 and aquifer that would likely receive water infiltrating from the cooling pond, as well as 20 groundwater unaffected by the cooling pond. If the ambient groundwater quality in the 21 aquifer is better than the estimated quality of the cooling pond water during the license 22 renewal term, then continue with the analysis. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS 23 that describes the current and projected cooling pond quality and underlying groundwater 24 quality and concludes that no impacts are expected on groundwater quality from continued 25 cooling pond operations, including degradation of groundwater for beneficial uses.

26 4. Review monitoring data on the infiltration from the cooling ponds to the water table. If 27 the cooling ponds have no liners or the liners are not expected to remain impermeable 28 throughout the license renewal term, then continue with the analysis.

29 5. Describe the estimated infiltration rate from the ponds throughout the license renewal term.

30 These estimates should be used as the boundary conditions for a groundwater flow and 31 transport model. Vadose zone transport can be neglected if the water infiltrating beneath 32 the cooling pond is assumed to immediately enter the aquifer. If the predicted groundwater 33 plume associated with a conservative nonsorbing tracer is likely to enter the zone of 34 influence of a well, then continue the analysis. This assessment can also include 35 independent review by the NRC staff of modeling analyses or semi-quantitative analyses 36 prepared by the applicant, with adequate supporting documentation.

37 6. Describe the changes in water quality for each of the impacted supply wells. Both the timing 38 and magnitude of water quality changes should be described. Because this analysis would 39 require the application of groundwater flow and transport simulation models, describe the 40 model calibration activities and any peer-review activities. Compare the predicted changes 41 in groundwater quality to the current or future beneficial uses for the groundwater to assess 42 the magnitude of the impact.

43 7. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and 44 review the following:

4-29

1 - cooling pond characteristics (e.g., use of liners, use of impermeable materials, 2 impermeable soils) that would retard/prevent infiltration into local aquifers 3 - types and concentrations of impurities in the cooling pond water and chemistry of soils 4 along pathways to local aquifers to determine whether cooling pond water can 5 contaminate the groundwater or local surface water 6 - quality of water of local aquifers that could be affected by infiltration of cooling pond 7 water 8 - Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribe groundwater quality 9 requirements with emphasis on any changes to these requirements that have occurred 10 during the plants license term and any anticipated changes to those requirements 11 during the license renewal term 12 - offsite groundwater users who could be affected by the degradation of aquifers; 13 characterization should include locations and elevations of offsite wells, their pumping 14 rates, and the water needs of groundwater users 15 - the predicted cumulative effects of using closed-cycle cooling ponds on groundwater 16 quality. This description should include maps of the contamination plume. Information 17 should be provided on groundwater contamination existing at the time of the license 18 renewal application and projected contamination during the license renewal term 19 - the mitigation measures proposed to prevent or minimize groundwater quality 20 degradation and the estimated impact of implementing these measures. Explain the 21 reasons for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

22 8. Review the applicants ER, including:

23 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 24 - any new information included in the ER on the groundwater quality degradation issues 25 known to the applicant and the public 26 - any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 27 operational water-use impact 28 - summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water quality or specific 29 restrictions on groundwater use and quality imposed by State or Federal regulations 30 - proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and water quality 31 standards and regulations.

32 9. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:

33 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 34 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 35 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 36 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

37 4.5.8.4 Evaluation Findings 38 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 39 reach a conclusion related to the potential groundwater quality degradation from continued plant 40 operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be 41 included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

4-30

1 4.5.9 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater 2 4.5.9.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential for radionuclides released to 4 groundwater due to inadvertent leaks of radioactive liquids as a result of continued plant 5 operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS 6 (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

7 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of radionuclides released to groundwater in the 8 LR GEIS for initial LR or SLR, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing 9 any new and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.

10 Data and Information Needs 11 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 12 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

13

• the applicants ER 14

• the LR GEIS 15

• new information on radionuclides released to groundwater identified by the public and other 16 information sources.

17 4.5.9.2 Acceptance Criteria 18 Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of radionuclides released to groundwater are addressed in 19 ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources.

20 4.5.9.3 Review Procedures 21 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

22 1. Review the discussion of the potential for radionuclides released to groundwater in the LR 23 GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, 24 the public, and the staff.

25 2. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and 26 review the following: For plants that have groundwater monitoring systems with wells, 27 review and describe:

28 - locations of monitoring wells and water supply wells, including construction information 29 such as depth, diameter, screened interval, and construction material 30 - depths of wells and groundwater elevations 31 - groundwater flow for each aquifer, hydrostratigraphic unit, or other strata (e.g., backfill) 32 potentially impacted by the releases of liquids containing radionuclides beneath the site 33 - radionuclide concentrations across the site (e.g., tritium concentrations expressed as 34 picocuries per liter) 35 - the plants groundwater protection program 4-31

1 - for plants that rely on a system other than a groundwater monitoring system composed 2 of wells, describe the program used for preventing, detecting, and responding to 3 inadvertent releases of radioactive materials into the groundwater.

4 3. Review the applicants ER, including 5 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 6 - any new information included in the ER on incidents regarding radionuclides released to 7 groundwater known to the applicant or the public 8 - any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 9 operational groundwater quality impact (best management practices) 10 - summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water quality or specific 11 restrictions on groundwater use and quality imposed by State or Federal regulations 12 - proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and water quality 13 standards and regulations.

14 4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 15 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 16 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any 17 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts, if any 18 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

19 4.5.9.4 Evaluation Findings 20 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 21 reach a conclusion related to the potential impacts of radionuclides released to groundwater 22 from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The 23 information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

24 4.6 Ecological Resources 25 4.6.1 Areas of Review 26 This ESRP provides guidance on how the NRC staff should consider the potential effects of 27 continued operation of a nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR term on ecological 28 resources. Ecological resources include terrestrial, aquatic, and federally protected resources.

29 Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

30 The scope of this review includes (1) review of the LR GEISs analysis of ecological impacts 31 from license renewal for initial LR or SLR, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) review of 32 available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue, (4) identification and 33 disposition of any new and significant information, and (5) preparation of SEIS input. Table 4-1 34 lists the applicable Category 1 issues and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issues for 35 terrestrial and aquatic resource issues identified in the LR GEIS.

36 Ecological impact assessment for license renewal differs from that for original licensing because 37 license renewal reviews occur after a nuclear power plant has an established history of 38 operation. Whereas ecological impact assessment during initial licensing is predictive or 39 prospective (e.g., it assumes a proposed stressor and proceeds to estimate impacts), the 4-32

1 assessment for license renewal can use a combination of prospective and retrospective 2 approaches. For example, ecological modeling could be used to predict future impacts (in 3 either original licensing or license renewal), while empirical statistical analysis could be used to 4 assess past impacts based on actual observations (in license renewal only). Suter and 5 Barnthouse (1993) discuss the differences between prospective and retrospective assessment 6 and appropriate techniques for their analysis.

7 Data and Information Needs 8 The ecological resources review may require the following information on the ecological 9 environment. Data and information needed for a given review would be site-specific and would 10 depend on nuclear power plant site-specific and plant-specific factors.

11

• the applicants ER 12

• the LR GEIS 13

• copies of ecological surveys and studies performed on or near the site 14

• copies of regional, state, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls that reduce or 15 mitigate impacts on the ecological environment 16

• copies of site- or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best 17 management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken or proposed by the applicant 18

• transmission line ROW maintenance procedures 19

• information on federally protected ecological resources from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 20 Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) 21 and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) databases and State natural 22 heritage sites, including species and habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act 23 (ESA), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and National 24 Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 25

• new information on ecological resources identified by the public and other information 26 sources.

27 4.6.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Ecological Resources Issues) 28 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, acceptance criteria 29 for the evaluation of ecological resource impacts are based on the following requirements:

30

• 40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 125, concerning impingement mortality and entrainment 31 at existing facilities subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) 32

• 40 CFR Part 423, concerning thermal effluent discharges subject to CWA Section 316(a) 33

• 50 CFR Part 402, concerning interagency consultation for federally listed species and critical 34 habitats protected under the ESA 35

• 50 CFR Part 600, concerning interagency consultation for essential fish habitat (EFH) 36 protected under the MSA.

37 The following Federal statutes also apply to the ecological resources review. See Section 3.6.2 38 for brief summaries of each statute.

39

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d) 4-33

1

• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)

2

• Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.)

3

• Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)

4

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.)

5

• Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.)

6

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.)

7

• National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.)

8

• Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. 403 et seq.).

9 The following additional NRC guidance may be relevant to the ecological resources review.

10 See Section 3.6.2 for brief summaries of each document.

11

• Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 2, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power 12 Stations (NRC 2012b) 13

• Regulatory Guide 4.24, Rev. 0, Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations 14 (NRC 2017a).

15 4.6.3 Review Procedures (General For Ecological Resources Issues) 16 For all ecological issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental impacts of 17 license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) framework 18 for ecological risk assessment. The analysis should consider how nuclear power plant 19 operation would affect ecosystem structure and function, alter the stability of plant or animal 20 populations, modify the value or availability of ecosystem services, or noticeably affect other 21 attributes of the ecological environment. Ecosystem services refer to a wide range of conditions 22 and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, help 23 sustain and fulfill human life (Daily et al. 1997).

24 1. Review the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the LR GEIS. This step establishes 25 the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, relevant Federal and State 26 resource agencies, affected Indian Tribes, the public, and the staff. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 27 identify the 24 ecological resource issues (15 Category 1 and 9 Category 2) evaluated in the 28 LR GEIS and codified in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.

29 2. Review the discussion of license renewal and its impacts on ecological resources provided 30 in the applicants ER.

31 3. Identify the relevant sources of information, which may include:

32 - Surveys, studies, and monitoring. Summarize any surveys, studies, and monitoring that 33 provide site-specific, local, or regional data on ecological resources and that are relevant 34 to assessing the environmental impacts of license renewal and alternatives. Include the 35 biological entities or ecological attributes chosen for investigation, methodology, results, 36 and conclusions.

37 - Communications with and views of relevant regulatory agencies. Document any 38 communications with Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes with special 39 expertise or jurisdiction (e.g., EPA or other water quality permitting agencies concerning 40 impingement and entrainment and thermal impacts; FWS and NMFS concerning 4-34

1 federally listed species and critical habitats; State natural resource agencies; etc.) that 2 are relevant to assessing impacts and are not documented elsewhere. Include the 3 views of affected Indian Tribes in cases where culturally significant ecological resources 4 may be affected. Discuss major points of view and significant concerns or objections 5 raised by these entities. If relevant communications are documented elsewhere, refer 6 the reader to the appropriate sections. Include other interested stakeholders, as 7 appropriate.

8 - Other sources. Include in-text citations to other sources of information relied upon and 9 provide full citations in a literature cited section.

10 4. Identify specific ecological resources and the attributes of those resources potentially at risk.

11 Because ecological systems are complicated, only a subset of resources can be addressed.

12 - Identify the potentially affected ecological resources. Describe the potentially affected 13 resources in terms of ecosystem or habitat type (e.g., oak-hickory forest, tallgrass 14 prairie, tidal salt marsh). Give special attention to important habitats (e.g., important bird 15 areas, known bat hibernacula, spawning and rearing areas, locally significant habitats, 16 natural heritage areas, wildlife sanctuaries and preserves, federally or state-managed 17 lands and waters).

18 - Describe the potentially affected plants and animals in terms of functional groups 19 (e.g., plants, mammals, reptiles, fish, invertebrates, etc.) or trophic structure 20 (e.g., producers and consumers). For instance, an aquatic system may include 21 plankton, macrophytes, and periphyton (primary producers); zooplankton and benthic 22 macroinvertebrates (primary consumers); and bottom feeding, planktivorous, and 23 piscivorous fish (secondary and tertiary consumers).

24 - For federally protected ecological resources, identify and describe the potentially 25 affected federally listed species and designated critical habitats under the ESA. Include 26 candidate and proposed species and proposed critical habitats, if applicable. Identify 27 and describe EFH, including habitats of particular concern (HAPC), by federally 28 managed species and life stage. Identify and describe any national marine sanctuaries 29 and the living and nonliving resources of those sanctuaries.

30 - Identify attributes of those resources potentially at risk. Identify the attributes of the 31 resources of concern that are potentially at risk and that are important to protect (EPA 32 1998). If adverse effects on a species, habitat, or other ecological resource are 33 possible, the resource should be assessed in terms of spatial scale (e.g., local, regional, 34 or national), temporal scale (e.g., the time frame over which stressors or effects will be 35 evaluated), and resource value (e.g., social, economic, or ecological).

36 - Evaluate biodiversity, which refers to the variety of life on Earth at all its levels including 37 genes, individuals, species, habitats, and ecosystems. As an important attribute to 38 consider, biodiversity helps maintain the structural diversity and functional integrity of 39 ecosystems and provides a wide pool of biological resources that can respond and 40 adapt to various natural and human-made stressors (CEQ 1993).

41 5. Explain the relationships between nuclear power plant operation and ecological resource 42 attributes. Relationships can be examined by identifying the pathways through which 43 potential stressors act on the chosen ecological receptors and expressing these as risk 44 hypotheses (see EPA 1998, Section 3.4.1). Risk hypotheses may be very simple, predicting 45 the potential effect of one stressor on one receptor, or extremely complex.

4-35

1 6. Assess and characterize potential impacts. For each potential stressor, multiple ecological 2 receptors may exist, and each receptor may have multiple measurable and susceptible 3 attributes. The effects of nuclear power plant operation on any ecological receptor may be 4 direct or indirect and may vary in spatial or temporal scale. Additionally, the assessment 5 approach may be prospective or retrospective depending on the available data. With such 6 complexity, examining a single line of evidence may not be sufficient to assess a given 7 impact. In such cases, the reviewer should examine several lines of evidence involving 8 several ecological receptors when data allow. If using multiple lines of evidence, explain the 9 qualitative or quantitative method for combining the lines of evidence to arrive at an overall 10 assessment of impact. A typical approach for accomplishing this to consider weight of 11 evidence (e.g., Menzie et al. 1996; EPA 1998).

12 If adverse impacts are identified, describe mitigation measures that have been implemented 13 at the nuclear power plant to reduce such impacts and note whether such measures would 14 continue during the license renewal term. Describe any additional mitigation proposed by 15 the applicant or measures that would be required in the future (e.g., conditions anticipated in 16 a future renewed NPDES permit concerning best technology available to minimize 17 impingement mortality and entrainment). Evaluate the expected effects of the mitigation 18 measures. Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were 19 considered but rejected.

20 7. Review in the ER the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant 21 information and any new information concerning ecological resource issues.

22 8. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:

23 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 24 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 25 - identifies new and significant information, if applicable 26 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts.

27 4.6.4 Evaluation Findings 28 The depth and extent of written input to the SEIS should be governed by the number of 29 Category 2 issues applicable to the review and the depth of analysis required to reach a 30 conclusion concerning the potential impacts of license renewal on ecological resources.

31 The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

32 4.6.5 Non-Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 33 4.6.5.1 Areas of Review 34 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the effects of nuclear power plant operations on 35 terrestrial resources during an initial LR or SLR term that are unrelated to operation of the 36 cooling system. Such activities include landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater 37 management, elevated noise levels and vibration, and ground-disturbing activities. Section 38 4.6.1.1.1 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The scope of this review includes 39 (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) review of 40 available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue, (4) identification and 41 disposition of any new and potentially significant information, and (5) preparation of input for the 42 SEIS.

4-36

1 Data and Information Needs 2 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 3 resource impacts.

4 4.6.5.2 Acceptance Criteria 5 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 6 for the evaluation of non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources are based on the 7 following requirements:

8

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of 9 refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction 10 activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the 11 impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance 12 with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered 13 Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 14 National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

15 4.6.5.3 Review Procedures 16 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 17 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 18 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review 19 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 20 steps unique to the issue of non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources.

21 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

22 2. Review the discussion in the applicants ER of activities associated with license renewal 23 unrelated to operation of the cooling system that could affect terrestrial resources. Such 24 activities include landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater management, elevated 25 noise levels and vibration, and ground-disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities may 26 be related to refurbishment or other planned activities during the license renewal period that 27 involve demolition or construction.

28 3. Describe the following, with a focus on the interfaces with the terrestrial environment and 29 how site procedures, permits, and other controls minimize or mitigate impacts on the 30 terrestrial environment.

31 - Summarize the applicants site and landscape maintenance activities. Identify site 32 procedures and permits related to the impacts of these activities on terrestrial resources.

33 - Summarize stormwater management on the site, including any stormwater management 34 plans and NPDES permit conditions related to the impacts of stormwater on terrestrial 35 resources.

36 - Summarize any elevated noise or vibration levels that would be of particular concern for 37 terrestrial resources, such as those that could disrupt wildlife behavioral patterns or 38 cause animals to avoid certain areas.

39 - Describe general operations and maintenance activities during the license renewal 40 period that could affect terrestrial resources such as maintenance or repair of existing 41 buildings, roadways, parking lots, piping, fencing, and security-related structures.

4-37

1 - Describe ground-disturbing activities anticipated during the license renewal period that 2 would disturb terrestrial habitat. Include the amount of land to be disturbed, whether 3 disturbance would be temporary or permanent, the ecological characteristics of the 4 habitat, the species found within the area, and any unique or rare features of the habitat 5 or species found within it. Include terrestrial habitat that would be disturbed by transport 6 or delivery of equipment and supplies as well as laydown or storage of materials, 7 structures, and components. Describe any related road, bridge, rail, or barge slip 8 modifications that would occur that would affect terrestrial habitat.

9 4. Discuss relevant regional, state, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls not already 10 described that would reduce or mitigate non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources.

11 5. Describe site- or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best 12 management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken or proposed by the applicant 13 that would benefit the terrestrial environment or otherwise mitigate non-cooling system 14 impacts on terrestrial resources.

15 6. Review the applicants ER, including 16 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 17 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 18 applicant and the public.

19 7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that 20 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 21 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 22 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 23 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

24 4.6.5.4 Evaluation Findings 25 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 26 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on terrestrial 27 resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 28 procedures.

29 4.6.6 Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants With Cooling Ponds Or 30 Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water From A River) 31 4.6.6.1 Areas of Review 32 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear 33 power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how 34 those conflicts could affect terrestrial resources during the initial LR or SLR term. Notably, this 35 issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems that withdraw makeup 36 water from a river (i.e., once-through cooling systems with helper cooling towers) (e.g., NRC 37 2020b). Section 4.6.1.1.6 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The scope of this 38 review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants 39 ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue, 40 (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant information, and 41 (5) preparation of SEIS input.

4-38

1 Data and Information Needs 2 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 3 resource impacts.

4 4.6.6.2 Acceptance Criteria 5 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 6 for the evaluation of water use conflicts with terrestrial resources are based on the following 7 requirements:

8

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicants plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds 9 and withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed 10 action on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related 11 impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be 12 provided.

13 4.6.6.3 Review Procedures 14 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 15 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 16 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review 17 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 18 steps unique to the issue of water use conflicts with terrestrial resources.

19 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

20 2. Review the discussion in the applicants ER concerning surface water use.

21 3. Describe the following, with a focus on the interfaces with the terrestrial environment and 22 how site procedures, permits, and other controls minimize or mitigate impacts on the 23 terrestrial environment. Give special attention to riparian, wetland, and marsh habitats that 24 require regular or periodic surface water flow.

25 - Summarize the baseline hydrologic regime of the affected surface waters, including 26 seasonal fluctuations in flow and conditions that could lead to extreme periods of low 27 flow.

28 - Summarize current and anticipated consumptive water use by the nuclear power plant.

29 - Identify other users relying on the affected surface waters, including downstream 30 municipal, agricultural, or industrial users, with which the nuclear power plant may 31 compete.

32 - Identify terrestrial habitats and species that would be especially sensitive to reduced 33 water availability (e.g., riparian, wetland, marsh, and other habitats that require 34 saturation or periodic inundation; amphibians, especially early life stages; wildlife that 35 heavily rely on surface waters, such as beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra 36 zibethicus), and wading birds; etc.).

37 - Discuss regional, state, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls concerning water 38 use and any agreements with water resources control boards.

39 - Summarize any other current or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 40 operational water-use impacts.

4-39

1 - Describe past water use conflicts with terrestrial resources, if any, and evaluate whether 2 such conflicts would be likely to arise again during the license renewal term.

3 4. Review the applicants ER, including 4 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 5 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 6 applicant and the public.

7 5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that 8 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 9 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 10 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 11 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

12 4.6.6.4 Evaluation Findings 13 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 14 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on terrestrial 15 resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 16 procedures.

17 4.6.7 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with 18 Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) 19 4.6.7.1 Areas of Review 20 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of impingement mortality and 21 entrainment (IM&E) at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds 22 during the license renewal term. Section 4.6.1.2.1 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this 23 issue during initial LR or SLR. The scope of this review includes (1) review of the relevant 24 sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) review of available studies, data, 25 and other available information related to the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new 26 and potentially significant information, and (5) preparation of SEIS input.

27 Notably for this issue, Section 316(b) of the CWA addresses the adverse environmental impacts 28 caused by the intake of cooling water from waters of the United States. This section of the 29 CWA grants the EPA the authority to regulate cooling water intake structures to minimize 30 adverse impacts on the aquatic environment. Under the CWA Section 316(b) regulations for 31 existing facilities at 40 CFR 122 and 40 CFR 125, Subpart J, the location, design, construction, 32 and capacity of cooling water intake structures of regulated facilities must reflect the best 33 technology available (BTA) for minimizing IM&E. The EPA, or authorized States and Indian 34 Tribes, are responsible for making BTA determinations. These agencies impose BTA 35 requirements through NPDES permitting programs. When available, the NRC staff relies on the 36 expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting authority with respect to the impacts of IM&E.

37 Data and Information Needs 38 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 39 resource impacts.

4-40

1 4.6.7.2 Acceptance Criteria 2 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 3 for the evaluation of impingement mortality and entrainment are based on the following 4 requirements:

5

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicants plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling 6 pond water intake and discharge systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current 7 Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) Best Technology Available determinations and, if necessary, 8 a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or equivalent State permits and 9 supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess 10 the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement 11 mortality and entrainment and thermal discharges.

12 4.6.7.3 Review Procedures 13 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 14 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 15 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review 16 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 17 steps unique to the issue of impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms.

18 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

19 2. Review the discussion in the applicants ER concerning the nuclear power plants cooling 20 water intake structure design and operation, NPDES permit status, and impingement 21 mortality and entrainment studies and data.

22 3. Review impingement and entrainment studies conducted at the nuclear power plant and any 23 supporting monitoring and data.

24 4. Review the nuclear power plants current NPDES permit and the status of the permitting 25 authoritys BTA determinations.

26 - If the NPDES permitting authority has made BTA determinations for the nuclear power 27 plant pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) in accordance with the current regulations at 28 40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 125, which were promulgated in 2014 (79 FR 48300),

29 and that plant has implemented any associated requirements or those requirements 30 would be implemented before the license renewal period, then the NRC staff assumes 31 that adverse impacts on the aquatic environment will be minimized (see 10 CFR 32 51.10(c); 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B); 10 CFR 51.71(d)). In such cases, the reviewer can 33 conclude that the impacts of either impingement mortality, entrainment, or both would be 34 SMALL over the course of the license renewal term, and no additional analysis is 35 required.

36 - If the NPDES permitting authority has not made BTA determinations, the reviewer 37 should analyze the potential impacts of impingement mortality, entrainment, or both 38 using a weight-of-evidence approach. In this approach, the reviewer should consider 39 multiple lines of evidence to assess the presence or absence of ecological impairment 40 (i.e., noticeable or detectable impact) on the aquatic environment. For instance, as its 41 lines of evidence, the staff might consider characteristics of the cooling water intake 42 system design, the results of impingement and entrainment studies performed at the 43 facility, and trends in fish and shellfish population abundance indices. The reviewer 44 should then consider these lines of evidence together to predict the level of impact 4-41

1 (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) that the aquatic environment is likely to experience 2 over the course of the license renewal term.

3 5. Obtain additional information to assist in evaluating the specific nature of impingement and 4 entrainment effects, as needed, including the following:

5 - location of the cooling water intake structure, intake velocities, and withdrawal volumes 6 - information on screening device technologies and fish collection and return technologies 7 - swimming abilities of local species or their surrogates, including burst, prolonged, or 8 sustained speeds 9 - other relevant life history characteristics of local species, such as size and susceptibility 10 to impingement or entrainment at various life stages; population abundances and 11 distributions; special species statuses and designations; and regional management 12 objectives 13 - physical or biological factors that might concentrate or attract organisms to the area of 14 the intake.

15 6. Review the applicants ER, including 16 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 17 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 18 applicant and the public.

19 7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that 20 - summarizes the status of the NPDES permitting authoritys CWA Section 316(b) BTA 21 determinations 22 - adopts the NPDES permitting authoritys conclusions (if the permitting authority has 23 made BTA determinations) 24 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment (if the permitting 25 authority has not made BTA determinations) 26 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 27 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 28 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

29 4.6.7.4 Evaluation Findings 30 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 31 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on aquatic 32 resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 33 procedures.

34 4.6.8 Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants With Once-Through 35 Cooling Systems Or Cooling Ponds) 36 4.6.8.1 Areas of Review 37 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of thermal effluents on aquatic 38 organisms at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds during 4-42

1 the license renewal term. Section 4.6.1.2.4 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue 2 during initial LR or SLR. The scope of this review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of 3 the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other 4 available information related to the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new and 5 potentially significant information, and (5) preparation of SEIS input.

6 Notably for this issue, Section 316(a) of the CWA addresses the adverse environmental impacts 7 associated with thermal discharges into waters of the United States. Under this section of the 8 act, the EPA, or authorized States and Indian Tribes, establish thermal surface water quality 9 criteria for waters of the United States within their jurisdiction. The EPA, or authorized States 10 and Indian Tribes, also have the authority to impose alternative, less-stringent, facility-specific 11 effluent limits (called variances) on the thermal component of individual point source 12 discharges. To be eligible, regulated facilities must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the 13 NPDES permitting authority, that facility-specific effluent limitations will assure the protection 14 and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the 15 receiving body of water. CWA Section 316(a) variances are valid for the term of the NPDES 16 permit (i.e., five years). Facilities must reapply for variances with each NPDES permit renewal 17 application. When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES 18 permitting authority with respect to thermal impacts on aquatic organisms.

19 Data and Information Needs 20 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 21 resource impacts.

22 4.6.8.2 Acceptance Criteria 23 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 24 for the evaluation of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms are based on the following 25 requirements:

26

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicants plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling 27 pond water intake and discharge systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current 28 Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) determinations and, if necessary, a 316(a) variance in 29 accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or equivalent State permits and supporting 30 documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess the impact 31 of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement mortality 32 and entrainment and thermal discharges.

33 4.6.8.3 Review Procedures 34 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 35 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 36 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review 37 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 38 steps unique to the issue of the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms.

39 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

40 2. Review the discussion in the applicants ER concerning the nuclear power plants cooling 41 water system and effluent discharges, NPDES permit status, and thermal studies and data.

4-43

1 3. Review thermal studies conducted at the nuclear power plant and any supporting monitoring 2 and data.

3 4. Review the nuclear power plants current NPDES permit and the status of the permitting 4 authoritys CWA Section 316(a) determination.

5 - If the NPDES permitting authority has made a determination under CWA Section 316(a) 6 that thermal effluent limits are sufficiently stringent to assure the protection and 7 propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on 8 the receiving body of water, and the nuclear power plant has implemented any 9 associated requirements, then the NRC staff assumes that adverse impacts on the 10 aquatic environment will be minimized (see 10 CFR 51.10(c); 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B);

11 and 10 CFR 51.71(d)). In such cases, the reviewer can conclude that thermal impacts 12 on aquatic organisms would be SMALL over the course of the license renewal term, and 13 no additional analysis is required.

14 - If the NPDES permitting authority has not granted a CWA Section 316(a) variance, the 15 reviewer should analyze the potential impacts of thermal discharges using a weight-of-16 evidence approach. In this approach, the reviewer should consider multiple lines of 17 evidence to assess the presence or absence of ecological impairment (i.e., noticeable or 18 detectable impact) on the aquatic environment. For instance, as its lines of evidence, 19 the reviewer might consider characteristics of the cooling water discharge system 20 design, the results of thermal studies performed at the facility, and trends in fish and 21 shellfish population abundance indices. The reviewer should then consider these lines 22 of evidence together to predict the level of impact (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) 23 that the aquatic environment is likely to experience over the course of the license 24 renewal term.

25 5. Obtain additional information to assist in evaluating the specific nature of thermal stresses, 26 as needed, including the following:

27 - thermal plume characteristics, such as areal extent of the plume and thermal contour 28 maps 29 - thermal tolerances of local species or their surrogates 30 - other relevant life history characteristics of local species, such as seasonal absence or 31 presence; population abundances and distributions; special species statuses and 32 designations; and regional management objectives 33 - data on fish kill events related to nuclear power plant operation 34 - physical or biological factors that might concentrate or attract organisms to the thermal 35 plume.

36 6. Review the applicants ER, including 37 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 38 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 39 applicant and the public 40 7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that 41 - summarizes the status of the NPDES permitting authoritys CWA Section 316(a) 42 determination 43 - adopts the NPDES permitting authoritys conclusions (if the permitting authority has 44 made a CWA Section 316(a) determination) 4-44

1 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment (if the permitting 2 authority has not made BTA determinations) 3 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 4 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

5 4.6.8.4 Evaluation Findings 6 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 7 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on aquatic 8 resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 9 procedures.

10 4.6.9 Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants With Cooling Ponds Or 11 Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water From A River) 12 4.6.9.1 Areas of Review 13 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear 14 power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how 15 those conflicts could affect aquatic resources during the initial LR or SLR term. Notably, this 16 issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems that withdraw makeup 17 water from a river (i.e., once-through cooling systems with helper cooling towers) (e.g., NRC 18 2020b). Section 4.6.1.2.10 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The scope of 19 this review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the 20 applicants ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other available information related to 21 the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant information, 22 and (5) preparation of SEIS input.

23 Data and Information Needs 24 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 25 resource impacts.

26 4.6.9.2 Acceptance Criteria 27 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 28 for the evaluation of water use conflicts with aquatic organisms are based on the following 29 requirements:

30

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicants plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds 31 and withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed 32 action on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related 33 impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be 34 provided.

35 4.6.9.3 Review Procedures 36 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 37 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 38 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review 4-45

1 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 2 steps unique to the issue of water use conflicts with aquatic resources.

3 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

4 2. Review the discussion in the applicants ER concerning surface water use.

5 3. Describe the following, with a focus on the interfaces with the aquatic environment and how 6 site procedures, permits, and other controls minimize or mitigate impacts on the terrestrial 7 environment.

8 - Summarize the baseline hydrologic regime of the affected surface waters, including 9 seasonal fluctuations in flow, and conditions that could lead to extreme periods of low 10 flow.

11 - Summarize current and anticipated consumptive water use by the nuclear power plant.

12 - Identify other users relying on the affected surface waters, including downstream 13 municipal, agricultural, or industrial users, with which the nuclear power plant may 14 compete.

15 - Identify aquatic habitats and species that would be especially sensitive to reduced water 16 availability (e.g., nearshore habitat; aquatic plants; early life stages of fish and shellfish; 17 species that rely on specific microhabitats that may not be available under low flow 18 conditions; etc.).

19 - Discuss regional, state, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls concerning water 20 use and any agreements with water resources control boards.

21 - Summarize any other current or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 22 operational water-use impacts.

23 - Describe past water use conflicts with aquatic resources, if any, and evaluate whether 24 such conflicts would be likely to arise again during the license renewal term.

25 4. Review the applicants ER, including 26 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 27 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 28 applicant and the public 29 5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that:

30 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 31 - describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 32 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 33 - describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

34 4.6.10 Evaluation Findings 35 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 36 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on aquatic 37 resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 38 procedures.

4-46

1 4.6.11 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats 2 4.6.11.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of nuclear power plant license 4 renewal on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the ESA. Sections 5 4.6.1.3.1 and 4.6.1.3.2 of the LR GEIS discuss the impacts of these issues during initial LR or 6 SLR. The scope of this review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, 7 (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other available 8 information related to the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially 9 significant information, (5) consultation with the Services, as appropriate, and (6) preparation of 10 SEIS input.

11 Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species and the 12 ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA provides a program for the conservation of 13 endangered and threatened plants and animals (collectively, listed species) and the habitats in 14 which they are found, and it prohibits any person from the take of listed species, as defined in 15 the Act, without a permit. The FWS and NMFS are the lead Federal agencies for implementing 16 the ESA, and these agencies are charged with determining species that warrant listing. The 17 Services divide responsibility for listing and managing species: the FWS is responsible for 18 terrestrial and freshwater species, and NMFS is responsible for marine and anadromous 19 species.

20 Section 7 of the ESA establishes interagency consultation requirements for actions by Federal 21 agencies. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of 22 listed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the 23 Services for actions that may affect federally listed species and critical habitats and to ensure 24 that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those species or destroy or 25 adversely modify those habitats. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as construction and 26 operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation.

27 Therefore, the NRCs issuance of initial LR or SLR licenses may trigger consultation 28 requirements. Consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2) is commonly referred to as 29 Section 7 consultation. Appendix A.1 of this ESRP describes the types of Section 7 30 consultation and provides guidance to the NRC staff in conducting such consultations.

31 Notably, the LR GEIS discusses federally listed species and critical habitats as two issues:

32 those under FWS jurisdiction and those under NMFS jurisdiction. License renewal may affect 33 listed species and critical habitats under the jurisdiction of one or both Services, and a given 34 review may necessitate separate Section 7 consultations with each Service.

35 Data and Information Needs 36 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 37 resource impacts. Additional data and information needs that may be necessary to meet the 38 statutory and regulatory requirements of the ESA are incorporated into the review procedure 39 below.

4-47

1 4.6.11.2 Acceptance Criteria 2 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 3 for the evaluation of impacts on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the 4 ESA are based on the following requirements:

5

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of 6 refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction 7 activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the 8 impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance 9 with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered 10 Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 11 National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

12 4.6.11.3 Review Procedures 13 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 14 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 15 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review 16 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 17 steps unique to the issue of federally listed species and critical habitats.

18 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

19 2. Review the applicants ER, including 20 - the action area, federally listed species and critical habitats potentially present in the 21 action area, and activities associated with license renewal that could affect these 22 resources 23 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 24 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 25 applicant and the public 26 3. Perform an ESA analysis consistent with the interagency consultation guidance in 27 Appendix A.1 of this ESRP.

28 4. Initiate and conduct Section 7 consultation with the Services, as appropriate, consistent with 29 the interagency consultation guidance in Appendix A.1 of this ESRP.

30 5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that 31 - documents the ESA analysis or that incorporates by reference a separately prepared 32 biological evaluation or biological assessment, if prepared (see Appendix A.1) 33 - reports findings for each federally listed or proposed species and designated or 34 proposed critical habitat in accordance with the terminology used in the ESA and its 35 implementing regulations (see Appendix A.1, Table A-1).

36 4.6.11.4 Evaluation Findings 37 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 38 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on federally 39 protected ecological resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 40 described in the review procedures.

4-48

1 4.6.12 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat 2 4.6.12.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of nuclear power plant license 4 renewal during initial LR or SLR on EFH protected under the MSA, as amended by the 5 Sustainable Fisheries Act.

6 Section 4.6.1.3.3 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The scope of this review 7 includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants ER, 8 (3) review of available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue, 9 (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant information, 10 (5) consultation with NMFS, as appropriate, and (6) preparation of SEIS input.

11 Congress enacted the MSA in 1976 to foster long-term biological and economic sustainability of 12 the Nations marine fisheries. The MSA is a comprehensive, multi-purposed statute. Its key 13 objectives include preventing overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, increasing long-term 14 economic and social benefits, and ensuring a safe and sustainable supply of seafood. NOAA, 15 together with eight regional Fishery Management Councils established under the MSA, 16 implement the provisions of the MSA.

17 The MSA directs the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, to designate 18 areas of EFH and to manage marine resources within those areas. EFH is defined as the 19 coastal and marine waters and substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to 20 maturity (50 CFR 600.10). NMFS further defines waters, substrate, and necessary at 50 21 CFR 600.10. EFH applies to federally managed finfish and shellfish (herein referred to as EFH 22 species). As of 2022, the Councils and NMFS have designated EFH for nearly 1,000 species 23 at multiple life stages.

24 The Fishery Management Councils also may designate some EFH as a HAPC if that habitat 25 exhibits one or more of the following traits: rare, stressed by development, possessing 26 important ecological functions for EFH species, or especially vulnerable to anthropogenic 27 degradation. HAPC can cover a specific location (e.g., an estuary bank or a single spawning 28 location) or cover habitat type that is found at many locations (e.g., coral, nearshore nursery 29 areas, pupping grounds). HAPC designation does not convey additional restrictions or 30 protections on an area. The designation simply focuses increased scrutiny, study, or mitigation 31 planning compared to surrounding areas because HAPC represent high-priority areas for 32 conservation, management, or research and are necessary for healthy ecosystems and 33 sustainable fisheries. The Fishery Management Councils may, however, restrict the use or 34 possession of fishing gear types within HAPC. The geographic boundaries of HAPC are subject 35 to refinement through amendments, as research better informs management decisions (NOAA 36 2020).

37 Section 305(b) of the MSA contains interagency consultation requirements pertaining to Federal 38 agencies and their actions. Under MSA Section 305(b)(2), Federal agencies must consult with 39 NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as 40 construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, also are 41 subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRCs issuance of initial LR or SLR licenses may trigger 42 consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to MSA Section 305(b) is commonly referred 43 to as EFH consultation. Appendix A.2 of this ESRP describes the types of EFH consultation 44 and provides guidance to the NRC staff in conducting such consultations.

4-49

1 Data and Information Needs 2 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 3 resource impacts. Additional data and information needs that may be necessary to meet the 4 statutory and regulatory requirements of the MSA are incorporated into the review procedure 5 below.

6 4.6.12.2 Acceptance Criteria 7 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 8 for the evaluation of impacts on EFH are based on the following requirements:

9

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of 10 refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction 11 activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the 12 impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance 13 with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered 14 Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 15 National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

16 4.6.12.3 Review Procedures 17 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 18 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 19 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of the ESRP contains general review 20 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 21 steps unique to the issue of EFH.

22 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

23 2. Review the applicants ER, including 24 - the affected area, EFH and HAPC potentially present in the affected area, and activities 25 associated with license renewal that could affect these habitats 26 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 27 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 28 applicant and the public 29 3. Perform an EFH analysis consistent with the interagency consultation guidance in 30 Appendix A.2 of this ESRP.

31 4. Initiate and conduct EFH consultation with NMFS, as appropriate, consistent with the 32 interagency consultation guidance in Appendix A.2 of this ESRP.

33 5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that 34 - documents the EFH analysis or that incorporates by reference a separately prepared 35 EFH assessment, if prepared (see Appendix A.2) 36 - reports findings for each EFH by federally managed species and life stage in accordance 37 with the terminology used in the EFH and its implementing regulations (see 38 Appendix A.2, Table A-2).

4-50

1 4.6.12.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 3 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on federally 4 protected ecological resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 5 described in the review procedures.

6 4.6.13 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources 7 4.6.13.1 Areas of Review 8 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of nuclear power plant license 9 renewal on sanctuary resources protected under the NMSA. Section 4.6.1.3.4 of the LR GEIS 10 discusses the impacts of this issue during initial LR or SLR. The scope of this review includes 11 (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) review of 12 available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue, (4) identification and 13 disposition of any new and potentially significant information, (5) consultation with NOAAs 14 Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), as appropriate, and (6) preparation of SEIS 15 input.

16 Congress enacted the NMSA in 1972 to protect areas of the marine environment that have 17 special national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish the 18 National Marine Sanctuary System and designate sanctuaries within that system. ONMS is 19 charged with comprehensively managing this system, which includes 15 sanctuaries and the 20 Papahnaumokukea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments, encompassing more than 21 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington State to the Florida 22 Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. Within these areas, sanctuary resources 23 include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that contributes to the 24 conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural, archaeological, scientific, 25 or aesthetic value of the sanctuary. As of 2022, four additional sanctuaries are proposed for 26 designation. Maps of designated and proposed sanctuaries are available at 27 https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/maps.html.

28 In 1992, Congress amended the NMSA to require interagency coordination. Pursuant to 29 Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with ONMS when their proposed 30 actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. Private actions 31 with a Federal nexus, such as construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal 32 licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRCs issuance of initial 33 LR or SLR licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to NMSA 34 Section 304(d) is commonly referred to as NMSA consultation. Appendix A.3 of this ESRP 35 describes NMSA consultation and provides guidance to the NRC staff in conducting such 36 consultations.

37 Data and Information Needs 38 Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological 39 resource impacts. Additional data and information needs that may be necessary to meet the 40 statutory and regulatory requirements of the NMSA are incorporated into the review procedure 41 below.

4-51

1 4.6.13.2 Acceptance Criteria 2 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria 3 for the evaluation of impacts on sanctuary resources protected under the NMSA are based on 4 the following requirements:

5

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of 6 refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction 7 activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the 8 impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance 9 with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered 10 Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the 11 National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

12 4.6.13.3 Review Procedures 13 For all ecological resource issues, the same basic approach can identify the environmental 14 impacts of license renewal and alternatives. This approach generally follows the EPAs (1998) 15 framework for ecological risk assessment. Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review 16 procedures for all ecological resource issues. Follow these procedures along with the following 17 steps unique to sanctuary resources.

18 1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.

19 2. Review the applicants ER, including 20 - the affected area, national marine sanctuaries and sanctuary resources potentially 21 present in the affected area, and activities associated with license renewal that could 22 affect these habitats 23 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 24 - any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the 25 applicant and the public.

26 3. Perform an NMSA analysis consistent with the interagency consultation guidance in 27 Appendix A.3 of this ESRP.

28 4. Initiate and conduct NMSA consultation with the ONMS, as appropriate, consistent with the 29 interagency consultation guidance in Appendix A.3 of this ESRP.

30 5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that 31 - documents the EFH analysis or that incorporates by reference a separately prepared 32 EFH assessment, if prepared (see Appendix A.3) 33 - reports findings for each EFH by federally managed species and life stage in accordance 34 with the terminology used in the EFH and its implementing regulations (see 35 Appendix A.3, Table A-3).

36 4.6.13.4 Evaluation Findings 37 The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis 38 required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on federally 39 protected ecological resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 40 described in the review procedures.

4-52

1 4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 2 4.7.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of potential impacts of initial LR or SLR on historic 4 and cultural resources and historic properties protected under Section 106 of the National 5 Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.). Impacts are discussed 6 in Section 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 of the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

7 The scope includes (1) review of relevant sections of the LR GEIS; (2) review of the applicants 8 ER; (3) review of available cultural resource investigations and other available information 9 related to the issue; (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant 10 information; (5) consultation with appropriate consulting parties as defined in 36 CFR 800.2, as 11 appropriate; and (6) preparing input to the SEIS. Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issue 12 for historic and cultural resources.

13 Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings 14 (e.g., initial LR or SLR) on historic properties and consult with the appropriate State Historic 15 Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO), Indian Tribes, and 16 interested parties. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal 17 agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on the affected human environment, 18 which includes aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources. The issuance of a renewed 19 operating license for a nuclear power plant is an undertaking that could affect historic properties.

20 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c) Use of the NEPA process for section 106 purposes, the 21 NRC coordinates its Section 106 responsibilities under the NEPA for license renewal reviews.

22 The NRC may use the NEPA process to comply with Section 106 in lieu of the procedures set 23 forth in Sections 800.3 through 800.6 provided all consulting parties (Advisory Council on 24 Historic Preservation, SHPO, THPO, Indian Tribes, the public, and other interested 25 stakeholders) have been notified in advance and it meets the standards of 36 CFR 800.8(c).

26 The NRC will consult with the appropriate SHPO/THPO for each plant-specific license renewal 27 review. Through early coordination, all issues will be identified.

28 An assessment of the potential impacts for license renewal differs from that of original licensing 29 because ground-disturbing activities occurred during initial nuclear power plant construction 30 resulting in extensive disturbance of much of the land in and immediately surrounding the power 31 block. Many nuclear power plant facilities were constructed prior to the implementation of 32 NHPA Section 106 regulations located at 36 CFR Part 800; therefore, there were no formal 33 standards for archaeological field investigations or requirements to identify and consult with 34 Indian Tribes. In some cases, archaeological and architectural resource investigations were 35 completed prior to construction, but the methods used then are unlikely to meet the current 36 Secretary of Interiors standards for archaeological and architectural resource investigation.

37 Historic and cultural resource field investigations may be necessary if none were completed 38 previously or may need to be updated to meet current standards.

39 The area(s) within which historic and cultural resources should be identified is referred to as the 40 area(s) of potential effect (APE[s]), defined at 36 CFR 800.16(d) as the geographic area or 41 areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or 42 use of important cultural resources, if any such resources exist. The APE is influenced by the 43 scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by 44 the undertaking (36 CFR 800.16(d)). For NRC reviews, the license renewal (initial LR or SLR) 4-53

1 APE includes lands within the nuclear power plant site boundary and the transmission lines up 2 to the first substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by land-disturbing or other 3 operational activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance and/or 4 refurbishment activities. The APE may extend beyond the nuclear plant site when these 5 activities may indirectly (e.g., visual and auditory) affect historic properties. This determination 6 is made irrespective of land ownership or control.

7 The purpose of the historic and cultural resources assessment is to ensure that such resources 8 that are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are not 9 adversely affected by initial LR or SLR. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, mitigation must be 10 developed in consultation with the appropriate SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, and other interested 11 parties. For historic or cultural resources that do not meet the criteria to be considered a historic 12 property under the NHPA, the NRC will assess whether there are any potential significant 13 impacts on these resource through the NEPA process.

14 Data and Information Needs 15 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 16 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

17

• the applicants ER 18

• the LR GEIS 19

• new and significant information identified by the public and other information sources 20

• a map that identifies the APE and a site disturbance map 21

• cultural resource investigations (e.g., archaeological or architectural) conducted within the 22 direct and indirect APE and surrounding area 23

• information related to evaluations for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places 24 (36 CFR Part 60), and associated consultations with the SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, and 25 interested parties (e.g., certified local governments, local preservation officials) 26

• applicants cultural resource protection procedures or Cultural Resource Management 27 Plans.

28 4.7.2 Acceptance Criteria 29 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, acceptance criteria 30 for the evaluation of historic and cultural resources impacts are based on the relevant 31 requirements of the following:

32

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic and 33 cultural resources and historic properties and assess whether future plant operations and 34 any planned refurbishment activities would affect these resources in accordance with 35 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in the context of the National 36 Environmental Policy Act.

37

• 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties 38

• 36 CFR Part 60, National Register of Historic Places 39

• 36 CFR Part 63, Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic 40 Places 4-54

1

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.).

2 4.7.3 Review Procedures 3 To analyze the impact of plant operations during the renewal term on historic and cultural 4 resources, review the information collected and discussed in Section 3.7 of the ESRP and 5 complete the following steps:

6 1. Review the discussion of the impacts of plant operations during the renewal term on historic 7 and cultural resources in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the 8 conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified 9 by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

10 2. Analyze the historic and cultural resources and historic properties impacts associated with 11 continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment, as follows:

12 - Define the undertaking (i.e., initial LR or SLR).

13 - Describe the coordination of the NHPA Section 106 review through NEPA in accordance 14 with 36 CFR 800.8(c).

15 - Identify and discuss any activities associated with continued operations, maintenance, 16 and refurbishment that could affect onsite or offsite historic and cultural resources 17 located within the direct and indirect APEs. Such activities include ground-disturbing 18 activities (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavating, road work), increases in traffic, and 19 noise and visual intrusions.

20 - Review the site disturbance map (developed by a qualified archaeologist) that indicates 21 areas of heavy disturbance and areas of high potential for undiscovered historic and 22 cultural resources.

23 - Identify and assess effects to historic properties found in the direct and indirect APEs 24 that may be affected by the proposed undertaking (i.e., initial LR or SLR). Use the 25 criteria specified in 36 CFR 800.5 to assess adverse effects on historic properties.

26 Provide a basis and documentation for how a conclusion is reached.

27 - Identify and assess effects to historic and cultural resources that are not determined to 28 be historic properties but may be considered important in the context of NEPA, as 29 amended (e.g., sacred sites, cemeteries, local gathering areas).

30 - Discuss the direct and indirect effects (e.g., ground disturbance, physical, visual, 31 auditory, atmospheric such as fugitive dust, light, and traffic), if any, from the proposed 32 project, and from any associated transmission lines on nearby historic properties or 33 important historic and cultural resources.

34 - Review any issues related to historic and cultural resources identified during the public 35 scoping period.

36 - Review any correspondence from the SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, interested parties, or 37 local preservation officials regarding any cultural resource investigations conducted on 38 the applicants site.

39 - If significant resources are located within the APE, review any procedures or integrated 40 cultural resources management plans instituted by the applicant to protect the historic 41 and cultural resources identified on the site or within the in-scope transmission line 42 ROWs. Also, verify that the applicant has developed these procedures and plans in 4-55

1 consultation with the appropriate SHPO/THPO, local preservation official, or Indian 2 Tribes.

3 - Through consultation with Indian Tribes, identify any traditional cultural properties.

4 For impacts on historic properties assessed under Section 106 of the NHPA, the 5 assessment would result in one of three potential determinations (see 36 CFR 800.4 and 6 see Appendix B for further guidance):

7 - No historic properties present, the undertaking will have no effect to historic properties 8 - Historic properties present, the undertaking will have no adverse effect upon them 9 - Historic properties present, the undertaking will have an adverse effect upon one or 10 more historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.5).

11 For historic or cultural resources that do not meet the criteria to be considered a historic 12 property under the NHPA, the NRC will assess whether there are any potential significant 13 impacts on these resource through the NEPA process.

14 3. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 15 - analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes 16 the information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that have been conducted 17 - describes measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts 18 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 19 - discusses any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment 20 evaluation findings.

21 4.7.4 Evaluation Findings 22 The depth and extent of the information in the assessment would be governed by the extent and 23 significance of the effects of continued operations and refurbishment activities during the 24 renewal term on historic and cultural resources. The reviewer should verify that sufficient 25 information is available to meet the relevant requirements and that the SEIS includes the 26 information described under the review procedures.

27 4.8 Socioeconomics 28 4.8.1 Areas of Review 29 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of plant-specific socioeconomic impacts of 30 continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

31 Socioeconomic impacts are evaluated in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a) 32 for all nuclear power plants.

33 The scope includes the review of (1) the applicants ER, (2) socioeconomic impacts in the 34 LR GEIS during initial LR or SLR, and (3) any new and significant socioeconomic information.

35 Following this review, the reviewer then prepares input to the SEIS. Socioeconomic issues 36 (Category 1), evaluated in the LR GEIS, are listed in Table 4-1.

4-56

1 Data and Information Needs 2 According to the LR GEIS, continued operations, and refurbishment activities in support of 3 license renewal have had little to no socioeconomic effect on communities near nuclear power 4 plants. Socioeconomic effects of power plant operations have become well established and 5 normal fluctuations in employment, income, and tax revenue have not altered the quality and 6 availability of community services and housing, or increased traffic volumes.

7 License renewal applicants consistently indicate they have no plans to add operations workers, 8 and increased maintenance and safety inspection activities during the renewal term can be 9 managed using the current workforce. Consequently, people living near nuclear power plants 10 have not experienced any significant socioeconomic impact since construction and the onset of 11 reactor operations. In addition, refurbishment activities, including steam generator and vessel 12 head replacement, have been conducted during regularly scheduled power plant refueling and 13 maintenance outages. Based on this, the following data or information is needed:

14

• a description of the applicants process for identifying new and significant socioeconomic 15 information in the ER 16

• any new and significant plant-specific socioeconomic impact information identified during 17 scoping 18

• any new and significant plant-specific socioeconomic impact information identified during 19 site visit, staff environmental review, and discussions with applicant.

20 4.8.2 Acceptance Criteria 21 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the 22 socioeconomic impacts.

23 4.8.3 Review Procedures 24 Suggested steps for the socioeconomic review are as follows:

25 1. The applicant is required by NRC regulation to disclose new and significant socioeconomic 26 information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware (see 27 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)). In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process 28 for discovering new socioeconomic information and evaluating the significance of any new 29 information discovered.

30 2. Review public scoping meeting transcripts and related correspondence.

31 3. Compare any new socioeconomic information with the conclusions in the LR GEIS.

32 4. Evaluate the significance of any new socioeconomic information for its effect on the 33 socioeconomic impact analysis.

34 5. Prepare SEIS discussion describing the search for new and significant information, 35 summarizing any new information found and the results of the significance evaluation.

36 Incorporate by reference the conclusions from the LR GEIS for the proposed action or 37 modify as necessary to account for any significant new information.

4-57

1 4.8.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining 3 socioeconomic impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities 4 associated with license renewal.

5 4.9 Human Health 6 4.9.1 Areas of Review 7 This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the human-health impacts 8 from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Human 9 health impacts are evaluated in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

10 The scope includes (1) review of human health impacts from continued plant operations during 11 the initial LR and SLR term and refurbishment in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information 12 for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 13 1 issues and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issues for human health identified in the 14 LR GEIS.

15 Data and Information Needs 16 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 17 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

18

• the applicants ER 19

• the LR GEIS 20

• new information on human health impacts identified by the public and other information 21 sources.

22 4.9.2 Acceptance Criteria 23 In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, the acceptance 24 criteria for the evaluation of human-health impacts are based on the following requirements:

25

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). If the applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, canal, or 26 discharges into waters of the United States accessible to the public, an assessment of the 27 impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected 28 water must be provided.

29

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). If the applicants transmission lines that were constructed for the 30 specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the 31 recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from 32 induced currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock 33 hazard from the transmission lines must be provided.

34 4.9.3 Review Procedures 35 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

36 1. Review the discussion of potential human health impacts from continued plant operations 37 during the operating license renewal term in the LR GEIS. This step establishes the basis 4-58

1 for evaluating any new and significant human health information identified by the applicant, 2 the public, and the staff.

3 2. Determine whether there is any new human health impact information that should be 4 evaluated. The following sources of information should be included in the search for new 5 information:

6 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 7 and significant information on the human health impacts of operating license renewal of 8 which it is aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 9 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information.

10 Assess whether the process is adequate to ensure a reasonable likelihood that the 11 applicant would be aware of new information.

12 - Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the operating license 13 renewal application. Compare the human health information presented by the public 14 with information considered in the LR GEIS. Determine whether the information post-15 dates the analysis leading to the LR GEIS.

16 - Part 20 standards and regulations. Have the applicable standards and regulations 17 changed since the analysis leading to the LR GEIS? If so, determine whether these 18 changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal.

19 3. Evaluate the significance of new human health impact information.

20 4. Review the applicants ER, including:

21 - the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 22 - any new information included in the ER on human health impact issues known to the 23 applicant and the public 24 5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing 25 new information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting 26 conclusions from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant 27 information.

28 Additional specific guidance follows for each surface water and groundwater issue identified as 29 plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS.

30 4.9.4 Evaluation Findings 31 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis 32 required to reach a conclusion related to the potential human health impacts from continued 33 plant operations and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 34 described in the review procedures.

35 4.9.5 Microbiological Hazards to the Public 36 4.9.5.1 Areas of Review 37 This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the human-health impacts 38 associated with microbiological hazards to the public associated with heated-water discharges 39 from the plants cooling system during the renewal term. This issue is identified as a Category 2 40 issue in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

4-59

1 The scope includes (1) reviewing the impacts to human health from microbiological organism 2 during initial LR or SLR discussion in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluating new information for 3 significance, and (3) preparing input to the SEIS.

4 Microbiological organisms of concern for public and occupational health, include enteric 5 pathogens (bacteria that typically exist in the intestines of animals and humans (e.g.,

6 Pseudomonas aeruginosa), thermophilic fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.),

7 free-living amoebae (e.g., Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.), and organisms that 8 produce toxins that affect human health (e.g., dinoflagellates [Karenia brevis] and blue-green 9 algae). Exposure to these microorganisms, or in some cases the endotoxins or exotoxins 10 produced by the organisms, can cause illness or death.

11 Maximum contaminant levels of various microorganisms, including Legionella, in public drinking 12 water systems are regulated by 40 CFR 141.70. However, there are no specific regulations tied 13 to microorganisms that are associated with cooling towers or thermal discharges.

14 Data and Information Needs 15 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 16 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

17

• the applicants ER 18

• the LR GEIS 19

• new information on impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms identified by 20 the public and other information sources.

21 4.9.5.2 Acceptance Criteria 22 Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of human health impacts from microbiological organisms 23 are addressed in ESRP Section 4.9.2.

24 4.9.5.3 Review Procedures 25 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

26 1. Review the discussion of potential impacts to human health from microbiological organisms 27 associated with continued plant operations during the operating license renewal term in the 28 LR GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating any new and significant information 29 identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

30 2. Review the plant cooling system. If the plant cooling system uses a cooling pond, lake, 31 canal, or discharges to waters of the United States accessible to the public, then continue 32 the analysis at Step 3. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the plant 33 cooling system; states that the cooling system discharges to waters not accessible to the 34 public; and concludes that there would not be a detrimental impact from the thermal 35 discharges on the concentration levels of microbiological organisms of concern.

36 - A description of the location of the thermal discharges for the plants cooling system (i.e.,

37 a cooling pond, lake, canal, or waters of the United States accessible to the public) and 38 a characterization of the water body receiving discharges from the cooling system (e.g.,

39 a large lake or ocean).

4-60

1 - The temperature increase expected for the aquatic environment that is subject to the 2 plants thermal discharges.

3 - The results of any analyses that have been made for the presence of microorganisms.

4 Microbiological organisms of concern for public and occupational health, include enteric 5 pathogens (bacteria that typically exist in the intestines of animals and humans (e.g.,

6 Pseudomonas aeruginosa), thermophilic fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and Vibrio 7 spp.), free-living amoebae (e.g., Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.), as well as 8 organisms that produce toxins that affect human health (e.g., dinoflagellates [Karenia 9 brevis] and blue-green algae). In addition, analyses for the presence of unusually high 10 concentrations of the normally present Legionella sp. (Legionnaires disease bacteria) 11 and the free-living amoebae of the genera Naegleria and Acanthamoeba should be 12 cited.

13 - A list of the outbreaks of waterborne diseases in the United States during the previous 14 10 years in the vicinity of the plant. This list is published regularly by the Centers for 15 Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2017).

16 - An evaluation of available data concerning the occurrence and concentrations of any of 17 the microorganisms listed above in the vicinity of the plant and a determination of 18 whether any of them are present under conditions and in locations that might be harmful 19 to members of the public. If such an evaluation exists, it may be obtained from the 20 applicant or from the State Public Health Department in the State in which the plant is 21 located.

22 3. Consult with the State Public Health Department and review any records associated with 23 waterborne disease outbreaks in the region. If the State Public Health Department is 24 concerned about such outbreaks or the potential for such outbreaks, then continue the 25 analysis at Step 4. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS describing the plant 26 cooling system that 27 - outlines the process leading to the determination that there have been no or few 28 waterborne disease outbreaks in the region 29 - provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for 30 not being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from 31 microbiological organisms associated with the cooling system 32 - concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase 33 the number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a 34 public health problem.

35 4. If the State advises that tests should be conducted for concentration of Naegleria fowleri (or 36 other thermophilic microorganisms) in the receiving waters, the licensee should consider 37 performing the tests when the facility has been operating at a power level typical of the level 38 anticipated during the license renewal term for at least a month to ensure a steady state 39 population during the sampling. Samples should be taken at locations of potential public 40 use. An evaluation of the data should be performed, and a determination made of the 41 magnitude of potential impacts of Naegleria fowleri (or other thermophilic microorganisms) 42 on public health during the license renewal term. If the potential for an impact is 43 determined, then continue the analysis at Step 5. If the State does not advise that tests be 44 conducted, but they still have a concern related to the presence of deleterious thermophilic 45 microorganisms, then continue the analysis at Step 5 without the testing. Otherwise, 46 prepare a statement for the SEIS that 4-61

1 - describes the results of the tests that were performed 2 - provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for 3 not being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from 4 microbiological organisms associated with the cooling system because of the tests that 5 were performed 6 - concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase 7 the number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a 8 public health problem.

9 5. Request that the applicant consider mitigative measures to minimize the potential impacts if 10 the results of the consultation with the State Public Health Department and/or the review of 11 records associated with waterborne disease outbreaks in the region show any cause for 12 concern regarding public health concerns related to deleterious thermophilic 13 microorganisms. Mitigative measures may include 14 - setting up and executing a monitoring program for deleterious thermophilic 15 microorganisms 16 - limiting public access to areas affected by the plants thermal discharges (such as 17 prohibiting public swimming in the mixing zone of the river).

18 6. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 19 - describes the plant cooling system 20 - summarizes the information related to any waterborne disease outbreaks in the region 21 - provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating any concerns 22 regarding the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological organisms 23 associated with the cooling system 24 - identifies and describes the mitigative measures considered and committed to by the 25 applicant 26 - concludes that the impacts of microbiological organisms associated with the cooling 27 system are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE within the context of the analysis in the 28 LR GEIS, considering the mitigative measures committed to by the applicant 29 - discusses any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

30 4.9.5.4 Evaluation Findings 31 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis 32 required to reach a conclusion related to the potential impacts on human health from 33 microbiological organisms associated with the plants cooling system. The information that 34 should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

35 4.9.6 Electric Shock Hazards 36 4.9.6.1 Areas of Review 37 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the electric shock hazards from transmission-38 line-induced currents. This issue is identified as a Category 2 issue in the LR GEIS (NUREG-39 1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

4-62

1 The scope includes (1) review of the impacts to human health from electric shock from in-scope 2 transmission-line-induced currents during initial LR or SLR in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluation of 3 new information for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS.

4 The scope should include determining if transmission lines constructed for the purpose of 5 connecting the plant to the transmission system meet the recommendations of the National 6 Electrical Safety Code (NESC) for preventing electric shock from induced currents. If not, the 7 scope includes assessing the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from 8 the transmission lines. The scope also includes preparation of input to the SEIS.

9 Data and Information Needs 10 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 11 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

12

• the applicants ER 13

• the LR GEIS 14

• new information on impacts to human health from electric shock from transmission-line-15 induced currents identified by the public and other information sources.

16 4.9.6.2 Acceptance Criteria 17 Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of electric shock from transmission-line-induced currents 18 are addressed in ESRP Section 4.9.2, with the following addition:

19

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), concerning assessing impacts of transmission systems not 20 meeting NESC criteria.

21 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulation identified above 22 are as follows:

23

• NESC (IEEE SA 2017) provides guidance concerning electric shock hazards Technical 24 Rationale.

25 4.9.6.3 Review Procedures 26 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

27 1. Review the discussion of the issues associated with electric shock hazards from induced 28 transmission line currents in the LR GEIS.

29 2. Review the route of the in-scope transmission lines.

30 3. Review the applicants analysis demonstrating that the transmission lines continue to meet 31 NESC clearance standards to which they were built. The following data or information may 32 be needed to assess human health impacts from electric shock from transmission-line-33 induced currents:

34 - description of the in-scope transmission lines 35 - verification of initial transmission line conformance with NESC criteria (NESC edition to 36 which the lines were built or a later edition) 37 - a description of a transmission line management program, if any, including continued 38 compliance with NESC electrical shock provisions 4-63

1 - plans to bring lines into conformance with NESC criteria if not already in compliance.

2 Consider basic electrical design parameters, including transmission design voltage or 3 voltages, line capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing between phases, 4 minimum conductor clearances to ground, maximum predicted electric field strength(s) 5 at 1 meter above ground, the predicted electric field strength(s) at the edge of the right-6 of-way in kilovolts per meter, and the design bases for these values (from the ER) 7 - If NESC clearance standards cannot be demonstrated, a transmission line survey 8 identifying sites or areas that do not meet the standards and that may not meet the 9 standards following anticipated changes in transmission-line operations or changes in 10 land use in the right-of-way.

11 - If the applicant does not state that in-scope transmission lines meet electrical shock 12 hazard of the NESC code or the applicants demonstration is not adequate, then 13 continue the review at Step 4. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that 14 describes the route of the in-scope transmission lines 15 describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum 16 conductor- to-ground clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths 17 1 meter above ground, etc.)

18 provides the basis for the staff evaluation 19 concludes that the system meets the criteria of the NESC 20 4. Identify any sites or areas where the transmission lines fail to meet the NESC clearance 21 standards. These areas should be shown on maps, photographs, or drawings to be 22 included in the SEIS.

23 5. Identify measures that could be taken to meet the standards in the areas where the 24 transmission lines fail to meet the NESC standards. Determine which measures the 25 applicant plans or proposes to undertake, if any, and whether those measures would result 26 in transmission lines meeting the standards.

27 6. Identify and evaluate mitigation measures for those areas where the transmission lines 28 would not meet NESC standards.

29 7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 30 - describes the route of the in-scope transmission lines 31 - describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum conductor-to-32 ground clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths 1 meter above 33 ground, etc.) and potential shock hazard from the transmission lines 34 - identifies sites or areas where NESC standards would not be met and explains why the 35 standards are not appropriate to the situation or why the applicant would not make 36 modifications to meet standards 37 - describes measures to mitigate potential impacts in those areas 38 - provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 39 - discusses any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.

4-64

1 4.9.6.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis 3 required to reach a conclusion related to the potential electric shock from transmission-line-4 induced currents. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 5 procedures.

6 4.10 Environmental Justice 7 Under Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 8 Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for 9 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 10 environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income 11 populations. Although independent agencies, like the NRC, were requested to comply with 12 Executive Order 12898, the NRC Chairman, in a March 1994 letter to the President, committed 13 the NRC to endeavoring to carry out its measures as part of NRCs efforts to comply with the 14 requirements of NEPA (NRC 1994).

15 On December 10, 1997, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued Environmental Justice 16 Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. The CEQ developed this guidance to, 17 further assist Federal agencies with their NEPA procedures. The NRC commented on draft 18 and revised draft versions of this guidance document.

19 On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of 20 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which 21 states, The Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives 22 to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process. The following guidance is consistent 23 with this policy statement.

24 4.10.1 Areas of Review 25 This ESRP provides guidance on conducting environmental justice reviews for proposed 26 licensing actions requiring an EIS as part of NRCs compliance with NEPA. This issue is 27 identified as a Category 2 issue in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

28 The scope includes the review of (1) the applicants ER, (2) the LR GEIS, and (3) any new and 29 significant environmental justice information. Following this review, the reviewer then prepares 30 input to the SEIS. The environmental justice issue (Category 2), evaluated in the nuclear plant-31 specific SEIS is listed in Table 4-2.

32 Guidance on environmental justice review requirements is found in NRR Office Instruction LIC-33 203, Revision 4: Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental 34 Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues (NRC 2020c).

35 The scope of the review should include an analysis of the effects from continued nuclear plant 36 operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR) on 37 minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes. The review should be of 38 sufficient detail to permit the determination of whether human health and environmental effects 39 are likely to be disproportionately high and adverse on these populations.

4-65

1 Data and Information Needs 2 The following data or information may be needed:

3

• the applicants ER 4

• any new and significant plant-specific environmental justice impact information and 5 concerns identified during scoping 6

• any new and significant plant-specific environmental justice impact information and 7 concerns identified during consultations with representatives of environmental justice 8 communities and Indian Tribes.

9 4.10.2 Acceptance Criteria 10 In addition to the criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, acceptance criteria for evaluating 11 environmental justice impacts are based on the following:

12

• Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629), concerning Federal actions to address environmental 13 justice in minority and low-income populations 14

• Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory 15 and Licensing Actions, (69 FR 52040) affirms the Commissions commitment to the general 16 goals of Executive Order 12898 and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review 17 for licensing actions.

18

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N). Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic 19 composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and 20 ethnicity), and Indian Tribes in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant that could be 21 disproportionately affected by license renewal, including continued reactor operations and 22 refurbishment activities.

23 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above 24 are as follows:

25

• CEQ guidance for addressing environmental justice, Environmental Justice: Guidance 26 under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 10, 1997 (CEQ 1997) 27

• Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and NEPA Committee, 28 Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews, March 2016 29

• Guidance for specific information requirements for the environmental justice review is in 30 NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 4, Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusion, 31 Environmental Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues (NRC 2020c).

32 4.10.3 Review Procedures 33 The review procedure should be as follows:

34 1. Identify environmental justice issues, concerns, and unique characteristics of minority and 35 low-income populations/communities and Indian Tribes during scoping.

36 2. Determine whether license renewal would have any human health and environmental 37 effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes and whether there 38 are other environmental justice concerns. Potential human health and environmental effects 39 are determined through NRCs NEPA review process using LIC-203 (NRC 2020c):

4-66

1 - Impacts that could potentially affect or cause concern to minority populations, low-2 income populations, and Indian Tribes are evaluated in other environmental resource 3 areas (e.g., air and water quality, socioeconomics, and cultural resources) during the 4 license renewal environmental review. Any potential effects and/or concerns should be 5 summarized in the environmental justice impacts section of the SEIS.

6 - In considering human health and environmental effects to minority populations, low-7 income populations, and Indian Tribes, different patterns of consumption of natural 8 resources should also be considered (i.e., differences in rates and/or pattern of fish, 9 vegetable, water, and/or wildlife subsistence consumption reflective of the unique 10 characteristics of these populations and the special character of communities located 11 near the nuclear plant) (see Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898, Subsistence 12 Consumption of Fish and Wildlife; 59 FR 7629).

13 - Consider whether there are any means or pathways for minority populations, low-income 14 populations, or Indian Tribes to be disproportionately affected by license renewal-related 15 activities. Examine the potential impacts to special pathway receptors (e.g., American 16 Indian, Hispanic, and others living a traditional lifestyle pattern of subsistence). For 17 example, special pathway impacts consider levels of contaminants in native vegetation, 18 crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals in the vicinity of 19 nuclear plant sites.

20 - Sources of information include 21 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, annual radiological 22 environmental operating reports 23 State radiological monitoring programs.

24 3. Determine if human health or environmental effects are disproportionately high and adverse.

25 - Consider the following questions:

26 Would the human health or environmental effects be greater for minority 27 populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes than the general 28 population?

29 Would any of these effects not be experienced by the general population?

30 Would the human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-31 income populations, or Indian Tribes be significant, unacceptable, or above 32 generally accepted norms such as regulatory limits or State and local statutes 33 and ordinances? Should each human health or environmental effect, and where 34 appropriate, the cumulative and multiple effects, be reviewed for significance?

35 - To the extent practicable, identify mitigation measures that reflect the needs and 36 preferences of the affected minority population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe 37 and environmental justice communities.

38 4.10.4 Evaluation Findings 39 The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining 40 environmental justice impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities 41 associated with license renewal.

4-67

1 4.11 Waste Management 2 4.11.1 Areas of Review 3 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of waste management activities at nuclear power 4 plants during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Table 4-1 lists the applicable 5 Category 1 issues for waste management identified in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; 6 NRC 2023a).

7 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of waste management during the initial LR or 8 SLR term in the LR GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of any new information, and 9 (3) preparation of input to the SEIS.

10 Data and Information Needs 11 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site and 12 plant- specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

13

• a description of the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant 14 information 15

• any new information included in the ER on waste management, pollution prevention and 16 waste minimization at the plant.

17

• the LR GEIS 18 4.11.2 Acceptance Criteria 19 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of 20 waste management impacts.

21 4.11.3 Review Procedures 22 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

23 1. Review the discussion of waste management during the license renewal term in the 24 LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step 25 establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, 26 and the staff.

27 2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The 28 following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

29 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 30 and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of 31 which it is aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 32 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information 33 discovered.

34 - Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 35 information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.

36 If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, continue with the analysis.

37 Otherwise, prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, 4-68

1 stating the conclusion that there is no new information, and adopting the conclusions 2 from the LR GEIS.

3 3. Evaluate the significance of new information.

4 4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 5 information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 6 from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information.

7 4.11.4 Evaluation Findings 8 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to 9 reach a conclusion related to waste management, pollution prevention, and waste minimization 10 during the license renewal term. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 11 described in the review procedures.

12 4.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 13 4.12.1 Areas of Review 14 This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts from 15 continued plant operations during the initial LR or SLR term and refurbishment and associated 16 climate change impacts. The staff should assess both the potential effects of the proposed 17 action (license renewal) on climate change as indicated by GHG emissions, and the effects of 18 climate change on resource areas affected by the proposed action. GHG emissions and climate 19 change impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

20 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of GHGs and climate change issues in the 21 LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identify and address any new and significant 22 information, and (4) prepare input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issue 23 and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issue for GHG emissions and climate change 24 identified in the LR GEIS.

25 Data and Information Needs 26 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site-and 27 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

28

• the applicants ER 29

• the LR GEIS 30

• new information on GHGs and climate change identified by the public and other information 31 sources.

32 4.12.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate 33 Change Issues) 34 In addition to the acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 of this ESRP, the acceptance 35 criteria for evaluation of GHGs and climate change impacts are based on the following 36 requirements:

4-69

1 Commission Memorandum and Order (NRC 2009a, CLI-09-21, November 3, 2009) 2 providing direction to the NRC staff: We expect the Staff to include consideration of 3 carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for 4 major licensing actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Staffs 5 analysis for reactor applications should encompass emissions from the uranium fuel 6 cycle as well as from construction and operation of the facility to be licensed. The Staff 7 should ensure that these issues are addressed consistently in agency NEPA 8 evaluations and, as appropriate, update Staff guidance documents to address 9 greenhouse gas emissions.

10 Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of requirements above are as 11 follows:

12 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 13 Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule (74 FR 66496) - This rule summarizes 14 the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) finding that GHGs in the atmosphere 15 endanger public health and welfare.

16 40 CFR Part 98, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting - Establishes mandatory 17 GHG reporting requirements for certain facilities and contains multiple provisions 18 relevant to the air resources reviewer. 40 CFR 98.6 defines various terms, including 19 an explicit definition of compounds included in the term greenhouse gas. 40 CFR 20 98.2 establishes an annual reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 21 (CO2) equivalent per year for certain facilities, including stationary fuel combustion 22 units.

23 4.12.3 Review Procedures (General For Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Climate 24 Change Issues) 25 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

26 1. Review the discussion of GHGs and climate change issues in the LR GEIS to identify the 27 information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for 28 evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Table 4-1 lists 29 the applicable Category 1 issue and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issue for GHG 30 emissions and climate change identified in the LR GEIS.

31 2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The 32 following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

33 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 34 and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of 35 which it is aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 36 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information 37 discovered.

38 - Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.

39 Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the LR 40 GEIS.

4-70

1 - Identify relevant sources of information used for evaluating impacts, including:

2 Studies and monitoring programs: Briefly summarize any studies or monitoring 3 programs that provide site-specific data and can assist with understanding GHG 4 emission sources and climate change impacts, including trends in key climate 5 change indicators (e.g., precipitation, temperature, storm frequency and severity, 6 sea level rise, floods, and droughts). Include the location, dates, objectives, 7 methods, and results applicable to this license renewal application, and what 8 data or data summaries might be available for NRC review.

9 Communications with and views of relevant regulatory agencies: Document any 10 communications with Federal and State agencies with special expertise (e.g.,

11 EPA or State agencies concerning GHG emission regulation and climate change 12 response) that are relevant to assessing impacts and are not documented 13 elsewhere. If relevant communications are documented elsewhere, refer the 14 reader to the appropriate sections. Include other interested stakeholders, as 15 appropriate.

16 Other sources: Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to 17 assess impact and provide a list of references at the end of the chapter.

18 - Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 19 describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 20 describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if warranted 21 provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 22 describes new and significant information, if any.

23 Additional specific guidance follows for the GHG emissions and climate change issue identified 24 as plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS.

25 4.12.4 Evaluation Findings 26 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required 27 to reach a conclusion related to the GHG and climate change impacts from continued plant 28 operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The information that should 29 be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

30 4.12.5 Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources 31 4.12.6 Areas of Review 32 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of climate change impacts on environmental 33 resource areas that are impacted by license renewal and any refurbishment. Impacts are 34 discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

35 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of climate change impacts during initial LR or 36 SLR in the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicants ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new 37 and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.

4-71

1 Data and Information Needs 2 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site and 3 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

4

• the applicants ER 5

• the LR GEIS 6

• information on climate change impacts identified by the public and other information source 7

• climate change projections from models, studies, and reports (e.g., U.S. Global Climate 8 Change Research Program).

9 4.12.7 Acceptance Criteria 10 In addition to the acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.12.2 of this ESRP, the acceptance 11 criteria for the evaluation of climate change impacts are based on the following requirements:

12

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q). Applicants shall include an assessment of the effects of any 13 observed and projected changes in climate on environmental resource areas that are 14 affected by license renewal, as well as any mitigation measures implemented at the 15 applicants plant to address climate change impacts.

16 4.12.8 Review Procedures 17 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

18

• Review the discussion of climate change impacts in the LR GEIS to identify the information 19 considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of 20 information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

21

• Review regional climate change projections for the 20-year license renewal term from 22 climate change models, studies, and reports (e.g., U.S. Global Climate Change Research 23 Program). The geographic scope considered for climate change projections should not be 24 greater than the U.S. National Climate Assessment regions (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, 25 etc.), and when available, local scale projections should be considered. Changes in climate 26 parameters should be quantified including changes in, but not limited to, ambient 27 temperature, precipitation, surface water temperature and levels, length of growing season, 28 and flooding, as appropriate.

29

• Review the applicants ER, including 30 - applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant information 31 - any new information included in the ER on climate change, impacts, and issues known 32 to the applicant 33 - any currently employed or proposed practices and measure to mitigate climate change 34 impacts.

35

• Determine environmental resource areas that are incrementally affected by license renewal.

36 The climate change impacts should focus on the environmental resources that could be 37 incrementally affected by license renewal.

38

• Determine how, and to what extent climatological changes could affect the environmental 39 resource baseline conditions.

4-72

1

• Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 2 - Describes and quantifies climate change projections. When discussing changes in 3 climate parameters, identify the future GHG emission projections and scenarios 4 selected.

5 - Discusses climate change impacts, including trends, on environmental resource areas 6 that are incrementally affected by license renewal.

7 - Describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts.

8 4.12.9 Evaluation Findings 9 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis 10 required to reach conclusions on potential climate change impacts on environmental resources 11 when added to the impact contribution from continued operations during the license renewal 12 term and refurbishment impacts associated with license renewal. The information that should 13 be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.

14 4.13 Cumulative Effects 15 4.13.1 Areas Of Review 16 This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of cumulative effects. Issues 17 assessed here were identified as plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, 18 Revision 2; NRC 2023a), and in Table B-1 of Appendix B, Subpart A to 10 CFR 51.

19 The scope for each individual section includes (1) review of the cumulative effects issue during 20 initial LR or SLR in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluation of the data and analysis in the applicants ER, 21 (3) analysis and evaluation of the data, if appropriate, and (4) preparation of input to the SEIS.

22 The Cumulative Impacts issue (Category 2), evaluated in the nuclear plant-specific SEIS is 23 listed in Table 4-2.

24 4.13.2 Acceptance Criteria 25 In addition to the acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.12.2, the acceptance criteria for the 26 evaluation of climate change impacts are based on the following requirements:

27

• Cumulative effects is a Category 2 issue and requires a plant-specific analysis (see 10 CFR 28 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O)). CEQ defines cumulative effects in 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3) as the effects 29 on the environment that result from the incremental effects of the action when added to the 30 effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what 31 agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 32 effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over 33 a period of time. Cumulative effect analyses should consider new and ongoing activities, 34 such as license renewal, that are conducted, regulated, or approved by a Federal agency.

35 The goal of the analysis is to introduce environmental considerations into the planning 36 process as early as needed to improve decisionmaking. Actions to be considered in 37 cumulative impact analyses include activities associated with license renewal (e.g.,

38 continued reactor operations and refurbishment), that are conducted, regulated, or approved 39 by a Federal agency.

4-73

1 4.13.3 Review Procedures 2 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

3 1. Focus on the environmental resources that could be affected by the incremental effects of 4 continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment. These environmental resource areas 5 include 6 - air quality and noise 7 - water resources 8 - ecological resources 9 - historic and cultural resources 10 - socioeconomics 11 - human health 12 - environmental justice 13 - waste management 14 - global climate change, 15 2. Establish the following for each resource area:

16 - The geographic region of influence that encompasses the areas of potential affect and 17 the distance at which the environmental effects of the proposed action and past, present, 18 and reasonably foreseeable actions may be experienced. Geographic regions of 19 influence vary by affected resource.

20 - The timeframe for the cumulate effects analysis incorporates the incremental effects of 21 the proposed action (license renewal) with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 22 future actions because these combined effects may accumulate or develop over time.

23 Past and present actions include all actions up to and including the date of the license 24 renewal request. The timeframe for the consideration of reasonably foreseeable future 25 actions is the 20-year license renewal (initial LR or SLR) term. Reasonably foreseeable 26 future actions include current and ongoing planned activities, approved and funded for 27 implementation, or generally have a high probability of being implemented.

28 - The environmental effects from past and present actions are accounted for in baseline 29 assessments presented in affected environment discussions in Chapter 3 of the ER.

30 Chapter 4 of the ER accounts for the incremental effects or impacts of license renewal.

31 - The incremental effects of the proposed action (license renewal) when added to the 32 effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, and other actions 33 (including trends such as global climate change) result in the overall cumulative effect.

34 A qualitative cumulative effects analysis is conducted in instances where the incremental 35 effects of the proposed action (license renewal) and past, present, and reasonably 36 foreseeable future actions are uncertain or not well known.

37 - For some resource areas (e.g., water and aquatic resources), the incremental 38 contributions of ongoing actions within a region are regulated and monitored through 39 a permitting process (e.g., NPDES) under State or Federal authority. In these cases, 40 it may be assumed that cumulative effects are managed as long as these actions 41 (e.g., facility operations) comply with their respective permits.

4-74

1 - The cumulative effects analysis only considers resources and environmental conditions 2 that could be affected by the proposed license renewal action, including the effects of 3 continued reactor operations during the license renewal term and any refurbishment 4 activities at a nuclear power plant. In order for there to be a cumulative effect, the 5 proposed action (license renewal) must have an incremental new, additive, or increased 6 physical effect or impact on the resource or environmental condition beyond what is 7 already occurring.

8 4.13.4 Evaluation Findings 9 The reviewer should ensure that the cumulative effects analysis provides a sufficient basis for 10 determining the impacts from continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities 11 associated with license renewal.

12 4.14 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 13 4.14.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle 14 4.14.1.1 Areas of Review 15 This ESRP provides guidance for the preparation of introductory paragraphs for the portion of 16 the SEIS that describes environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the initial LR or 17 SLR term.

18 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of the uranium fuel cycle in the LR GEIS, 19 (2) identification and evaluation of new information related to the uranium fuel cycle, 20 (3) preparation of input to the SEIS that presents the analyses related to those Category 1 21 issues. Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issues for the uranium fuel cycle identified in 22 the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

23 Data and Information Needs 24 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site and 25 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

26

• a description of the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant 27 information on environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal 28 term 29

• new information on the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term known to the applicant 30

• new and potentially significant information on the uranium fuel cycle identified by the public 31

• a list of environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term for 32 which there is significant new information.

33 4.14.1.2 Acceptance Criteria 34 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the 35 uranium fuel cycle.

4-75

1 4.14.1.3 Review Procedures 2 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

3 1. Review the discussion of the issue in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered 4 and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information 5 identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the uranium fuel 6 cycle issues that were addressed in the LR GEIS for which generic conclusions were 7 reached.

8 2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following 9 sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

10 - When reviewing the ER, consider the applicants process for discovering new 11 information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered.

12 - Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application.

13 - Environmental quality standards and regulations.

14 - If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 3.

15 3. Evaluate the significance of new information.

16 4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 17 information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 18 from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information.

19 4.14.1.4 Evaluation Findings 20 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis 21 required to reach conclusions on issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal 22 term. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 23 procedures.

24 4.14.2 Replacement Power Alternative Fuel Cycles 25 4.14.2.1 Areas of Review 26 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the environmental impacts of replacement power 27 alternative fuel cycles during the renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This ESRP examines the 28 potential environmental impacts associated with the replacement power alternative fuel cycles.

29 If a renewed license were denied, then the plant generally would be decommissioned earlier 30 than if the license were renewed, and other electric-generating sources would be pursued if 31 power were still needed.

32 Analysis of replacement power alternative fuel cycles does not involve the determination of 33 whether any power is needed or should be generated. The decision to generate power and the 34 determination of how much power is needed are at the discretion of State and utility officials.

35 The potential environmental impacts evaluated include land use, ecology, aesthetics, water 36 quality, air quality, waste management, human health, socioeconomics, and historic and cultural 37 resources.

4-76

1 The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of potential impacts of replacement power 2 alternative fuel cycles in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a); (2) identification 3 and evaluation of new information related to potential impacts of replacement power alternative 4 fuel cycles; and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS that presents the analyses related to those 5 Category 1 issues.

6 Data and Information Needs 7 The reviewer for this ESRP may obtain the following information from the EPM:

8

• organizational structure of the SEIS 9

• list of environmental impacts associated with replacement power alternative fuel cycles that 10 have been determined to be inapplicable to the applicants plant and the reason for each 11 determination.

12 4.14.2.2 Acceptance Criteria 13 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the 14 impacts of alternative fuel cycles.

15 4.14.2.3 Review Procedures 16 To analyze the environmental impact of replacement power alternative fuel cycles, the reviewer 17 should complete the following steps:

18 1. Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of replacement power alternative 19 fuel cycles in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions 20 reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 21 applicant, the public, and the staff.

22 2. Obtain information for evaluation. The following sources of information should be included 23 in the search for information:

24 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 25 and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of 26 which it is aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 27 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information 28 discovered.

29 - Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 30 information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.

31 3. Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of replacement power alternative fuel 32 cycles, those that are minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require 33 detailed analysis.

34 4. If, based on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor 35 impacts, proceed to Step 4. Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no 36 environmental impacts or that the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this effect.

37 5. Analyze the environmental impacts associated with replacement power alternative fuel 38 cycles, as follows:

39 - Identify and calculate the likely environmental impacts of required replacement power 40 alternative fuel cycles including conservation and purchased or imported power, based 4-77

1 on the LR GEIS, the applicants ER, and the integrated resource plans for the area(s) 2 or region(s) currently or (if different) likely to be served by the nuclear power plant.

3 Assume appropriate mitigation measures (for example emission control technologies 4 and best management practices) for each replacement power alternative.

5 - Describe the impacts in sufficient detail so that reviewers may compare the adverse 6 and beneficial impacts of the alternatives with those of renewing the operating license.

7 Impact analyses should consider land use, water quality, air quality, ecological 8 resources, human health, social and economic systems, waste management, aesthetics, 9 and cultural resources. The impacts analyses should include direct, indirect, and 10 cumulative impacts. For each alternative, the analysis should identify and, to the extent 11 possible, quantify, unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible and irretrievable resource 12 commitments, and tradeoffs between short-term use and long-term productivity of the 13 environment. To the extent possible, each alternative should be analyzed on a nuclear 14 power plant site- or region-specific basis. Each impact should be analyzed in proportion 15 to its significance.

16 Data provided in the applicants ER are adequate if they describe:

17 - The degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected by use of 18 replacement power alternatives. These data agree with data obtained from other 19 sources, when available.

20 - The significance or potential significance of such environmental impacts. SMALL 21 impacts result when no discernible change in environmental resources occurs as a result 22 of using replacement power alternatives. MODERATE impacts result when there is a 23 discernible change. LARGE impacts occur when there is substantial disruption of 24 environmental resources.

25 - Any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental 26 concerns.

27 - Supplemental data obtained from other individuals and organizations may be useful in 28 determining the completeness of the applicants identification of housing impacts.

29 - Consider and evaluate potential mitigation measures or alternatives that might reduce or 30 eliminate the adverse impacts or the disproportionate distribution of the impacts in those 31 cases where the impacts are MODERATE or LARGE. These may have been 32 considered in the applicants ER.

33 - Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the 34 SEIS:

35 a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the 36 degree to which environmental resources are expected to receive impacts from 37 replacement power alternatives, together with the significance of these impacts 38 a discussion of the reasoning (e.g., based on locations and changes in 39 population, local government revenue base, ecological impacts on other nearby 40 plant sites or transmission corridors) behind the estimated degree of impact 41 a discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce 42 environmental concerns.

4-78

1 4.14.2.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and 3 significance of the effects of replacement power alternative fuel cycles. The reviewer should 4 verify that sufficient information is available to meet the relevant requirements.

5 4.14.3 Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning 6 4.14.3.1 Areas of Review 7 This ESRP provides guidance for the consideration of impacts from the termination of nuclear 8 plant operations and decommissioning and preparation of input to the SEIS.

9 The scope includes the review of (1) the applicants ER, (2) termination of nuclear plant 10 operations and decommissioning impacts in the LR GEIS, and (3) any new and potentially 11 significant termination of nuclear plant operations and decommissioning impact information.

12 Following this review, the reviewer then prepares input to the SEIS. The termination of plant 13 operations and decommissioning issue (Category 1) for initial LR or SLR, as evaluated in the LR 14 GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a), is listed in Table 4-1.

15 Data and Information Needs 16 According to the LR GEIS, the environmental consequences of terminating reactor operations 17 and decommissioning nuclear power plants attributable to the proposed action (license renewal) 18 would be the environmental effects from an additional 20 years of nuclear power plant 19 operations and refurbishment. The impacts from decommissioning a nuclear power plant are 20 evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear 21 Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, 22 NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). Based on this, the following data or information may be needed:

23

• a description of the applicants process for identifying new and significant information in the 24 ER 25

• any new and significant plant-specific impact information identified during scoping 26

• any new and significant plant-specific impact information identified during site visit, staff 27 environmental review, and discussions with applicant.

28 4.14.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 29 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the 30 impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment, associated with license 31 renewal, on the termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning.

32 4.14.3.3 Review Procedures 33 The following review steps are suggested:

34 1. The applicant is required by NRC regulation to disclose new and significant information 35 regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware (see 10 CFR 36 51.53(c)(3)(iv)). In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for 37 discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information 38 discovered.

4-79

1 2. Review public scoping meeting transcripts and related correspondence. Compare any new 2 information with the conclusions in the LR GEIS.

3 3. Evaluate the significance of any new information for its effect on the impact analysis.

4 4. Prepare SEIS discussion describing the search for new and significant information, 5 summarizing any new information found and the results of the significance evaluation.

6 Incorporate by reference the conclusions from the LR GEIS for the proposed action or 7 modify as necessary to account for any significant new information.

8 4.14.3.4 Evaluation Findings 9 The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining the 10 impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities, associated with 11 license renewal, on the termination of plant operations and decommissioning.

12 4.15 References 13 4.15.1 Areas of Review 14 This ESRP provides guidance for the consolidated listing of references cited in the main 15 chapters of the SEIS.

16 4.15.2 Acceptance Criteria 17 Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the following 18 requirements (see also Section 4.1.2):

19

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft EIS that is concise, clear, analytical, and 20 written in plain language 21 4.15.3 Review Procedures 22 The EPM should contact reviewers for ESRP Sections 4.2 through 4.14 and compile a list of 23 references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations should 24 be checked for completeness and accuracy and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.

25 4.15.4 Evaluation Findings 26 The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists 27 references cited in the SEIS sections covering environmental impacts. The completed 28 reference list constitutes the findings for this ESRP.

4-80

1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 2 5.1 Overview 3 This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides general procedures for evaluating the 4 environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license renewal term (initial 5 license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]).

6 5.1.1 Areas of Review 7 The scope of this plan is the development of paragraphs that introduce the material from the 8 reviews conducted under ESRP Sections 5.2 and 5.3. It includes the description of the 9 environmental issues associated with postulated accidents discussed in the Generic 10 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; 11 NUREG-1437, Revision 2, NRC 2023a) Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issues for 12 postulated accidents identified in the LR GEIS including design-basis accidents and severe 13 accidents.

14 5.1.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents Issues) 15 The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 16 consistent with the intent of the following requirements:

17

• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 51.45(c) (10 CFR 51.45(c)), Analysis. The 18 environmental report must include an analysis that considers and balances the 19 environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of replacement 20 power alternatives, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 21 environmental effects.

22

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, 23 including the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures 24 as described in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in 25 detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the 26 environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, 27 the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any 28 other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45.

29

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and 30 analytic, and written in plain language with appropriate graphics. The format provided in 31 Section 1(a) of Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 32 Commission (NRC) staff will independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of 33 all information used in the draft environmental impact statement.

34

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a 35 preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed 36 action; the environmental impacts of replacement power alternatives; and alternatives 37 available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, among other things.

38

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning compliance with environmental-quality standards and 39 requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and 40 Indian Tribes 5-1

1

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a 2 nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an 3 environmental impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commissions NUREG-1437, 4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.

5

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, paragraph 7, concerning the environmental 6 consequences of alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions 7 which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a 8 discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the 9 alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for each alternative considered in 10 detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking.

11

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 12 License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1, Summary of Findings on Environmental 13 Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.

14 Technical Rationale 15 The technical rationale for evaluating the applicants description of the potential environmental 16 impacts of postulated accidents during the renewal term is discussed in the following paragraph:

17 The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified 18 by the supporting information in the LR GEIS, for issues that are designated as 19 Category 1 or resolved Category 2, information developed for those open Category 2 20 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant new information in an EIS prepared 21 at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under this ESRP leads to 22 preparation of introductory paragraphs that orient the reader concerning the relevance 23 of the material to the overall organization and goals of the SEIS and add clarity to the 24 presentation.

25 5.1.3 Review Procedures 26 The material to be prepared is informational in nature, and no specific analysis of data is 27 required.

28 Generic conclusions relative to impacts were reached in the LR GEIS for those issues that are 29 appropriate for all plants, or for some issues for specific classes of plants. These conclusions 30 were that (1) a single level of significance could be assigned to the impact and (2) plant-specific 31 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. The 32 generic analysis of severe accidents analysis described in the LR GEIS applies to all plants.

33 It concludes that the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto 34 open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts of severe 35 accidents are of small significance. In the absence of new and significant information, these 36 issues may be addressed in the SEIS without additional plant-specific analysis.

37 All nuclear power plant licensees have performed analyses of the measures that could mitigate 38 the consequences of severe accidents.

39 If there is new and significant information related to the environmental impacts associated with 40 postulated accidents identified by the applicant, members of the public, or the staff during the 41 environmental review, the reviewer for this ESRP should prepare a table that directs readers to 42 the SEIS sections dealing with the issues.

5-2

1 5.1.4 Evaluation Findings 2 The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for 3 the SEIS. The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the 4 reviewers of information covered by ESRP Sections 5.2 and 5.3. The paragraph(s) should list 5 the types of information to be presented and describe their relationships to information 6 presented earlier and to be presented later in the SEIS.

7 5.2 Postulated Accidents 8 5.2.1 Areas of Review 9 This ESRP provides guidance for the review of environmental impacts of postulated plant 10 accidents during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) and preparation of input to the 11 SEIS. These issues are discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 and Appendix E of the LR GEIS (NUREG-12 1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a).

13 The scope includes (1) review of the LR GEIS discussion of postulated accidents, 14 (2) identification and evaluation of new information related to environmental impacts of 15 postulated accidents during the renewal term for significance, and (3) preparation of input 16 to the SEIS that dispositions the Category 1 issue.

17 Impacts of design-basis and severe accidents during the SLR term are Category 1 issues, 18 as listed in Table 4-1. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases to 19 groundwater and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.

20 If a severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) review or severe accident mitigation design 21 alternatives (SAMDA) review has been conducted, only new and significant information should 22 be evaluated. In the unlikely event that the applicant has not previously conducted a SAMA or 23 SAMDA analysis for the facility, then a full SAMA analysis must be provided. For information on 24 reviewing a new SAMA analysis, please see Revision 1 of this document. The new and 25 significant information specific to the SAMA or SAMDA analysis may be reviewed to the 26 guidance provided in NEI 17-04, Revision 1, Model SLR New and Significant Assessment 27 Approach for SAMA, dated August 2019 (NEI 2019).

28 Data and Information Needs (General for Postulated Accidents) 29 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 30 plant-specific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude 31 of the potential impacts. The following data or information may be needed:

32

• a description of the applicants process for identifying new and potentially significant 33 information on environmental issues related to postulated accidents during the license 34 renewal term (initial LR or SLR) 35

• new information on environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license 36 renewal term (initial LR or SLR) known to the applicant, including applicable and most 37 recent probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) hazard information 38

• new and potentially significant information on environmental impacts of postulated plant 39 accidents during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) identified by the public.

5-3

1 5.2.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents) 2 The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 5.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the 3 impacts of the postulated accidents during the renewal term.

4 5.2.3 Review Procedures 5 Evaluate the significance of new information related to the NRCs conclusion in Table 4-1 6 regarding design-basis accidents.

7 Evaluate the significance of new information related to the NRCs conclusion in Table 4-1, 8 Severe accidents. That is, the conclusion that (t)he probabilityweighted consequences of 9 atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal 10 and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.

11 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

12 1. Review the discussion of the issue in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and 13 the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information 14 identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.

15 2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following 16 sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

17 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 18 and significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 19 aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for discovering 20 new information related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents and evaluating 21 the significance of any new information discovered.

22 - Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 23 information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.

24 - Environmental standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality 25 standards and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the LR GEIS? If so, do 26 the changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal?

27 3. If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 4.

28 Otherwise, prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, 29 stating the conclusion that there is none, and adopting conclusions from the LR GEIS.

30 4. Evaluate the significance of new information.

31 5. Prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing 32 new information found, and presenting results of evaluation of significance.

33 5.2.4 Evaluation Findings 34 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis 35 required to reach a conclusion related to the environmental impacts of postulated accidents 36 during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). The information that should be included in 37 the SEIS is described in the review procedures. In accordance with the Commissions direction 38 in the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-12-0063Final Rule (NRC 2012a), when 39 reiterating the conclusion of the LR GEIS in the evaluation findings, the following entire phrase 5-4

1 shall be included in the text: the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are 2 SMALL.

3 5.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 4 5.3.1 Areas of Review 5 This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of SAMAs. Because license 6 SAMAs have been considered at all facilities that the NRC anticipates applying for license 7 renewal in the future, license renewal SAMAs are no longer a Category 2 issue for the operating 8 nuclear power plant fleet, only an evaluation for new and significant information for a previous 9 SAMA or SAMDA is necessary. However, should a facility apply for license renewal that has 10 not previously performed a SAMA analysis, then the staff should look to NUREG-1555, 11 Supplement 1, Revision 1 for guidance on how to review an initial SAMA analysis.

12 The scope includes an analysis of any new and significant information relating to the applicants 13 previously performed SAMA or SAMDA analysis and the preparation of an appropriate 14 statement for the SEIS. The previous analysis of SAMAs includes the identification and 15 evaluation of alternatives that reduce the radiological risk from a severe accident by preventing 16 substantial core damage (i.e., preventing a severe accident) or by limiting releases from 17 containment in the event that substantial core damage occurs (i.e., mitigating the impacts of a 18 severe accident). The purpose of the review was to ensure that plant and procedure changes 19 with the potential for improved severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated.

20 Data and Information Needs 21 The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 22 plant-specific factors. The following data or information should be reviewed or audited:

23

• New information pertaining to data used in a SAMA analysis that has changed or become 24 available since the time the preceding SAMA analysis was performed.

25

• New information dependent on plant activities or site-specific changes. Examples include 26 - identification of a new hazard (e.g., a fault that was not previously analyzed in the 27 seismic analysis) 28 - updated plant risk model (e.g., a fire PRA that replaces the Individual Plant Examination 29 of External Events (IPEEE) analysis) 30 - impacts of plant changes that are included in the plant risk models that will be reflected 31 in the model results and do not need to be assessed separately.

32

• Modifications determined to have no risk impact need not be included (e.g., replacement of 33 the condenser vacuum pumps).

34

• For risk model updates performed to reflect the latest PRA model state of the practice, it is 35 noted that the actual physical plant risk may not have changed, but because the best 36 estimate assessment/understanding of the risk has changed, it is considered to be new 37 information.

38

• Consideration of whether potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in U.S. license 39 renewal applications after submittal of the SAMA analysis for the analyzed plant could be 40 new information.

5-5

1

• Applicants for boiling water reactor licenses should assess SAMAs from other boiling water 2 reactor applications; likewise, applicants for pressurized water reactor licenses should 3 assess SAMAs from other pressurized water reactor applications.

4

• If there is a basis for excluding this body of SAMAs from the pool of new information to be 5 evaluated for significance, the rationale should be documented.

6

• Other data needs include those provided in NEI 17-04, Section 3.1 based on the relevant 7 assessment stage reached (NEI 2019).

8

• Consistent with guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 2 (NRC 9 2023b), the ER should briefly describe the processes that were used for identifying new 10 information and determining its significance. If a determination is made that no new and 11 significant information exists, then the ER should state this determination.

12

• Alternatively, if a determination is made that one or more potentially significant SAMAs are 13 also potentially cost beneficial, then the ER should describe those SAMAs and state that 14 new and significant information has been identified. The ER also should indicate whether 15 the new and significant SAMAs are agingrelated and describe supplementary actions to 16 be taken relative to their discovery, if any.

17 5.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 18 Applicable general acceptance criteria are specified in Section 5.1.2. In addition, NEI 17-04 19 (NEI 2019) provides an approach for assessing the significance of new information of which the 20 applicant for renewal of a nuclear power reactor operating license or extension of a combined 21 license is aware that relates to either (1) the SAMDA analysis or SAMA analysis documented in 22 the NRCs final environmental statement (FES), final SEIS, or environmental assessment (EA) 23 that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 (or Part 54) of the reactors initial (or 24 renewed) operating license or (2) the SAMDA analysis documented in the NRCs FES, final 25 SEIS, or EA that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 of the reactors combined 26 license and the design certification incorporated therein by reference, if any.

27 In the event that a SAMA is performed acceptance criteria for the analysis and evaluation of 28 SAMAs are based on the following additional requirements:

29

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), If the staff has not previously considered severe accident 30 mitigation alternatives for the applicant's plant in an environmental impact statement or 31 related supplement or in an environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives to 32 mitigate severe accidents must be provided.

33 For the SAMA or SAMDA new and significant evaluation, the following regulatory positions and 34 specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as follows:

35

• NEI 17-04, Revision 1 (NEI 2019), Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach 36 for SAMA, provides information for one acceptable way for the applicant to evaluate new 37 and significant information specific to the SAMA or SAMDA analysis.

38

• NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 5, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 39 Commission (NRC 2017b) states the policy for the preparation and the contents of 40 regulatory analyses, including estimation of values and impacts for alternatives.

41

• NUREG-1530 (NRC 2022) provides information on dollars per person- roentgen-equivalent-42 man conversion factor for offsite damage costs.

5-6

1

• Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for 2 Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications (NRC 2023b) provides guidance on 3 preparation of ERs associated with license renewal.

4

• Regulatory Guides 1.174 (NRC 2018a) and 1.200 (NRC 2020a) provide guidance on 5 general concepts in use and evaluation of probabilistic risk assessments for risk-informed 6 decisions.

7 In addition to the above, the reviewer should be familiar with Nuclear Energy Institute 05-01, 8 SAMA Analysis Guidance Document, (NEI 2005) which is the nuclear industrys guidance 9 document describing how to perform the SAMA analysis and describes the information that 10 should be included in the SAMA analysis portion of the ER.

11 The following acceptance criterion is used in the SAMA or SAMDA new and significant review:

12 As detailed in NEI 17-04 (NEI 2019), a tiered approach is used that employs a coarse screening 13 process in Stage 1 and progresses to a detailed screening process in Stage 3. Applicants that 14 are able to demonstrate in the Stage 1 screening process that there is no potentially significant 15 new information are not required to perform the Stage 2 or Stage 3 evaluations. New 16 information will be deemed potentially significant to the extent it results in the identification in 17 Stage 1 of an unimplemented SAMA that reduces the maximum benefit (MB) by 50 percent or 18 more. The first stage of the model approach uses PRA risk insights and/or risk model 19 quantifications to estimate the percent reduction in MB associated with (1) any unimplemented 20 Final PlantSpecific SAMAs, and (2) those SAMAs identified as potentially cost beneficial for 21 other industry plants that have been determined to be applicable to but not already implemented 22 at the analyzed plant (referred to herein as Applicable Industry SAMAs). In the event that one 23 or more unimplemented Final PlantSpecific SAMAs or Applicable Industry SAMAs are shown in 24 Stage 1 to reduce the MB by 50 percent or more, the applicant must develop an updated 25 averted costrisk estimate for implementing those SAMAs. Such development is the Stage 2 26 assessment.

27 In the event that the results of the Stage 2 assessment support the Stage 1 conclusion that one 28 or more SAMAs reduce the MB by 50 percent or more, those potentially significant SAMAs 29 must be further assessed in Stage 3. The Stage 3 assessment consists of performing a cost 30 benefit analysis for the potentially significant SAMAs identified in Stage 2. If any potentially 31 significant SAMA is found in Stage 3 to be also potentially costbeneficial, then the finding 32 indicates the existence of new and significant information. Hence, because new and 33 significant information exists, the applicant must supplement the previous SAMA analysis.

34 Technical Rationale 35 The technical rationale for evaluating the applicants SAMAs if new and significant information 36 exists is discussed in the following paragraphs.

37 If any potentially significant SAMA is found in Stage 3 of the NEI 17-04 process to be 38 potentially costbeneficial, then the finding indicates the existence of new and significant 39 information. Hence, because new and significant information exists, the applicant must 40 supplement the previous SAMA analysis.

41 The SEIS should include an analysis of new and significant information that relates to the 42 previous SAMA or SAMDA. The Stage 3 assessment consists of performing a costbenefit 5-7

1 analysis for the potentially significant SAMAs identified in Stage 2. If any potentially 2 significant SAMA is found in Stage 3 to be also potentially costbeneficial, then the finding 3 indicates the existence of new and significant information. Hence, because new and 4 significant information exists, the applicant must supplement the previous SAMA analysis.

5 A 1989 court decision (Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 [3rd Cir. 1989])

6 stated that the Action of NRC in addressing severe accident mitigation design alternatives 7 (SAMDAs) (prior term for SAMAs) through policy statements, not rule making, did not satisfy 8 NEPA, where policy statements did not represent requisite careful consideration of 9 environmental consequences, excluded consideration of design alternatives without making 10 any conclusions about effectiveness of any particular alternative, and issues were not 11 generic in that impact of SAMDAs on environment would differ with a particular plants 12 design, construction and locations. NRC considers the evaluation of SAMAs in the 13 environmental impact review that is performed as part of every application for a license 14 renewal if SAMAs have not been considered for the plant.

15 5.3.3 Review Procedures 16 Evaluate the significance of new information of which the applicant for renewal of a nuclear 17 power reactor operating license or extension of a combined license is aware that relates to 18 either (1) the SAMDA analysis or SAMA analysis documented in the NRCs FES, final SEIS, or 19 EA that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 (or Part 54) of the reactors initial (or 20 renewed) operating license or (2) the SAMDA analysis documented in the NRCs FES, final 21 SEIS, or EA that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 of the reactors combined 22 license and the design certification incorporated therein by reference, if any.

23 Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:

24 1. Review the discussion of the issue in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and 25 the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information 26 identified by the applicant, the public, and the NRC staff.

27 2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following 28 sources of information should be included in the search for new information:

29 - The applicants ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new 30 and significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 31 aware. In reviewing the applicants ER, consider the applicants process for discovering 32 new information related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents and evaluating 33 the significance of any new information discovered.

34 - Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 35 information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.

36 - Environmental standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality 37 standards and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the LR GEIS? If so, 38 do the changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal?

39 - If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 3.

40 Otherwise, prepare the section for SEIS describing the search for new information, 41 stating the conclusion that there is none, and adopting conclusions from the LR GEIS.

42 3. Evaluate the significance of new information.

5-8

1 4. Prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing 2 new information found, and presenting results of evaluation of significance.

3 5.3.4 Evaluation Findings 4 The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the review of new and 5 significant information required to reach a conclusion related to the applicants prior SAMA 6 analysis. The review of new and significant information that should be included in the SEIS 7 is described in the review procedures.

8 5.4 References 9 5.4.1 Areas of Review 10 This ESRP provides guidance for listing references in this chapter of the SEIS.

11 5.4.2 Acceptance Criteria 12 Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the following 13 requirements:

14

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and 15 written in plain language.

16 5.4.3 Review Procedures 17 The reviewer should contact reviewers for ESRP Sections 5.1 through 5.3 and compile a list of 18 references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations should be 19 checked for completeness and accuracy and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.

20 5.4.4 Evaluation Findings 21 The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists 22 references cited in the SEIS sections covering changes in the environmental impacts of 23 postulated accidents during the license renewal term. The completed reference list constitutes 24 the findings for this ESRP.

5-9

1 6.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 2 6.1 Areas of Review 3 This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance on preparing these 4 chapters and supporting discussions of the supplemental environmental impact statement 5 (SEIS) that integrates the conclusions for issues designated Category 1 or resolved Category 2 6 in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR 7 GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2023a); information developed for those open Category 8 2 issues applicable to the plant; and new and significant information. The chapter discussions 9 must conclude whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that 10 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be 11 unreasonable.

12 The scope includes (1) review of the impact analyses prepared for the SEIS, (2) evaluation of 13 the cumulative impacts associated with continued nuclear power plant operations during the 14 license renewal term (initial license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) and any 15 refurbishment, (3) review of discussions of the environmental impacts of alternatives, (4) 16 comparison of the environmental impacts of license renewal with the environmental impacts of 17 the alternatives, and (5) preparation of input to the SEIS.

18 The SEIS input should (1) identify adverse environmental impacts that are unavoidable, 19 (2) identify commitments of resources that are irreversible and irretrievable, and (3) discuss 20 the effects of short-term use on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment.

21 Data and Information Needs 22 The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and 23 plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:

24

• the discussion of environmental impacts of license renewal (initial LR or SLR) in the LR 25 GEIS 26

• the discussion of plant-specific environmental impacts of license renewal (initial LR or SLR) 27 in the applicants environmental report 28

• the summary of environmental impact analyses conducted for the SEIS.

29 6.2 Acceptance Criteria 30 Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the summary and conclusions are based on the 31 following requirements:

32

• Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 51.70(b) (10 CFR 51.70(b)), concerning a 33 concise, clear, analytic EIS written in plain language 34

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a 35 preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed 36 action; the environmental impacts of replacement power alternatives; and alternatives 37 available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, among other things 6-1

1

• 10 CFR 51.71(f), concerning including a preliminary recommendation by the U.S. Nuclear 2 Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff respecting the proposed action reached after 3 considering the environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives 4

• 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4), concerning the NRC staff recommendation regarding the environmental 5 acceptability of the license renewal action that integrates the conclusions, as amplified by 6 the supporting information in the generic EIS, for issues designated Category 1 or resolved 7 Category 2, information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, 8 and any new and significant information. Given this information, the NRC staff, adjudicatory 9 officers, and Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts 10 of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy 11 planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

12 Technical Rationale 13 The SEIS must include the NRC staff recommendations regarding the environmental 14 acceptability of the proposed action. In making these recommendations, the NRC staff is 15 required to integrate the conclusions from the LR GEIS, plant-specific impact analyses, and any 16 significant new information. This ESRP summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed 17 action, comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposed action with the impact of the 18 alternatives, and the staff recommendations.

19 6.3 Review Procedures 20 The environmental project manager (EPM) is responsible for the preparation of the SEIS 21 summary and conclusion chapters. The summary and conclusion discussions should be 22 sufficiently complete that a person reading this section would understand:

23

• the purpose of and need for the proposed action 24

• the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process and NRCs environmental review 25 leading to the preparation of the SEIS 26

• the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license (initial LR or SLR) 27

• the environmental impacts of alternatives to renewing the operating license 28

• staff conclusions and recommendations.

29 Suggested steps for the preparation of the summary and conclusion chapters of the SEIS are as 30 follows:

31 1. Prepare introductory paragraphs for the summary and conclusion chapters.

32 2. Prepare a table that summarizes the findings of the environmental impacts presented in the 33 SEIS. The summary and conclusions table should list of the environmental impacts of 34 license renewal and alternatives to license renewal (including no-action) and state the level 35 of significance of each impact. This table should be organized by area of environmental 36 concern.

37 The EPM should also consider the list of unavoidable adverse impacts and the list of 38 irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, and draw conclusions related to effects 39 of short-term commitments on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment.

40 The final lists of unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible and irretrievable resource 6-2

1 commitments and a discussion of the effects of short-term use on maintenance and long-2 term productivity of the environment should also be included in the SEIS.

3 3. Prepare input to the SEIS summary and conclusion chapters.

4 6.4 Evaluation Findings 5 The EPM prepares the SEIS sections that presents (1) the overall summary of the 6 environmental impacts of license renewal (initial LR or SLR) and alternatives to license renewal 7 (including no-action) and (2) the NRC staff recommendations regarding license renewal. The 8 overall summary should be presented in tabular form. The contents of the table are described 9 in the Review Procedures section. The NRC staff recommendation should be stated in terms 10 consistent with the wording of 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4).

6-3

1

7.0 REFERENCES

2 10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2, "Rules of Practice for 3 Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders."

4 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for 5 Protection Against Radiation."

6 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 7 Production and Utilization Facilities."

8 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 9 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses, 11 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

12 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for 13 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

14 15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Part 15 930, "Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs."

16 33 CFR Part 330. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 17 Part 330, "Nationwide Permit Program."

18 36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 19 Part 60, National Register of Historic Places.

20 36 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 21 Part 63, "Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places."

22 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 23 Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

24 40 CFR Part 6. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 6, 25 "Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the 26 Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions."

27 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 28 "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards."

29 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 30 "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."

31 40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 52, 32 "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans."

7-1

1 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 2 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

3 40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93, 4 "Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans."

5 40 CFR Part 98. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 98, 6 "Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting."

7 40 CFR Part 121. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 121, 8 "State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit."

9 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, 10 "EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System."

11 40 CFR Part 123. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 123, 12 "State Program Requirements."

13 40 CFR Part 124. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 124, 14 "Procedures for Decisionmaking."

15 40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, 16 "Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System."

17 40 CFR Part 127. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 127, 18 "NPDES Electronic Reporting."

19 40 CFR Part 129. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 129, 20 "Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards."

21 40 CFR Part 130. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 130, 22 "Water Quality Planning and Management."

23 40 CFR Part 131. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 131, 24 "Water Quality Standards."

25 40 CFR Part 132. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 132, 26 "Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System."

27 40 CFR Part 133. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 133, 28 "Secondary Treatment Regulation."

29 40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 141, 30 "National Primary Drinking Water Standards."

31 40 CFR Part 147. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 147, 32 "State, Tribal, and EPA-Administered Underground Injection Control Programs."

7-2

1 40 CFR Part 149. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 149, 2 "Sole Source Aquifers."

3 40 CFR Part 165. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 165, 4 "Pesticide Management and Disposal."

5 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 6 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

7 40 CFR Part 403. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 403, 8 "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution."

9 40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, 10 "Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."

11 40 CFR Part 700. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 12 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 700, "General."

13 40 CFR Part 702. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 14 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 702, "General Practices and Procedures."

15 40 CFR Part 704. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 16 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 704, "Reporting and Recordkeeping 17 Requirements."

18 40 CFR Part 707. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 19 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 707, "Chemical Imports and Exports."

20 40 CFR Part 710. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 21 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 710, "Compilation of the TSCA Chemical 22 Substance Inventory."

23 40 CFR Part 711. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 24 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 711, "TSCA Chemical Data Reporting 25 Requirements."

26 40 CFR Part 712. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 27 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 712, "Chemical Information Rules."

28 40 CFR Part 713. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 713, 29 "Reporting Requirements for the TSCA Inventory of Mercury Supply, Use, and Trade."

30 40 CFR Part 716. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 31 Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 716, "Health and Safety Data Reporting."

32 40 CFR Part 1501. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 33 1501, "NEPA and Agency Planning."

7-3

1 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 2 1508, "Definitions."

3 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 4 "Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended."

5 50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 600, 6 "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions."

7 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994: Federal 8 Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 9 Populations." Federal Register, Office of the President.

10 61 FR 66537. December 18, 1996. "Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power 11 Plant Operating Licenses." Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

12 65 FR 67249. November 9, 2000. "Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000Consultation 13 and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments." Federal Register, Office of the President.

14 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 15 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission.

17 74 FR 66496. December 15, 2009. "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 18 Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." Federal Register, 19 Environmental Protection Agency.

20 79 FR 48300. August 15, 2014. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemFinal 21 Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities 22 and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities." Federal Register, Environmental Protection 23 Agency.

24 82 FR 2402. January 9, 2017. "Tribal Policy Statement." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory 25 Commission.

26 American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 1996 et seq.

27 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 470aa-470mm.

28 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 312501 et seq.

29 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.

30 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. § 668-668d et seq.

7-4

1 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2017. "Waterborne Disease Outbreaks 2 Associated With Environmental and Undetermined Exposures to Water - United States, 2013-3 2014." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 66:1222-1225, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed June 4 28, 2022, at http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6644a4.

5 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations Into 6 Environmental Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.

7 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the 8 National Environmental Policy Act. Washington D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML103430030.

9 CEQ and ACHP (Council on Environmental Quality and Advisory Council on Historic 10 Preservation). 2013. NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106.

11 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14172A044.

12 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.

13 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.

14 Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney, S.

15 Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G.M. Woodwell. 1997. "Ecosystem Services: Benefits 16 Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems." Issues in Ecology 2:1-18, Washington, 17 D.C.

18 EJ IWG (Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice). 2016. Promising 19 Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 1, 20 2020, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-21 08/documents/nepa_promising_practices_document_2016.pdf.

22 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.

23 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk 24 Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F, Washington, D.C.

25 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). 33 26 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.

27 Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. § 479a et seq.

28 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998.

29 Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Section 7 30 Consultation and Conference. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14171A801.

31 IEEE SA (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association). 2017. 2017 32 National Electrical Safety Code. IEEE C2-2017. Piscataway, New Jersey.

7-5

1 Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1989. "Federal 2 Reporter, Second Series, Volume 869, P 719 [3rd Circuit]." Available at 3 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Federal_Reporter/Second_series/Volume_869.

4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.

5 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.

6 Menzie, C., M.H. Henning, J. Cura, K. Finkelstein, J. Gentile, J. Maughan, D. Mitchell, S.

7 Petron, B. Potocki, S. Svirsky, and P. Tyler. 1996. "Special Report of the Massachusetts 8 WeightofEvidence Workgroup A WeightofEvidence Approach for Evaluating Ecological 9 Risks, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment." An International Journal 2(2):277-304.

10 Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039609383609.

11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.

12 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.

13 National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.

14 National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.

15 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.

16 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2005. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis 17 Guidance Document. NEI-05-01, Revision A, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.

18 ML060530203.

19 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2019. Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach 20 for SAMA. NEI 17-04, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19318D216.

21 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 22 Guidance. Version 1.1, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed September 2, 2020, at 23 https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4187.

24 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004b. Preparing Essential Fish Habitat 25 Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies. Version 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 26 Accession No. ML14309A276.

27 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Overview of Conducting 28 Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. September 29 2009. Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed October 13, 2020, at 30 https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/304d.pdf.

31 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2020. "Habitat Areas of Particular 32 Concern within Essential Fish Habitat." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 19, 2022, at 33 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/habitat-conservation/habitat-areas-particular-concern-34 within-essential-fish-habitat.

7-6

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 2 Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 3 Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession 4 No. ML003740384.

5 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1994. Letter from I. Selin to The President dated 6 March 31, 1994. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML033210526.

7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan 8 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. Sections 2.3-2.4; 9 2.6-2.8; 3.3-3.4; 4.2-4.3; 5.2, 5.3, and 5.10; 6.3; 6.5; 10.1; and 10.2 from NUREG-1555.

10 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12178A236.

11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2001. Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste 12 Management Systems, Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear 13 Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.143, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.

14 ML013100305.

15 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 16 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of 17 Nuclear Power Reactors, Main Report - Final Report. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volume 1 18 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023470304, ML023470323, 19 ML023500187, ML023500211, ML023500223.

20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007a. Meteorological Monitoring Programs for 21 Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 22 Accession No. ML070350028.

23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007b. Quality Assurance for Radiological 24 Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operations to License Termination)Effluent 25 Streams and the Environment. Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 26 Accession No. ML071790506.

27 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of 28 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Tennessee Valley Authority." CLI-09-21, Rockville, 29 Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML093070690.

30 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Radiological Environmental Monitoring 31 for Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 32 Accession No. ML091310141.

33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Memorandum from J. Cushing and J.

34 Davis, to S. Flanders, L. Camper, and B. Holian, dated June 7, 2011, regarding "Staff Guidance 35 for Withholding Sensitive Information about Historic Resources in Accordance with the National 36 Historic Preservation Act." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML111080735.

7-7

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012a. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook, 2 Secretary, NRC, to R.W. Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations, and B. Poole, Director, 3 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication dated December 6, 2012, regarding "SECY 4 0063 - Final Rule: Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant 5 Operating Licenses (10 CFR Part 51; RIN 3150-AI42)." Washington D.C. ADAMS Accession 6 No. ML12341A134.

7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012b. Terrestrial Environmental Studies for 8 Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.11, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 9 Accession No. ML113350385.

10 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Standard Review Plans for Environmental 11 Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. Final Report, 12 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.

13 ML13106A246.

14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Occupational Radiation Exposure at 15 Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2014: Forty-Seventh Annual Report.

16 NUREG-0713, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16112A230.

17 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017a. Aquatic Environmental Studies for 18 Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.24, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.

19 ML15309A219.

20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017b. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the 21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5, Draft Report for 22 Comment, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17101A355.

23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018a. An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk 24 Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.

25 Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 3, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17317A256.

26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018b. Preparation of Environmental Reports for 27 Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 3, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 28 Accession No. ML18071A400.

29 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018c. Tribal Protocol Manual. NUREG-2173, 30 Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18214A663.

31 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020a. Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk 32 Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities. Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 3, 33 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20238B871.

34 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 35 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Regarding 36 Subsequent License Renewal for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Final 37 Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 38 Accession No. ML20023A937.

7-8

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020c. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 2 Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues.

3 LIC-203, Revision 4, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20016A379.

4 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 3, 5 Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and 6 Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21139A224.

7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Reassessment of NRC's Dollar Per 8 Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy, Final Report. NUREG-1530, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 9 Accession No. ML22053A025.

10 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 11 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Revision 2, 12 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML23011A063.

13 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023b. Regulatory Guide 4.2 - Supplement 1, 14 Revision 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal 15 Applications, Draft Report for Comment. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.

16 ML22165A072.

17 PUD No.1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 511 U.S.

18 700 (1994). United States Supreme Court Decision May 31, 1994, Washington, D.C.

19 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

20 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 Note. Public Law 104-297, October 11, 21 1996, 110 Stat. 3559.

22 Suter, G.W. and L.W. Barnthouse. 1993. "Retrospective Risk Assessment." Chapter 10 in 23 Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Available at 24 https://www.worldcat.org/title/ecological-risk-assessment/oclc/26158379.

25 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019. "NLCD 2019 Land Cover (CONUS)." Multi-Resolution 26 Land Characteristics Consortium Project. Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Accessed May 6, 2022, 27 at https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2019-land-cover-conus.

7-9

1 APPENDIX A 2

3 INTERAGENCY CONSULTATIONS FOR ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must consider the effects of its actions on 5 ecological resources protected under several Federal statutes and must consult with the 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 7 (NOAA) prior to acting in cases where an agency action may affect those resources. These 8 statutes include the following:

9

• the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)

10

• the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 11 et seq.), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) 12

• the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.).

13 This appendix describes consultation requirements and processes under these statutes.

14 A.1 Endangered Species Act 15 A.1.1 Overview of the Act and Consultation Responsibilities 16 Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species and the 17 ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA provides a program for the conservation of 18 endangered and threatened plants and animals (collectively, listed species) and the habitats in 19 which they are found, and it prohibits any person from the take of listed species, as defined in 20 the Act, without a permit. The FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively 21 known as the Services) are the lead Federal agencies for implementing the ESA and are 22 charged with determining species that warrant listing. The Services divide responsibility for 23 listing and managing species: the FWS is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species, 24 and NMFS is responsible for marine and anadromous species.

25 Section 7 of the ESA establishes interagency consultation requirements for actions by 26 Federal agencies. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the 27 conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies 28 consult with the Services for actions that may affect federally listed species and critical 29 habitats and to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those 30 species or destroy or adversely modify those habitats. Private actions with a Federal nexus, 31 such as construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, are 32 also subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRCs issuance of initial or subsequent renewed 33 licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2) 34 is commonly referred to as Section 7 consultation.

35 The Services maintain joint regulations that implement ESA Section 7 at 50 Code of Federal 36 Regulations (CFR) Part 402, Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as 37 Amended. Subpart B prescribes the Section 7 interagency consultation requirements. The 38 NRC also relies upon the Services detailed procedural guidance for conducting Section 7 39 consultation in Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting 40 Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (FWS 41 and NMFS 1998).

A-1

1 Section 7 consultation may be informal or formal. Generally, the appropriate type of 2 consultation relates to the effect determinations made by the Federal agency, as described 3 below. For proposed species and proposed critical habitats (those species or habitats for which 4 the Services have issued proposed listing or designation rules, but for which final rules have yet 5 to be issued or adopted), the regulations prescribe a process called a conference. Informal 6 consultation, formal consultation, and conference are described below. The Services 7 regulations also allow for early, special, and emergency consultations. Because instances that 8 would necessitate these types of consultation rarely arise for NRC actions, this guidance does 9 not specifically address early, special, and emergency consultation.

10 A.1.2 Types of ESA Section 7 Consultation 11 A.1.2.1 Formal Consultation 12 Formal Section 7 consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action 13 may affect and is likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitats. For any action in 14 which take of listed species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat may occur, 15 formal consultation is required.

16 As the Federal action agency, the NRC is responsible for initiating formal consultation if it is 17 required. The NRC staff must provide the Services with relevant information to support its 18 request for formal consultation, including a biological assessment, if required. The staff must 19 provide the Services with the best scientific and commercial data available, and the Services 20 may request additional information during the consultation process.

21 Formal consultation takes place over a 135-day timeline (50 CFR 402.14(e). However, 22 consultation may be extended through agreement between the Federal action agency, the 23 Services, and any applicant.

24 The outcome of formal consultation is the Services formulation of a biological opinion. A 25 biological opinion evaluates the nature and extent of effects of the action on listed species and 26 critical habitats. It is prepared by the FWS or NMFS and documents the Services assessment 27 of effects to listed species and critical habitat and whether the Federal action is likely to 28 jeopardize the continued existence of those species or result in destruction or adverse 29 modification of critical habitat. Biological opinions may include an incidental take statement 30 (ITS) consisting of the level of anticipated take, reasonable and prudent measures, and terms 31 and conditions. Any take that is subject to and in compliance with an ITS is not prohibited under 32 the ESA. Biological opinions may also include discretionary conservation recommendations.

33 For consultations resulting in the Services issuance of a biological opinion, the NRC requires its 34 licensees to comply with the ITS of the biological opinion by incorporating environmental 35 conditions into the relevant NRC facility license(s). As conditions of NRC-issued licenses, the 36 NRC has a continuing duty to monitor compliance at facilities with valid biological opinions. This 37 role is performed by the NRCs Interagency Consultation Coordinator. The NRC may exclude 38 specific ITS requirements from its license(s) if another Federal agency will require those actions 39 be taken.

40 A.1.2.2 Informal Consultation 41 Informal Section 7 consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action 42 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitats. This type of A-2

1 consultation is a less-structured approach to meeting Section 7 requirements. It includes 2 discussions, correspondence, and meetings between the NRC staff and representatives of the 3 Services. It can also include exploring ways to modify the action to reduce or remove adverse 4 effects and can help the agencies determine the need to engage in formal consultation.

5 As part of informal consultation, the NRC staff submits ESA effect determination(s) or a 6 biological assessment (if one is required) to the Services, along with supporting information, and 7 requests the Services concurrence with its determination(s) that the action is not likely to 8 adversely affect listed species or critical habitats. The Services review the supporting 9 information and respond that either (1) the Services concur that the action is not likely to 10 adversely affect listed species or critical habitats, which concludes consultation, or (2) that 11 formal consultation is required.

12 Informal consultation takes place over a 60-day timeline (50 CFR 402.13(c)(2)). However, 13 consultation may be extended through agreement between the Federal action agency, the 14 Services, and any applicant.

15 A.1.2.3 Conference 16 Conference is required for Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence 17 of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical 18 habitat. A proposed species is a species for which the Services have issued a proposed rule to 19 list as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Proposed critical habitat is habitat for which 20 the Services have issued a proposed rule to designate as critical under the ESA. For actions 21 requiring conference, the Federal agency typically makes ESA effect determinations of may 22 affect and is likely to adversely affect for proposed species and may destroy or adversely 23 modify for proposed critical habitat. Notably, the threshold for a conference is higher than the 24 threshold for consultation; the regulations only require conference if an action may jeopardize 25 the continued existence of a proposed species.

26 In practice, conferences are conducted similarly to consultations. The outcome of a conference 27 is either the Services issuance of a conference opinion or the Services written documentation 28 of the conclusions reached during the conference, along with any recommendations, in a 29 conference report. The Services recommendations are discretionary because the NRC is not 30 prohibited from jeopardizing the continued existence of a proposed species or from adversely 31 modifying proposed critical habitat. However, as soon as a listing action is finalized, the 32 prohibition against jeopardy or adverse modification applies regardless of the stage of the 33 action.

34 A conference does not fulfill a Federal agencys duty to consult under ESA Section 7(a)(2) if 35 the Services subsequently list the proposed species or designate the proposed critical habitat.

36 Upon listing or designation, the Federal agency must initiate consultation with the Services as 37 appropriate and as described previously. However, information developed during the 38 conference can help streamline the subsequent consultation process such that the Federal 39 agency and the Services can focus the consultation on significant new information developed 40 during the listing process and significant changes to the Federal action that would alter the 41 content of the Services conference opinion or written conclusion. Additionally, the Services 42 may adopt its conference opinion as the biological opinion after the species is listed or critical 43 habitat is designated.

A-3

1 A.1.2.4 No Consultation 2 Section 7 consultation is not required when the Federal agency determines that an action would 3 have no effect on listed or proposed species or on proposed or designated critical habitats.

4 No effect determinations are made at the Federal agencys discretion and do not require 5 concurrence from the Services.

6 A.1.3 ESA Section 7 Consultation Process 7 This section describes each step in determining whether ESA consultation is necessary and 8 within the consultation process itself. Figure A-1 illustrates the ESA pre-consultation and 9 consultation process.

10 1. Determine the action area.

11 The first step in the consultation process is to determine the action area of the proposed 12 action. The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal 13 action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The 14 action area is not limited to the footprint of the action nor is it limited by the Federal action 15 agency's authority; rather, it is a biological determination of the reach of the proposed action 16 on the listed species (FWS 2022). The action area determination should be made by a 17 qualified subject matter expert (SME) because subsequent steps in the consultation, as well 18 as the effects analyses, are predicated on defining a complete and accurate action area.

19 The SME should be able to describe the extent of the action area in writing and pictorially on 20 a map.

21 2. Determine protected species and critical habitats that may be present in the action area.

22 Once the action area is established, the SME determines what protected species and critical 23 habitats may be present in the action area.

24 For protected species and critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction, the SME should query the 25 FWSs Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information Planning and 26 Consultation (IPaC) tool (available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). The IPaC tool allows 27 users to generate official species lists by entering project-specific information. However, the 28 usefulness of this tool directly relates to the accuracy of the information entered into the 29 system. Prior to initiating this step, the SME should be familiar enough with the potential 30 effects of the proposed action to be able to fully define the action area and to input the 31 action area into IPaCs mapping tool. Notably, while the IPaC tool may list species that are 32 jointly under both Services jurisdiction (e.g., sea turtles) or that are wholly under NMFSs 33 jurisdiction (e.g., whales), IPaC only fulfills the 50 CFR 402.12 requirement to obtain an 34 official species list for consultations with the FWS.1 1 By regulation, the NRC is only required to obtain an official species list in cases where the NRC is required to develop a biological assessment. In such cases, the NRC also must verify the accuracy of the species list if the NRC does not begin preparation of the biological assessment within 90 days of receipt of (or concurrence with) the species list (50 CFR 402.12(e)). Nonetheless, obtaining an official species list is a best practice for all projects because it establishes communications between the NRC and the Services early in the review and ensures that the NRC considers all possible protected species and critical habitats that may be affected.

A-4

1 2 Figure A-1 Endangered Species Act Consultation Process Flowchart A-5

1 For protected species and critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction, the SME should reach 2 out to the Protected Resources Division of the relevant NMFS regional office. While many 3 of the NMFS regional offices maintain species lists and critical habitat mapping tools on their 4 websites, unlike the FWSs IPaC tool, these resources do not fulfill the 50 CFR 402.12(c) 5 requirement to obtain an official species list. A best practice is for the SME to define the 6 action area, generate a list of protected species and critical habitats using NMFSs available 7 online resources, and request NMFSs concurrence with that list as is allowable under 8 50 CFR 402.12(d). This method streamlines NMFSs review and response and can foster a 9 positive and collaborative working relationship between the agencies.

10 If protected species or critical habitats may be present in the action area, the SME should 11 proceed to the next step (determining potential effects) to determine whether consultation is 12 required. If no protected species or critical habitats are present, consultation is not required.

13 The SME should document this determination in the National Environmental Policy Act of 14 1969 (NEPA) document associated with the proposed action (e.g., environmental impact 15 statement [EIS], supplemental environmental impact statement [SEIS], environmental 16 assessment [EA]), in correspondence to the Services, or in a memorandum to file.

17 Notably, separate consultation determinations could be made for each agency in the 18 Services. For instance, a proposed action could involve in-water work during the 19 construction phase that could affect federally protected marine fish, but no construction 20 activities or other components of the proposed action would affect any terrestrial species 21 because none are present in the action area. In such a case, the NRC would be required to 22 consult with NMFS but not the FWS.

23 3. Engage with the Services and initiate informal consultation.

24 If the NRC has not yet engaged directly with the Services during the previous step(s), the 25 SME should reach out to the Services to establish points of contact and to orient Services 26 staff regarding the proposed action. This is particularly important in cases where formal 27 consultation may be required so that the Services can plan and designate staff resources for 28 the development of the biological opinion. This step is also an opportunity for the SME to 29 gather more information on the relevant protected species and critical habitats. Service staff 30 may be able to point the SME to surveys, studies, and other available species data or 31 connect the SME with local researchers and species experts. Because informal 32 consultation includes all discussions and correspondence between the Services and the 33 NRC (50 CFR 402.13), this step functionally initiates informal consultation. Therefore, the 34 SME should document substantive discussions with the Services, researchers, or species 35 experts in meeting summaries and should add any related correspondence to the NRCs 36 Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).

37 4. Determine and document potential effects on protected species and critical habitats.

38 The next step in the consultation process is to determine the potential effects of the 39 proposed action on the identified protected species and critical habitats. The SME typically 40 performs this analysis concurrently with the NEPA review. The SME should rely on the 41 application; available ecological surveys, monitoring, and studies; views of recognized 42 species experts; scientific literature; and other relevant information to perform the ESA 43 analysis. Based on the analysis, the SME makes an effect determination for each protected 44 species and critical habitat as identified below in Table A-1.

A-6

1 Table A-1 Possible Endangered Species Act Effect Determinations Made by the Federal 2 Action Agency Designated or Proposed Listed Species Proposed Species Critical Habitat may affect and is likely may affect and is likely to adversely is likely to destroy or adversely to adversely affect affect modify may affect but is not may affect but is not likely to adversely is not likely to destroy or likely to adversely affect affect adversely modify no effect no effect no effect 3 The SME documents the ESA analysis and effect determination(s) in a biological 4 assessment, biological evaluation, or directly within the NEPA document.

5 The SME prepares a biological assessment only for those actions that meet certain 6 regulatory criteria. Biological assessments are required under 50 CFR 402.12(b) for 7 proposed actions involving major construction activities, which are those actions that have 8 construction-type impacts and that meet the definition of a major Federal action requiring an 9 EIS under NEPA.2 The contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the 10 Federal agency and will depend on the nature of the proposed action. The ESA regulations 11 at 50 CFR 402.12(f) suggest that Federal agencies consider including the following 12 information in the biological assessment:

13

• results of site surveys, studies, and inspections of the action area to determine if listed or 14 proposed species are present or occur seasonally 15

• views of recognized experts on the species at issue 16

• review of pertinent scientific literature and related information 17

• analysis of the effects of the action on the species and habitat, including cumulative 18 effects, and the results of any related studies 19

• analysis of alternate actions considered by the Federal agency.

20 Biological assessments must be completed within 180 days after the NRCs receipt of (or 21 the Services concurrence with) the species list unless the NRC and the Services agree to a 22 different timeline (50 CFR 402.12(i)). If an applicant or licensee is involved, the 180-day 23 period may not be extended unless the NRC provides the applicant or licensee with a 24 written statement setting forth the estimated length of the proposed extension and the 25 reasons why such an extension is necessary before the close of the initial 180-day period.

26 If the proposed action does not require a biological assessment, the SME prepares a 27 biological evaluation or prepares written input to be incorporated directly into the NEPA 28 document. If the ESA analysis is complex, lengthy, or will likely require formal consultation, 29 the SME prepares a biological evaluation. A biological evaluation is a stand-alone 30 document that is similar in format and content to a biological assessment, and it should 31 contain the elements described above. The primary distinction is that a biological evaluation 32 is prepared for a proposed action that does not meet the regulatory criteria for a biological 33 assessment. The 180-day preparation timeline does not apply to biological evaluations.

2 See 50 CFR 402.02 for the complete regulatory definition of this term.

A-7

1 If the ESA analysis is relatively straightforward, will only require informal consultation, or will 2 not require consultation, the SME documents the ESA analysis directly in the NEPA 3 document. The NEPA document should clearly identify the ESA analysis with appropriate 4 headings and subheadings and include the SMEs effect determinations for each protected 5 species and critical habitat as identified in Table A-1.

6 For proposed actions involving formal consultation, Federal agencies must submit certain 7 information to the Services with the consultation request. If a biological assessment or 8 biological evaluation is being prepared to support formal consultation, the SME should 9 include the following information in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(c) and summarized as 10 follows:

11

• description of the proposed action and any mitigation measures in sufficient detail to 12 assess the effects of the action on protected species and critical habitat, including 13 - the purpose, duration, timing, and location of the action 14 - the specific components of the action and how they will be carried out 15 - maps, drawings, blueprints, or similar schematics of the action 16 - any other available information related to the nature and scope of the proposed 17 action relevant to its effects on protected species or critical habitat.

18

• map or description of the action area 19

• available information on the presence, abundance, density, or periodic occurrence of 20 listed species and the condition and location of the species' habitat, including any critical 21 habitat 22

• description of the effects of the action and an analysis of any cumulative effects 23

• summary of any relevant information provided by the applicant or licensee 24

• any other relevant available information on the effects of the proposed action, including 25 any EISs, EAs, or other relevant reports.

26 If protected species or critical habitats under the jurisdiction of both agencies of the Services 27 may be affected by the proposed action, the SME should prepare two separate biological 28 assessments or biological evaluationsone for each of the Services.

29 A best practice is for the SME to provide the applicant or licensee an opportunity to review 30 and comment on the draft biological assessment or biological evaluation. The applicant or 31 licensee may have more in-depth knowledge of the proposed action and the potential 32 adverse effects of that action. The applicant or licensee will also have a better 33 understanding of what potential strategies could feasibly be implemented to reduce 34 incidental take or to mitigate or offset adverse effects. Engaging the applicant or licensee at 35 this stage is especially important when the NRC is reinitiating consultation for an NRC-36 licensed facility that already has a biological opinion in place.

37 The SME may also share a draft of part or all of the biological assessment or biological 38 evaluation with the Services for the purpose of ensuring that the NRC has included all 39 relevant information required by the Services to initiate the consultation. This step is 40 particularly helpful if the Services intend to adopt part or all of the NRCs initiation package 41 in its biological opinion through the optional collaborative process described at 42 50 CFR 402.14(h)(3).

A-8

1 The NRC typically issues biological assessments and biological evaluations as stand-alone 2 documents. However, the NRC also may opt to incorporate the biological assessment or 3 biological evaluation into the NEPA document associated with the proposed action under 50 4 CFR 402.06. The SME, along with the project manager and NRC management, should 5 carefully weigh the benefits and risks of this option. Incorporating the biological assessment 6 or biological evaluation into the NEPA document can delay the progression of consultation 7 because the NRC must wait until the NEPA document is issued to initiate consultation.

8 Typically, this option should be reserved for simple informal consultations that involve few 9 protected species or critical habitats.

10 5. Determine the appropriate type of consultation 11 The SMEs effect determination(s) dictate whether consultation is required and the type of 12 consultation that is appropriate (e.g., formal, informal, conference, or no consultation).

13 Table A-2 summarizes the appropriate type of consultation or conference for each possible 14 effect determination.

15 Table A-2 Appropriate Type of Consultation by Endangered Species Act Effect 16 Determination Type of Designated Proposed Critical Consultation Listed Species Proposed Species Critical Habitats Habitats Formal may affect and is N/A is likely to destroy N/A Consultation likely to adversely or adversely affect modify Informal may affect but is N/A is not likely to N/A Consultation not likely to destroy or adversely affect adversely modify Conference N/A may affect and is N/A is likely to destroy likely to adversely or adversely affect modify No Consultation or no effect may affect but is not no effect is not likely to Conference likely to adversely destroy or affect(a) adversely modify or no effect or no effect 17 N/A = not applicable 18 (a) Although not required, it is a best practice to confer with the Services when a proposed action may affect but is 19 not likely to adversely affect proposed species.

20 For a given project, effect determinations among the protected species and critical habitats 21 may vary. For instance, a proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect sea 22 turtles but would have no effect on the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus). In this case, 23 informal consultation with NMFS would be appropriate for sea turtles, but the NRC would not 24 be required to consult with NMFS for the Nassau grouper. For another proposed action, the 25 NRC might determine that a proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the 26 rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) but 27 that the action is not likely to adversely affect several species of freshwater mussels. In this 28 case, formal consultation with the FWS would be appropriate. The formal consultation could 29 address all involved species even though the effect determinations for the freshwater 30 mussels alone would only rise to the informal consultation level.

A-9

1 Notably, the threshold for a conference is higher than the threshold for consultation. The 2 NRC is only required to confer with the Services if a proposed action is likely to jeopardize 3 the continued existence of proposed species or is likely to destroy or adversely modify 4 proposed critical habitat. However, the Services, and not Federal action agencies, make 5 jeopardy determinations. Effectively, this means that the NRC should confer with the 6 Services in most circumstances in which a proposed action may affect and is likely to 7 adversely affect a proposed species to determine whether adverse effects could result in 8 jeopardy. However, it is a best practice for the NRC to confer with the Services if a 9 proposed actions may affect but is not likely to adversely affect proposed species or may 10 affect but is not likely to adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat because the 11 NRC will be required to consult with the Services if the species or habitat are subsequently 12 listed or designated. For proposed actions that require the NRC to develop a biological 13 assessment, the biological assessment must consider proposed species and proposed 14 critical habitats in addition to listed species and designated critical habitats 15 (50 CFR 402.12(a)).

16 If both consultation and a conference are required for a given project, the NRC and the 17 Services typically conduct the two processes concurrently.

18 6. Request the Services concurrence, formal consultation, or conference.

19 When the document containing the NRCs ESA analysis is ready for issuance (e.g.,

20 biological assessment, biological evaluation, or NEPA document), the SME prepares a 21 request for the Services concurrence as part of informal consultation, a request for formal 22 consultation, or a request for conference, as described in the subsections below.

23 In cases where the SME coordinated with the Services during its review, but the SME 24 ultimately determined that the proposed action would have no effect on protected species or 25 critical habitats, the NRC does not need to engage with the Services any further. However, 26 in such instances, a best practice is to notify the relevant Service(s) of the NRCs no effect 27 determination(s). For instance, the SME can send the Services an email or letter upon 28 issuance of the NEPA document that explains the NRCs no effect determination(s),

29 provides information on the availability of the NEPA document, and gives details on how the 30 Services can submit public comments (in the case of a draft SEIS, draft EIS, or draft EA).

31 The SME should be sure to add any such correspondence to ADAMS as part of fully 32 documenting the consultation.

33 a. Request the Services concurrence.

34 For may affect but is not likely to adversely affect listed species and is not likely to 35 destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat determinations, the SME 36 prepares a written request for the Services to concur with the NRCs determinations.

37 The request should include a copy of the NRCs ESA analysis. By regulation, the 38 request must also include sufficient information for the Services to determine if it concurs 39 (50 CFR 402.13(c)(1)).

40 The Services provides its written concurrence or non-concurrence within 60 days of 41 receipt of the NRCs request (50 CFR 402.13(c)(2)). However, consultation may be 42 extended through agreement between the Federal action agency, the Services, and any 43 applicant.

44 Notably, if the nature of the proposed action requires the NRC to develop a biological 45 assessment, the ESA regulations afford the Services 30 days, rather than 60 days, to A-10

1 review and provide written concurrence or non-concurrence. In such cases, the SME 2 should coordinate with the Services prior to submitting the biological assessment and 3 concurrence request to establish the most appropriate timeline based on a combination 4 of the potential effects on listed species and critical habitats, NRC review timeline, staff 5 availability from the Services, and other relevant factors.

6 If after its review, the Services concur with the NRCs ESA effect determination(s), the 7 informal consultation is concluded, and NRCs ESA Section 7(a)(2) obligations for the 8 proposed action are fulfilled. The SME should add the Services written concurrence to 9 ADAMS and should prepare input for the final NEPA document that reports the results of 10 the consultation.

11 If the Services do not concur, the SME and staff from the Services should discuss the 12 reasons for the non-concurrence. In some cases, the NRC or applicant can submit 13 additional information to support the Services subsequent concurrence. In other cases, 14 the Services may determine that the proposed action involves potential for take and 15 requires the Services to formulate a biological opinion and ITS. The appropriate next 16 step in such a case would be for the NRC to prepare a request for formal consultation, 17 as described below.

18 b. Request and engage in formal consultation.

19 For may affect and is likely to adversely affect listed species and is likely to destroy or 20 adversely modify designated critical habitat determinations, the SME prepares a written 21 request for formal consultation with the relevant Service(s). The request must include all 22 information specified at 50 CFR 402.14(c), as summarized previously under Review 23 Procedure Step 4.

24 Formal consultation takes places over a 135-day timeline (50 CFR 402.14(e)). During 25 the initial 90 days, the NRC and the Services exchange information and engage in 26 discussions concerning the potential effects of the proposed action. The Services may 27 request that the NRC submit additional information to support its review of the proposed 28 action in a process that is like the NRCs request for additional information (RAI) 29 process.

30 The regulations allow for applicants or licensees to be a party to the consultation, and 31 the SME should seek to include the applicant or licensee in the consultation to the extent 32 possible. It also is a best practice to engage the applicant or licensee when responding 33 to any inquiries from the Services to ensure that the NRCs responses are accurate and 34 complete.

35 Following the initial 90 days, the Services have 45 days thereafter to complete the 36 biological opinion and deliver it to the Federal agency and applicant or licensee. The 37 biological opinion evaluates the nature and extent of effects of the action on listed 38 species and critical habitats and must include the information specified at 50 CFR 39 402.14(h)(1) and 50 CFR 402.14(h)(2). The biological opinion may include an ITS 40 consisting of the:

41

• level of anticipated take of listed species 42

• reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate to minimize adverse 43 impacts A-11

1

• terms and conditions that implement reasonable and prudent measures, such as 2 reporting requirements.

3 Biological opinions may also include conservation recommendations, which are 4 discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects on listed species or critical 5 habitats. Conservation recommendations can also address the development of 6 information on listed species or critical habitats, such as further study or research that 7 would enhance the understanding of a listed species within the action area. The NRC 8 and the applicant or licensee may, but are not required to, implement conservation 9 recommendations.

10 The ESA regulations allow Federal action agencies to request a copy of and to comment 11 on a draft of the biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(g)(5)). Applicants or licensees may 12 also comment on the draft biological opinion through this provision. The Services cannot 13 issue its biological opinion prior to the end of the 45-day period (or extended timeline, as 14 previously agreed upon and as described below) while the draft is under review by the 15 NRC. However, if the Federal action agency submits comments to the Services 16 regarding the draft biological opinion within 10 days of the deadline for issuing the 17 opinion, the Services are entitled to an automatic 10-day extension. The NRCs 18 standard practice is to always request to review a draft of the biological opinion and to 19 share that draft with the applicant or licensee for its review and comment. This step is 20 especially important to ensure that the draft reasonable and prudent measures and 21 terms and conditions are feasible and implementable.

22 The Services may adopt all or part of the NRCs formal consultation initiation package, 23 including the biological assessment or biological evaluation, within its biological opinion 24 (50 CFR 402.14(h)(3)). The ESA regulations also allow for the NRC and the Services to 25 collaborate during the NRCs development of the biological assessment or biological 26 evaluation and the associated initiation package such that the Services can more fully 27 adopt the NRCs analysis as its biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(h)(4)). In such a 28 case, the Services would formulate any supplementary analyses it deems necessary as 29 well as the ITS.

30 Compliance with the ITSs of biological opinions protects both the NRC and the applicant 31 or licensee from penalties and other enforcement action under ESA Section 11 because 32 any take that is subject to and in compliance with an ITS is not prohibited under the 33 ESA. For consultations resulting in the Services issuance of a biological opinion, the 34 NRC requires its licensees to comply with the ITS of the biological opinion by 35 incorporating environmental conditions into power reactor license(s). Therefore, the 36 SME should closely coordinate with the project manager, management, and project 37 attorneys for consultations that will result in a biological opinion to ensure that the 38 appropriate conditions are incorporated into the new, renewed, or amended license.

39 The NRCs Interagency Consultation Coordinator should also be involved in all formal 40 consultations involving the formulation of a biological opinion.

41 Formal consultation may be extended through agreement between the Federal action 42 agency, the Services, and any applicant or licensee. If an applicant or licensee is 43 involved and the Services requires additional time to complete the consultation, within 44 the initial 90-day period, the Services must submit to the applicant or licensee a written 45 statement specifying the reasons why a longer period is required, the information that is 46 required to complete the consultation, and the estimated date on which the consultation 47 will be completed (50 CFR 402.14(e)). One reason that consultation may be extended is A-12

1 if the Services determine that additional data would provide a better information base 2 from which to formulate a biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(f)).

3 A best practice is for the SME to discuss the timeline of the consultation with the 4 Services prior to initiating the consultation. Section 7 consultation, when it is required, 5 should be completed prior to the NRC deciding on a proposed action. Early coordination 6 on a mutually agreeable timeline is the best way to ensure that consultation will conclude 7 in a timely manner.

8 c. Request and engage in conference.

9 For may affect and is likely to adversely affect proposed species and may destroy or 10 adversely modify proposed critical habitat determinations, the SME prepares a written 11 request for conference with the Services. Conferences are conducted in a similar 12 manner to consultations, and the applicant or licensee should be involved to the extent 13 practicable. The regulations do not specify a particular timeline for conferences.

14 Therefore, it is particularly important for the SME to establish a timeline with the Services 15 at the outset of the conference.

16 During the conference, the Services make advisory recommendations on ways to 17 minimize or avoid adverse effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat.

18 The outcome of a conference is either a conference report or a conference opinion. A 19 conference report includes the Services written documentation of the conclusions 20 reached during the conference, along with any discretionary recommendations. A 21 conference opinion may include an ITS. However, that ITS would not become effective 22 unless the Services adopt the conference opinion as its biological opinion once the 23 listing action is final.

24 If during the conference or prior to completion of the proposed action, the Services list 25 the proposed species or designates the proposed critical habitat, the Federal agency 26 must review the action to determine whether formal consultation is required. If formal 27 consultation is required, the SME should prepare a request to initiate formal consultation 28 as described in Review Procedure Step 6.b. If formal consultation is not required but the 29 proposed action could still result in effects on the newly listed species or newly 30 designated critical habitat, the NRC must seek the Services concurrence with its may 31 affect but is not likely to adversely affect or may affect but is not likely to destroy or 32 adversely modify critical habitat determinations. In past NRC experiences of such 33 circumstances, the Services have written a brief letter confirming that the information in 34 its conference report remains valid and that the conclusions reached in that report 35 constitute the Services concurrence pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2).

36 If both consultation and conference are required for a given project, the NRC and 37 Services typically conduct the two processes concurrently, and the Services may issue 38 one document (e.g., concurrence letter or biological opinion) that concludes both 39 processes.

40 Although the NRC is only required to consult with the Services if a proposed action is 41 likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species or is likely to destroy or 42 adversely modify proposed critical habitat, it is a best practice for the NRC to confer with 43 the Services if effects on proposed species or proposed critical habitats are possible 44 because the NRC will be required to consult with the Services if the species or habitats 45 are subsequently listed or designated.

A-13

1 7. Document conclusion of consultation or conference.

2 Completion of the consultation or conference is documented by the Services letter of 3 concurrence, biological opinion, conference report, or conference opinion. The SME 4 ensures that these documents are added to ADAMS as part of the consultation record. The 5 SME also documents the outcome of consultation in the NEPA document associated with 6 the proposed action in accordance with 50 CFR 402.06(b). In cases where a final EIS or 7 SEIS is issued prior to the conclusion of consultation, the SME prepares input to the record 8 of decision documenting the outcome of the consultation. In cases where the final EA and 9 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are issued prior to the conclusion of consultation, 10 the NRC can consider issuing a Federal Register notice that corrects or addends the EA 11 and FONSI.

12 8. Reinitiate consultation.

13 The ESA regulations specify four conditions under which Federal agencies must reinitiate 14 consultation. These conditions are (50 CFR 402.16) 15

• the level of allowable take specified in the incidental take is exceeded 16

• new information reveals effects not previously considered 17

• the action is modified in a manner that causes new effects 18

• a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected.

19 Reinitiated consultation is conducted in a similar manner as the initial consultation. The 20 outcome of reinitiated consultation is a letter of concurrence from the Services or a new or 21 amended biological opinion.

22 A.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 23 A.2.1 Overview of the Act and Consultation Responsibilities 24 Congress enacted the MSA in 1976 to foster long-term biological and economic sustainability of 25 the Nations marine fisheries. The MSA is a comprehensive, multi-purposed statute. Its key 26 objectives include preventing overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, increasing long-term 27 economic and social benefits, and ensuring a safe and sustainable supply of seafood. NOAA, 28 together with eight regional Fishery Management Councils established under the MSA, 29 implement the provisions of the MSA.

30 The MSA directs the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, to designate 31 areas of EFH and to manage marine resources within those areas. EFH is defined as the 32 coastal and marine waters and substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to 33 maturity (50 CFR 600.10). NMFS further defines waters, substrate, and necessary at 50 34 CFR 600.10. EFH applies to federally managed finfish and shellfish (herein referred to as EFH 35 species). As of 2022, the Councils and NMFS have designated EFH for nearly 1,000 species 36 at multiple life stages.

37 The Fishery Management Councils may also designate some EFH as a habitat areas of 38 particular concern (HAPC) if that habitat exhibits one or more of the following traits: rare, 39 stressed by development, possessing important ecological functions for EFH species, or 40 especially vulnerable to anthropogenic degradation. HAPC can cover a specific location 41 (e.g., an estuary bank or a single spawning location) or cover habitat type that is found at many A-14

1 locations (e.g., coral, nearshore nursery areas, or pupping grounds). HAPC designation does 2 not convey additional restrictions or protections on an area. The designation simply focuses 3 increased scrutiny, study, or mitigation planning compared to surrounding areas because HAPC 4 represent high-priority areas for conservation, management, or research and are necessary for 5 healthy ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. The Fishery Management Councils may, 6 however, restrict the use or possession of fishing gear types within HAPC. The geographic 7 boundaries of HAPC are subject to refinement through amendments, as research better informs 8 management decisions (NOAA 2020).

9 Section 305(b) of the MSA contains interagency consultation requirements pertaining to Federal 10 agencies and their actions. Under MSA Section 305(b)(2), Federal agencies must consult with 11 NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as 12 construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, also are 13 subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRCs issuance of initial or subsequent renewed 14 licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to MSA Section 305(b) is 15 commonly referred to as EFH consultation.

16 NMFS maintains regulations that implement MSA Section 305 at 50 CFR Part 600, Magnuson-17 Stevens Act Provisions. Subpart K of these regulations prescribes the EFH interagency 18 consultation requirements. Subpart J includes definitions and other information relevant to EFH.

19 The NRC also relies upon NMFSs detailed procedural guidance for conducting EFH 20 consultation in Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance (NMFS 2004a) and Preparing 21 Essential Fish Habitat Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies (NMFS 2004b).

22 Consultation may be abbreviated, expanded, or programmatic. Generally, the appropriate type 23 of consultation relates to effect determinations made by the Federal agency, as described 24 below. NMFS regulations also allow for general concurrences concerning EFH. Because 25 situations are rare in which a general concurrence would apply to an NRC action, this guidance 26 does not specifically address this provision of the EFH regulations.

27 A.2.2 Types of EFH Consultation 28 A.2.2.1 Abbreviated and Expanded Consultation 29 Abbreviated consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action would 30 involve minimal adverse effects on EFH. Abbreviated consultation allows NMFS to determine 31 quickly whether, and to what degree, a Federal action may adversely affect EFH. This type of 32 consultation is used when the adverse effects of an action can be alleviated through minor 33 modifications to the action.

34 Expanded consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action may 35 result in substantial adverse effects. Substantial adverse effects are effects that may pose a 36 relatively serious threat to EFH and typically could not be alleviated through minor modifications 37 to a proposed action. Expanded consultation allows more opportunity for the Federal agency 38 and NMFS to work together to review the actions impacts on EFH and for NMFS to develop 39 measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects.

40 A Federal agency may also determine that an action would involve more than minimal but less 41 than substantial adverse effects. In such cases, the NRC should work with NMFS to determine 42 which type of consultation (abbreviated or expanded) is most appropriate for the given action.

43 The processes for abbreviated and expanded consultations are nearly identical. The primary 44 difference is the timeframe for each step. For both abbreviated and expanded consultations, A-15

1 the NRC staff submits an EFH assessment to NMFS and requests to initiate EFH consultation.

2 If the action will adversely affect EFH, NMFS formulates EFH Conservation Recommendations, 3 which may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects. If 4 NMFS determines that the action would not adversely affect EFH or that no EFH Conservation 5 Recommendations are needed, NMFS notifies the NRC informally or in writing.

6 If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations, the NRC must prepare a 7 detailed written response within 30 days of receiving the recommendations. This 30-day 8 timeframe applies to both abbreviated and expanded consultation. In the response, the NRC 9 staff must include a description of measures proposed for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the 10 impact of the activity on EFH. If the NRCs response is inconsistent with any of the NMFSs 11 EFH Conservation Recommendations, the response must be provided at least 10 days prior to 12 the final agency decision and must explain the NRCs reasons for not following the 13 recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS. The 14 NRCs response completes consultation.

15 A.2.2.2 Programmatic Consultation 16 Programmatic consultation is appropriate when a Federal action is a funding program, large-17 scale planning effort, or other project where enough information is available to address all 18 reasonably foreseeable adverse effects on EFH of an entire program, parts of a program, or 19 several similar individual actions occurring within a given geographic area. Programmatic 20 consultation allows the Federal agency and NMFS to address many individual actions that may 21 adversely affect EFH at one time and for NMFS to develop programmatic EFH Conservation 22 Recommendations. For instance, the Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Army Corps of 23 Engineers undertake programmatic consultation with NMFS for multi-part, multi-year 24 development projects. Within NRC, the types of agency actions that may be appropriate for 25 programmatic consultation include rulemakings or proposed actions that involve development of 26 a GEIS.

27 The process for programmatic consultation is like the process described above for abbreviated 28 and expanded consultations. However, a wider variety of outcomes are possible (see Review 29 Procedure Step 6 below). NMFS may formulate programmatic EFH Conservation 30 Recommendations. Such recommendations may cover all individual actions, or NMFS could 31 require individual consultations for some or all actions or components of the project.

32 If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations as part of a 33 programmatic consultation, the NRC must prepare a detailed written response within 30 days of 34 receiving the recommendations. The NRCs response completes consultation.

35 A.2.2.3 No Consultation 36 EFH consultation is not required when the Federal agency determines that an action would 37 have no adverse effects on EFH.

38 A.2.3 EFH Consultation Process 39 This section describes each step in determining whether EFH consultation is necessary and 40 within the consultation process itself. Figure A-2 illustrates the EFH pre-consultation and 41 consultation process.

A-16

1 2 Figure A-2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Process Flowchart A-17

1 1. Determine the affected area.

2 The first step in the consultation process is to determine the area that would be affected by 3 the proposed action. This step is like determining the ESA action area (see 4 Section 4.6.11.3, Review Procedure Step 1). Unlike the ESA, however, the MSA and its 5 regulations do not specifically prescribe or define terminology for the affected area. For 6 projects involving both an ESA analysis and EFH analysis, the ESA action area and the 7 EFH affected area are likely identical; both should account for all areas over which direct or 8 indirect impacts to ecological receptors could occur. A primary difference between the two 9 could be that an ESA action area may involve large areas of land that do not apply to the 10 EFH affected area if that land does not contain any aquatic habitat or features.

11 The affected area determination should be made by a qualified SME because subsequent 12 steps in the consultation, as well as the effects analyses, are predicated on defining a 13 complete and accurate affected area. The SME should be able to describe the extent of the 14 affected area in writing and pictorially on a map.

15 2. Determine the EFH that may be present in the affected area.

16 Once the affected area is established, the SME determines what EFH may be present in 17 that area. The Fishery Management Councils and NMFS designate EFH by species and life 18 stage.

19 To determine EFH, the SME should query the NMFSs Essential Fish Habitat Mapper tool 20 (available at: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/). This tool allows users to view 21 spatial representations of fish species, their life stages, and important habitats. The mapper 22 displays data layers for EFH, HAPC, and EFH areas protected from fishing. It also includes 23 links to supporting materials, such as fishery management plans, which contain the official 24 regulatory EFH descriptions. Prior to initiating this step, the SME should be familiar enough 25 with the potential effects of the proposed action to be able to fully define the affected area 26 and to input that area into the mapping tool.

27 The SME should compare EFH mapper results with habitat characteristics documented in 28 scientific literature and the descriptions of EFH in relevant fishery management plans and 29 other regulatory documents to ultimately determine the relevant EFH species and life 30 stages.

31 Although it is not required by regulation, it is a best practice to reach out to the Habitat 32 Conservation Division of the relevant NMFS regional office to confirm the accuracy and 33 completeness of the EFH mapper results and the SMEs determination of relevant EFH 34 species and life stages. This is particularly valuable in determining whether the NRC should 35 consider any prey of EFH species in its EFH analysis. For instance, if a given species with 36 designated EFH downstream of an NRC-licensed facility consumes diadromous fish that 37 occur upriver of the facility, effects of the proposed action on those prey fish would be 38 relevant to the NRC staffs EFH analysis. NMFS can help identify such cases that may not 39 appear within EFH mapper results. NMFS may also be able to assist the SME in ruling out, 40 streamlining, or grouping EFH species and life stages in cases where the EFH mapper 41 results are numerous.

42 If EFH, HAPC, or EFH prey are present in the affected area, the SME should proceed to the 43 next step (determining potential effects) to determine whether consultation is required. If no A-18

1 EFH, HAPC, or EFH prey are present, consultation is not required. The SME should 2 document this determination in the NEPA document associated with the proposed action 3 (e.g., EIS, SEIS, or EA), in correspondence to NMFS, or in a memo to file.

4 3. Engage with NMFS 5 If the NRC has not yet engaged directly with NMFS during the previous step(s), the SME 6 should reach out to the Habitat Conservation Division of the relevant regional office to 7 establish points of contact and to orient NMFS staff to the proposed action. This also helps 8 NMFS plan and designate staff resources so that both agencies (NRC and NMFS) can meet 9 the consultation timelines prescribed in the regulations. This step is also an opportunity for 10 the SME to gather more information on the EFH species, their life stages, habitat 11 characteristics, and HAPC. NMFS staff may be able to point the SME to surveys, studies, 12 and other available species data or connect the SME with local researchers and species 13 experts. The SME should document any substantive discussions with the Services, 14 researchers, or species experts in meeting summaries and should add any related 15 correspondence to ADAMS.

16 4. Determine and document potential effects on EFH.

17 The next step in the consultation process is to determine the potential effects of the 18 proposed action on the EFH of the identified EFH species, life stages, and their prey and on 19 HAPC, if applicable. The SME typically performs this analysis concurrently with the NEPA 20 review. The SME should rely on the application; available ecological surveys, monitoring, 21 and studies; views of recognized species experts; scientific literature; and other relevant 22 information to perform the EFH analysis. Based on the analysis, the SME makes an effect 23 determination for the EFH of each EFH species, life stage, and their prey and each HAPC 24 as identified below in Table A-3.

25 Table A-3 Possible Essential Fish Habitat Effect Determinations Made by the Federal 26 Action Agency Essential Fish Habitat Effect Determinations Spatial Extent Duration substantial adverse effects surface area, depth, and temporary v. permanent seasonality described in writing more than minimal but less than short-term v. long-term with explicit measurements, to the substantial adverse effects extent possible, or pictorially on a minimal adverse effects map no adverse effects 27 Importantly, EFH effect determinations characterize the effects on the habitat of the EFH 28 species and their life stages. They do not characterize the effects on the species or the life 29 stages themselves. Similarly, effect determinations for EFH prey characterize the effects on 30 the prey as a food resource rather than the effects on the prey species themselves. For 31 instance, a proposed action that involves water withdrawal from a river for cooling purposes 32 could cause habitat loss (i.e., temporary or permanent physical loss of a portion of the water 33 column). Associated effluent discharge could cause chemical or biological (i.e., temperature 34 and dissolved oxygen content) alterations to the habitat. With respect to prey species, water A-19

1 withdrawals could impinge or entrain prey organisms, which would represent a reduction in 2 available food resources for EFH species within that habitat.

3 HAPC are subsets of EFH that merit special considerations to conserve the habitat. The 4 Fishery Management Councils and NMFS identify HAPC within designated EFH based on 5 the importance of the habitats ecological function; the extent to which the habitat is 6 sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; whether, and to what extent, 7 development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and the rarity of the habitat 8 type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). If an HAPC is present, the SME should make separate effect 9 determinations for the EFH and the HAPC within that EFH. Actions that occur in HAPC may 10 receive more scrutiny by NMFS when developing conservation recommendations.

11 In addition to each EFH effect determination, NMFS recommends that Federal agencies 12 characterize effects in terms of spatial extent and duration (NMFS 2004b). To the 13 extent possible, the SME should describe these aspects of the impacts. Spatial extent can 14 be characterized in terms of surface area, depth, and seasonality. Duration includes 15 whether the effects are temporary or permanent and short-term or long-term.

16 The SME documents the EFH analysis and effect determination(s) in an EFH assessment or 17 directly within the NEPA document. EFH assessments are required for any proposed action 18 that may adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.920(e)(1)). This includes the following effect 19 determinations identified in Table A-3: substantial adverse effects, more than minimal but 20 less than substantial adverse effects, and minimal adverse effects. The level of detail in 21 an EFH assessment should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the 22 potential adverse effects of the action (50 CFR 600.920(e)(2)). The EFH assessment must 23 contain the following (50 CFR 600.920(e)(3)):

24

• a description of the action 25

• an analysis of the potential adverse effects on EFH and EFH species 26

• the Federal agencys conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH 27

• proposed mitigation, if applicable.

28 If appropriate, the EFH assessment should also include (50 CFR 600.920(e)(4))

29

• the results of site surveys, studies, and inspections that evaluate the habitat and the site-30 specific effects of the project 31

• the views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected 32

• a review of pertinent scientific literature and related information 33

• an analysis of alternate actions considered by the Federal agency 34

• any other relevant information.

35 If a Federal agency has previously completed an EFH assessment for a similar action, the 36 EFH regulations allow for the agency to incorporate by reference the previous assessment, 37 supplemented with any relevant new project-specific information (50 CFR 600.920(e)(4)).

38 The NRC typically issues EFH assessments as stand-alone documents. However, the NRC 39 also may opt to incorporate the EFH assessment into the NEPA document associated with 40 the proposed action under 50 CFR 600.920(f)(ii). In such cases, the NRC must clearly A-20

1 identify the relevant section of the document as the EFH assessment. The SME, along with 2 the project manager and NRC management, should carefully weigh the benefits and risks of 3 this option. Incorporating the EFH assessment into the NEPA document can delay the 4 progression of consultation because the NRC must wait until the NEPA document is issued 5 to initiate consultation. Typically, this option should be reserved for abbreviated 6 consultations that involve few EFH species, life stages, or prey and that do not involve any 7 HAPC.

8 If the proposed action would result in no adverse effects, consultation is not required, and 9 the SME documents the EFH analysis directly in the NEPA document. The NEPA document 10 should clearly identify the EFH analysis with appropriate headings and subheadings and 11 include the SMEs effect determinations for the EFH of each EFH species, life stage, and 12 their prey and each HAPC as identified in Table A-3.

13 5. Determine the appropriate type of consultation.

14 The SMEs effect determination(s) dictate whether consultation is required and the type of 15 consultation that is appropriate (e.g., abbreviated, expanded, programmatic, or no 16 consultation). Table A-4 summarizes the appropriate type of consultation for each possible 17 effect determination.

18 Table A-4 Appropriate Type of Consultation by Type of Proposed Action and Essential 19 Fish Habitat Effect Determination Types of Consultation Type of Proposed Action EFH Effect Determination Abbreviated Consultation individual proposed action minimal adverse effects or more than minimal, but less than adverse effects(a)

Expanded Consultation individual proposed action substantial adverse effects or more than minimal, but less than adverse effects(a)

Programmatic Consultation proposed actions with a large number no more than minimal adverse of individual actions, such as effects either individually or rulemakings or those involving cumulatively development of a GEIS No Consultation any no adverse effects 20 EFH = essential fish habitat; GEIS = generic environmental impact statement.

21 (a) For this finding, the NRC should work with NMFS to determine whether abbreviated or expanded consultation is 22 most appropriate.

23 For a given project, EFH effect determinations among the affected EFH species and life 24 stages may vary. For instance, a proposed action may result in no more than minimal 25 adverse effects on EFH of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (larvae, juveniles, and 26 adults), Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) (juveniles and adults), and bluefish 27 (Pomatomus saltatrix) (juveniles), but may have no adverse effects on the EFH of any life 28 stages of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) or Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). In this 29 case, abbreviated consultation would be appropriate to address the minimal adverse effects 30 on summer flounder, Atlantic butterfish, and bluefish, but the consultation would not be 31 required to address either black sea bass or Atlantic herring unless NMFS disagrees with 32 the NRCs no adverse effect findings. For another proposed action, the NRC might A-21

1 determine that a proposed action would have substantial adverse effects on the larvae and 2 juveniles of summer flounder and windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) but would 3 have no adverse effects on the EFH of juveniles and adults of these species. In this case, 4 expanded consultation would be appropriate to address the larvae and juvenile life stages.

5 6. Initiate and engage in consultation.

6 When the EFH assessment or NEPA document containing the EFH assessment is ready for 7 issuance, the SME prepares a request to initiate consultation with NMFS. The request 8 should specify the type of consultation being requested (i.e., abbreviated, expanded, or 9 programmatic) and why the action meets the criteria for that type of consultation. The NRC 10 staff must submit the EFH assessment at least 60 days prior to the final agency decision on 11 the action for abbreviated consultation and at least 90 days prior to the final agency decision 12 for expanded consultation.

13 Both abbreviated and expanded consultations begin when NMFS receives the EFH 14 assessment and written request for consultation. Programmatic consultations also begin 15 in this manner, although the EFH regulations allow for NMFS to also initiate programmatic 16 consultations by requesting pertinent information from the Federal agency 17 (50 CFR 600.920(j)(2)).

18 During consultation, the NRC and NMFS exchange information and engage in discussions 19 concerning the potential effects of the proposed action. The agencies may work together to 20 develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects. NMFS 21 may request that the NRC submit additional information to support its review of the 22 proposed action in a process that is like the NRCs RAI process.

23 Although the EFH regulations do not specifically describe the role of Federal applicants or 24 licensees, in practice, the NRC usually requests to involve the applicant or licensee to the 25 extent possible, and NMFS is typically amenable to this request. It is also a best practice to 26 engage the applicant or licensee when responding to any inquiries from NMFS to ensure 27 that the NRCs responses are accurate and complete.

28 If the proposed action will adversely affect EFH, NMFS formulates EFH Conservation 29 Recommendations, which may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise 30 offset adverse effects. NMFS must provide such recommendations to the NRC within 30 31 days for abbreviated consultation or within 60 days for expanded consultation. If NMFS 32 determines that the action would not adversely affect EFH or that no EFH Conservation 33 Recommendations are needed, NMFS notifies the NRC informally or in writing, and such 34 notification concludes consultation.

35 If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations, the NRC must 36 prepare a detailed written response within 30 days of receiving the recommendations. This 37 30-day timeframe applies to both abbreviated and expanded consultation. In the response, 38 the NRC staff must include a description of measures proposed for avoiding, mitigating, or 39 offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. If the NRCs response is inconsistent with any 40 of the NMFSs EFH Conservation Recommendations, the response must be provided at 41 least 10 days prior to the final agency decision and must explain the NRCs reasons for not 42 following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements 43 with NMFS. The NRCs response completes consultation.

A-22

1 The process for programmatic consultation is similar. However, five outcomes are possible.

2 NMFS may:

3 1. Formulate programmatic EFH Conservation Recommendations that cover all individual 4 actions of the program.

5 2. Formulate programmatic recommendations that cover individual actions, but that require 6 individual consultations for some or all actions.

7 3. Determine that no programmatic recommendations can be developed and that all 8 individual actions will require individual consultation.

9 4. Determine that all individual actions qualify for a General Concurrence, as defined in the 10 MSA.

11 5. Determine that there are no adverse effects and that no recommendations are needed.

12 If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations as part of a 13 programmatic consultation, the NRC must prepare a detailed written response within 14 30 days of receiving the recommendations. The NRCs response completes consultation.

15 7. Document the conclusion of consultation.

16 Completion of the consultation is documented by the NRCs response to NMFSs EFH 17 Conservation Recommendations or, in cases where the action would not adversely affect 18 EFH, NMFSs notification to NRC that no EFH Conservation Recommendations are needed.

19 The SME ensures that these documents are added to ADAMS as part of the consultation 20 record. The SME also documents the outcome of consultation in the NEPA document 21 associated with the proposed action. In cases where a final EIS or SEIS is issued prior to 22 the conclusion of consultation, the SME prepares input to the record of decision that 23 documents the outcome of the consultation. In cases where the final EA and FONSI are 24 issued prior to the conclusion of consultation, the NRC can consider issuing a Federal 25 Register notice that corrects or addends the EA and FONSI.

26 8. Perform supplemental consultation.

27 The EFH regulations specify two conditions under which Federal agencies must reinitiate 28 consultation. These conditions are (50 CFR 600.920(l))

29

• if the Federal agency substantially revises its plans for an action in a manner that may 30 adversely affect EFH, or 31

• if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS EFH Conservation 32 Recommendations 33 Supplemental consultation is conducted in a similar manner as initial consultation. The 34 outcome of supplemental consultation is NMFSs formulation of new or revised EFH 35 Conservation Recommendations. The NRC has the same regulatory responsibility to reply 36 to such recommendations within 30 days as during the initial consultation.

A-23

1 A.3 National Marine Sanctuaries Act 2 A.3.1 Overview of the Act and Consultation Responsibilities 3 Congress enacted the NMSA in 1972 to protect areas of the marine environment that have 4 special national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish the 5 National Marine Sanctuary System and designate sanctuaries within that system. The Office of 6 National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is charged with comprehensively managing this system, 7 which includes 15 sanctuaries and the Papahnaumokukea and Rose Atoll marine national 8 monuments, encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters 9 from Washington State to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. Within 10 these areas, sanctuary resources include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine 11 sanctuary that contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, 12 cultural, archaeological, scientific, or aesthetic value of the sanctuary. As of 2022, four 13 additional sanctuaries are proposed for designation. Maps of designated and proposed 14 sanctuaries are available at: https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/maps.html.

15 In 1992, Congress amended the NMSA to require interagency coordination. Pursuant to 16 Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with ONMS when their proposed 17 actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. Private actions 18 with a Federal nexus, such as construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal 19 licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRCs issuance of initial 20 or subsequent renewed licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant 21 to NMSA Section 304(d) is commonly referred to as NMSA consultation.

22 NOAA has not promulgated regulations concerning NMSA Section 304(d). In 2008, NOAA 23 issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register soliciting comments 24 on whether development of regulations implementing certain aspects of the NMSA 25 Section 304(d) consultation provisions is appropriate (73 FR 50259). NOAA later withdrew its 26 proposal in 2011. However, the ONMS has issued guidance for conducting NMSA consultation, 27 which the NRC relies upon, in Overview of Conducting Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d) 28 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NOAA 2009).

29 A.3.2 NMSA Consultation 30 A.3.2.1 NMSA Consultation 31 Unlike ESA Section 7 or EFH consultation, for which there are each several possible types of 32 consultation depending on the specific circumstances, the ONMSs guidance prescribes only a 33 single process for consultation. NMSA consultation is required when a Federal agency 34 determines that an action is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource.

35 Federal actions subject to consultation may be inside or outside the boundary of a national 36 marine sanctuary.

37 NMSA consultation begins when a Federal agency submits a sanctuary resource statement to 38 the ONMS and requests to initiate consultation. If the ONMS determines that sanctuary 39 resources are not likely to be injured by the proposed action, the ONMS will so notify the action 40 agency and consultation is concluded. If the ONMS finds that the proposed action will be likely 41 to injure sanctuary resources, it will, in coordination with the Federal agency, develop 42 recommended reasonable and prudent alternatives to protect against injury. Upon receipt of the 43 recommended alternatives, the Federal agency must discuss the alternatives with the ONMS. If A-24

1 the Federal agency fully incorporates the recommended alternatives into the proposed action, 2 no further consultation is necessary prior to conducting the action. If the Federal agency does 3 not follow the recommended alternatives, the agency must provide a written explanation to the 4 ONMS that describes the reasons for not following the alternatives.

5 If the Federal agency does not adopt the recommended alternatives and sanctuary resources 6 are subsequently injured because of the proposed action, Section 304(d)(4) of the NMSA 7 requires agencies to promptly prevent further damage and to restore or replace the sanctuary 8 resources in a manner approved by the ONMS.

9 A.3.2.2 No Consultation 10 NMSA consultation is not required when the Federal agency determines that an action is not 11 likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource.

12 A.3.3 NMSA Consultation Process 13 This section describes each step in determining whether NMSA consultation is necessary and 14 within the consultation process itself. Figure A-3 illustrates the NMSA pre-consultation and 15 consultation process.

16 1. Determine the affected area.

17 The first step in the consultation process is to determine the area that would be affected by 18 the proposed action. This step is like determining the ESA action area (see 19 Section 4.6.11.3, Review Procedure Step 1). Unlike the ESA, however, the NMSA and 20 ONMSs guidance do not specifically prescribe or define terminology for the affected area.

21 For projects involving an ESA analysis, EFH analysis and/or an NMSA analysis, the ESA 22 action area, the EFH affected area, and/or the NMSA affected area are likely identical; each 23 should account for all areas over which direct or indirect impacts to ecological receptors 24 could occur. Primary differences could be that an ESA action area may involve large areas 25 of land that do not apply to the NMSA affected area. The EFH affected area could include 26 freshwater bodies or non-marine aquatic habitats or features that do not apply to the NMSA 27 affected area. Notably, although most national marine sanctuaries are marine, two are 28 within the Great Lakes (Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Lake Huron and 29 Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary in Lake Michigan), and one is 30 currently proposed within Lake Ontario as of 2022.

31 The affected area determination should be made by a qualified SME because subsequent 32 steps in the consultation, as well as the effects analyses, are predicated on defining a 33 complete and accurate affected area. The SME should be able to describe the extent of the 34 affected area in writing and pictorially on a map.

35 A-25

1 2 Figure A-3 National Marine Sanctuaries Act Consultation Process Flowchart A-26

1 2. Determine the sanctuary resources that may be present in the affected area.

2 Once the affected area is established, the SME determines what national marine sanctuary 3 (or sanctuaries) are present in that area and what sanctuary resources are relevant to the 4 review. The term sanctuary resource is very broad and includes virtually every living and 5 nonliving component of the sanctuary ecosystem.3 Table A-5 includes examples of types of 6 sanctuary resources. The complete regulatory definition of this term can be found at 15 7 CFR 922.3.

8 Table A-5 Types of Sanctuary Resources Types of Sanctuary Resources substratum of the area of the Sanctuary phytoplankton and zooplankton submerged features(a) and the surrounding seabed fish carbonate rock, corals, and other bottom formations seabirds coralline algae and other marine plants and algae sea turtles and other marine reptiles marine invertebrates marine mammals brine-seep biota historic resources(b) 9 (a) Submerged features may include man-made features, such as artificial coral reef structures and shipwrecks.

10 (b) Because sanctuary resources include historic resources, this review necessitates coordination with the historic 11 and cultural resource review to determine whether any historic resources are present that would be relevant to 12 the NMSA consultation. In such cases, multiple NRC staff may be involved in discussions with the ONMS.

13 To determine what sanctuaries occur in the affected area, the SME should refer to the 14 ONMS website, which contains maps, descriptions, and other information on the National 15 Marine Sanctuary System (available at: https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/). For each sanctuary, 16 the ONMS maintains a sanctuary management plan that describes in detail the sanctuary 17 and its living and non-living marine resources. Although it is not required, it is a best 18 practice to reach out to the local ONMS office to discuss the proposed action and the 19 sanctuary resources that may be of particular concern.

20 If a national marine sanctuary is present in the affected area, the SME should proceed to the 21 next step (determining potential effects) to determine whether consultation is required. If no 22 national marine sanctuary is present, consultation is not required. For coastal projects and 23 those near Great Lakes, the SME should document this determination in the NEPA 24 document associated with the proposed action (e.g., EIS, SEIS, or EA) or in a memo to file.

25 For inland projects and other situations where a national marine sanctuary would not be 26 affected by the proposed action, no specific documentation is necessary.

27 3. Engage with ONMS.

28 If the NRC has not yet engaged directly with the ONMS during the previous step(s), the 29 SME should reach out to the local ONMS office to establish points of contact and to orient 30 ONMS staff to the proposed action. This also helps the ONMS plan and designate staff 31 resources for the consultation. This step is also an opportunity for the SME to gather more 32 information on the sanctuary resources that may be affected. ONMS staff may be able to 33 point the SME to surveys, studies, and other available data or connect the SME with local 34 researchers and experts. The SME should document any substantive discussions with the 3 Thunder Bay and Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale national marine sanctuaries have a more limited definition of sanctuary resources. See 15 CFR 922.3 and 15 CFR 922.182, respectively.

A-27

1 ONMS, researchers, or other experts in meeting summaries and should add any related 2 correspondence to ADAMS.

3 4. Determine and document potential effects on sanctuary resources.

4 The next step in the consultation process is to determine the potential effects of the 5 proposed action on sanctuary resources. The SME typically performs this analysis 6 concurrently with the NEPA review. The SME should rely on the application; available 7 ecological surveys, monitoring, and studies; views of recognized species experts; scientific 8 literature; and other relevant information to perform the NMSA analysis. Based on the 9 analysis, the SME makes an effect determination concerning sanctuary resources as 10 identified below in Table A-6.

11 Table A-6 Possible National Marine Sanctuaries Act Effect Determinations Made by the 12 Federal Action Agency NMSA Effect Determinations May affect and is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure May affect but is not likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure No effect 13 The SME documents the NMSA analysis and effect determination(s) in a sanctuary resource 14 statement or directly within the NEPA document. Sanctuary resource statements are 15 required for any proposed action that is likely to injure a sanctuary resource. The level of 16 detail in a sanctuary resource statement should be commensurate with the complexity and 17 magnitude of the potential adverse effects of the action. Sanctuary resource statements 18 may include the following, for example (NOAA 2009):

19

• purpose or objectives of the proposed action 20

• location of the action and any alternative locations 21

• methods and means for carrying out the action and any alternative methods available 22

• equipment proposed to be used and any alternative equipment 23

• documentation that supports the determination of the likelihood of the action causing 24 injury to sanctuary resources 25

• results of site surveys, studies, and inspections that evaluate the affected area of the 26 project 27

• views of recognized experts on the sanctuary resources that may be affected 28

• review of pertinent scientific literature and related information 29

• analysis of alternate actions considered by the Federal agency 30

• copies of any Federal, territory, State, local or Indian Tribe authorizations, permits, 31 licenses, or other forms of approval (or applications for authorizations, permits, or 32 licenses, if not yet granted) required for the project or a summary of such approvals that 33 have been sought 34

• copies of pertinent reports, including, but not limited to, any EIS, EA, or biological 35 assessment prepared, and any other relevant information.

A-28

1 The NRC may also opt to incorporate the sanctuary resource statement into the NEPA 2 document associated with the proposed action. In such cases, the NRC should clearly 3 identify the relevant section of the document as the sanctuary resource statement. The 4 SME, along with the project manager and NRC management, should carefully weigh the 5 benefits and risks of this option. Incorporating the sanctuary resource statement into the 6 NEPA document can delay the progression of consultation because the NRC must wait until 7 the NEPA document is issued to initiate consultation.

8 Notably, sanctuary resources can include historic resources in addition to ecological 9 resources. Thus, the ecology SME should coordinate with the historic and cultural resource 10 SME to determine whether any historic resources are present that would be relevant to the 11 NMSA consultation. In such cases, both NRC SMEs should be involved in discussions with 12 the ONMS. It may also be appropriate for the historic and cultural resource SME to prepare 13 input to the sanctuary resource statement concerning the potential effects of the proposed 14 action on the historic resources of the sanctuary.

15 The SME should also be aware as to whether the proposed action will require a special use 16 permit for activities otherwise prohibited in sanctuaries under 15 CFR Part 922. If a 17 proposed Federal action requires both NMSA consultation and a special use permit, the 18 ONMS will conduct both processes simultaneously, to the extent practicable. For example, 19 a dredging project conducted by a Federal agency within a national marine sanctuary may 20 require both a permit and trigger NMSA consultation. For most NRC agency actions where 21 this might apply, the licensee or applicant would be responsible for obtaining the special use 22 permit, and the NRC would be responsible for conducting NMSA consultation. The SME 23 should alert the ONMS of this unique situation early in the process so that the ONMS can 24 coordinate timelines for the two processes.

25 If the proposed action would result in no effect, consultation is not required, and the SME 26 documents the NMSA analysis directly in the NEPA document. The NEPA document should 27 clearly identify the NMSA analysis with appropriate headings and subheadings and include 28 the SMEs effect determination(s) for the sanctuary resources as identified in Table A-6.

29 5. Determine whether consultation is required.

30 The SMEs effect determination(s) dictate whether NMSA consultation is required.4 31 Consultation is required if the proposed action may affect and is likely to destroy, cause the 32 loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource of a national marine sanctuary. Consultation is not 33 required for may affect but is not likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure and no 34 effect findings. However, in cases where the SME makes a not likely finding, it is a best 35 practice to discuss this determination with the ONMS to confirm that consultation is not 36 required.

37 6. Initiate and engage in consultation.

38 When the sanctuary resource statement or NEPA document containing the sanctuary 39 resource statement is ready for issuance, the SME prepares a request to initiate 4 For Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the Oceans Act of 1992 prescribes a lower threshold for consultation related to this sanctuary. In accordance with Section 2002(e) of this act, consultation is required if the proposed action may affect sanctuary resources of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.

A-29

1 consultation with the ONMS. The NRC staff must submit the sanctuary resource statement 2 at least 45 days prior to the final agency decision.

3 Upon receipt of the NRCs request, the ONMS performs a completeness evaluation to 4 determine whether the sanctuary resource statement contains sufficient information to 5 evaluate the proposed actions likelihood of injury and to develop any necessary reasonable 6 prudent alternatives to protect sanctuary resources. The ONMS may request that the NRC 7 submit additional information to support its review of the proposed action in a process like 8 the NRCs RAI process.

9 Once the ONMS determines that the sanctuary resource statement is complete, consultation 10 begins, including the ONMSs 45-day period to recommend alternatives. During 11 consultation, the NRC and the OMNS exchange information and engage in discussions 12 concerning the potential effects of the proposed action. The agencies may work together to 13 develop recommended alternatives to protect against injury to sanctuary resources.

14 Although the ONMSs guidance does not specifically describe the role of Federal applicants 15 or licensees, in practice, the NRC usually requests to involve the applicant or licensee to the 16 extent possible, and the ONMS is typically amenable to this request. It is also a best 17 practice to engage the applicant or licensee when responding to any inquiries from the 18 ONMS to ensure that the NRCs responses are accurate and complete.

19 If the proposed action may injure sanctuary resources, the ONMS formulates recommended 20 reasonable and prudent alternatives. In the context of NMSA Section 304(d), these 21 alternatives can best be understood as those actions necessary to protect sanctuary 22 resources. Alternatives generally focus on the location, timing, and methods of the 23 proposed action. For example, the ONMS may recommend that the proposed action be 24 conducted 25

• at an alternate location, including a location outside the sanctuary(ies) 26

• during a different season or that it be delayed for a specified period of time 27

• with alternative equipment or procedures 28

• with some combination of these recommendations.

29 If the ONMS provides the NRC with recommended alternatives, the NRC must discuss the 30 recommendations with the ONMS. If the NRC (or licensee or applicant) plans to fully 31 implement the recommended alternatives and fully incorporate them into the proposed 32 action, the NRC need not take any further action beyond this discussion. If the NRC (or 33 licensee or applicant) does not follow the recommended alternatives, the NRC must prepare 34 a written response that describes the reasons for not implementing the alternatives. The 35 NRC's response completes consultation.

36 7. Document the conclusion of the consultation.

37 Completion of the consultation is documented by the NRCs response to the ONMSs 38 recommended alternatives or, where the NRC (or licensee or applicant) adopts the 39 alternatives, documentation of the NRCs discussion with the ONMS regarding how such 40 alternatives will be incorporated into the proposed action. The SME ensures that these 41 documents are added to ADAMS as part of the consultation record. The SME also 42 documents the outcome of consultation in the NEPA document associated with the A-30

1 proposed action. In cases where a final EIS or SEIS is issued prior to the conclusion of 2 consultation, the SME prepares input to the record of decision documenting the outcome of 3 the consultation. In cases where the final EA and FONSI are issued prior to the conclusion 4 of consultation, the NRC can consider issuing a Federal Register notice that corrects or 5 addends the EA and FONSI.

6 8. Conduct post-consultation activities.

7 Section 304(d)(4) of the NMSA requires Federal agencies that do not adopt ONMS 8 recommendations to take certain steps if their action results in injury to sanctuary resources.

9 First, upon injury, the Federal agency must promptly develop and implement measures to 10 mitigate further damage. Once the injury to sanctuary resources has been stopped, the 11 NMSA requires Federal agencies to restore or replace the resources in a manner approved 12 by the ONMS. Restoration or replacement can take many forms depending on the type of 13 injury caused and the nature of the resource. In such cases, the Federal agency develops a 14 restoration plan for ONMS approval.

15 9. Conduct further consultation.

16 The ONMSs guidance (NOAA 2009) directs Federal agencies to determine if a new NMSA 17 consultation is required in cases where the proposed action changes such that the nature or 18 likelihood of injury to sanctuary resources changes. The new consultation is conducted in a 19 similar manner as initial consultation. The outcome of new consultation is the ONMSs 20 formulation of new or revised recommended reasonable and prudent alternatives. If not fully 21 adopted, the NRC has the same responsibility to reply to such recommendations as during 22 the initial consultation.

23 A.4 References 24 15 CFR Part 922. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Title 25 922, "National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulations."

26 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 27 "Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended."

28 50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 600, 29 "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions."

30 73 FR 50259. August 26, 2008. "Conducting Consultations Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the 31 National Marine Sanctuaries Act." Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 32 Administration.

33 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.

34 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. NEFO Endangered Species Act Project Review 35 and Consultation. New England Ecological Services Field Office, Concord, New 36 Hampshire. Accessed July 12, 2022, at https://www.fws.gov/office/new-england-ecological-37 services/endangered-species-project-review.

38 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 39 Service). 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting A-31

1 Section 7 Consultation and Conference. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.

2 ML14171A801.

3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.

4 National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.

5 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 6 Guidance. Version 1.1, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed September 2, 2020, at 7 https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4187.

8 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004b. Preparing Essential Fish Habitat 9 Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies. Version 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 10 Accession No. ML14309A276.

11 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Overview of Conducting 12 Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. September 13 2009. Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed October 13, 2020, at 14 https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/304d.pdf.

15 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2020. "Habitat Areas of Particular 16 Concern within Essential Fish Habitat." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 19, 2022, at 17 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/habitat-conservation/habitat-areas-particular-concern-18 within-essential-fish-habitat.

19 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 Note. Public Law 104-297, October 11, 20 1996, 110 Stat. 3559.

A-32

1 APPENDIX B 2

3 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 REVIEW 4 AND CONSULTATION 5 As discussed in Section 3.7 of the LR GEIS, historic and cultural resources vary widely from site 6 to site; there is no generic way of determining their existence or significance. Thus, impacts 7 must be analyzed on a plant-specific basis, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 (NRC) is required to complete a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review 9 (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) prior to issuing a renewed license.1 Issuing a renewed license 10 (initial LR or SLR) is a Federal undertaking2 that requires compliance with the NHPA Section 11 106.

12 B.1 National Historic Preservation Act 13 Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider and evaluate the effects of their 14 undertakings on historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office 15 (SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), Advisory Council on Historic 16 Preservation (ACHP), Indian Tribes, the public, and additional consulting parties with a 17 demonstrated interest in the undertaking. Additional parties may participate as consulting 18 parties due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected 19 properties, or their concern with the undertaking's effects on historic properties (e.g., license 20 renewal applicants, certified local governments, local historical societies, and State-recognized 21 Tribes). For further information regarding potential consulting parties, see 36 Code of Federal 22 Regulations (CFR) 800.2(c).

23 A historic property is a historic and cultural resource that has been determined to be historically 24 significant within the scope of the NHPA if it has been determined eligible for listing or is listed 25 on the National Register of Historic Places. Per 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1), a historic property is any 26 prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for 27 inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the 28 Interior. Subpart B of 36 CFR Part 800 prescribes four primary steps within Section 106 29 consultation:

30

• Step 1: Initiate the Section 106 Process (36 CFR 800.3) - This step consists of establishing 31 the undertaking (initial LR or SLR), identifying consulting parties, and determining the scope 32 of potential effects from the undertaking by defining the direct and indirect area of potential 33 effects (APE).

1 The regulations at 36 CFR 800.1(c) allows the Federal agency to authorize nondestructive project planning activities before completing compliance with Section 106, provided that such actions do not restrict the subsequent consideration of alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the undertakings adverse effects on historic properties.

2 As defined in 36 CFR 800.16 (y), an undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval. Licensees and license applicants initiate the Federal action by submitting an application to the NRC. Therefore, there is no Federal undertaking until the NRC receives an application requesting a licensing action.

B-1

1

• Step 2: Identify Historic Properties (36 CFR 800.4) - Identify historic properties located 2 within the APE and determine if these will be affected by license renewal. This step consists 3 of determining the scope of the identification efforts, executing the identification, determining 4 the eligibility of the identified historic and cultural resources, and establishing if historic 5 properties will be affected and, if not, concluding with a finding of no historic properties 6 affected.

7

• Step 3: Assess Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5) - Assess adverse effects of license 8 renewal on identified historic properties. If historic properties will be affected, this step 9 consists of evaluating whether historic properties will be adversely affected or not.

10

• Step 4: Resolve Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.6) - Resolve adverse effects by avoiding, 11 minimizing, or mitigating the effects. Mitigation activities are formalized in an NHPA Section 12 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or a Programmatic Agreement (PA).

13 In addition to Section 106 of the NHPA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 14 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their 15 actions on the affected human environment, which includes aesthetic, historic, and cultural 16 resources as these terms are commonly understood, including such resources as sacred sites 17 (CEQ and ACHP 2013). For NEPA compliance, impacts on cultural resources that are not 18 eligible for or listed in the NRHP would also need to be considered (CEQ and ACHP 2013).

19 B.2 Coordination of NHPA Section 106 Review and Consultation with the 20 National Environmental Policy Act 21 The NHPA Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR 800.8(c) Use of the NEPA process for Section 22 106 purposes, allow Federal agencies to coordinate Section 106 consultation requirements 23 through the NEPA public involvement and review documentation. This process requires that 24 during the preparation of an EA or EIS, agencies must meet certain procedural requirements set 25 out in 36 CFR § 800.8(c)(1), (2), (3), and (4) and the four standards, set forth in 36 CFR § 26 800.8(c)(i)-(iv) (CEQ and ACHP 2013). Figure B-1 illustrates the coordination process allowed 27 by 36 CFR 800.8(c). Consultation occurs throughout the key steps listed in the Figure B-1.

28 The supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) serves as the administrative record 29 and is the main vehicle for consultation when coordinating NHPA Section 106 through the 30 NEPA process because it contains all of the information necessary to complete the process and 31 it is sent to all consulting parties for their review, comment, and concurrence.

32 This appendix describes the steps in coordinating the Section 106 process with NEPA for 33 license renewal applications.

34 B-2

1 2 Figure B-1 Coordinating National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic 3 Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews 4 B.2.1 Step 1: Initiate the Section 106 Process 5 Establish the Undertaking. The NRC has determined that issuance of a renewed license (initial 6 LR or SLR) is a Federal undertaking that requires compliance with the NHPA Section 106.

7 Determine scope of undertaking by defining the APE. For license renewal, the APE includes 8 lands within the nuclear power plant site boundary and the transmission lines up to the first 9 substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by land-disturbing or other operational 10 activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance and/or refurbishment 11 activities. The APE may extend beyond the nuclear plant site when these activities may 12 indirectly (e.g., visual and auditory) affect historic properties. This determination is made 13 irrespective of land ownership or control.

14 Identify Consulting Parties. Identify the appropriate SHPO or THPO, Indian Tribes, Native 15 Hawaiian organizations, local governments, preservation organizations, and individuals who 16 may be concerned with the possible effects of license renewal on historic properties in a manner 17 consistent with 36 CFR 800.3(f). In addition to these parties, additional consulting parties can 18 include certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in an undertaking 19 (e.g., license renewal applicants, State-recognized Tribes, and local historical societies). Tribal 20 liaisons in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards can support identifying tribal 21 contact information and provide programmatic support when requested. Additional resources 22 that can be helpful in obtaining contact information include the following:

23

• SHPO, State and Tribal government officials 24

• U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Leaders Directory 25

• National Association of Tribal Preservation Officers 26

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments Tribal Directory Assessment Tool B-3

1

• U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service Tribal Historic Preservation Officers online 2 databases.

3 NHPA Section 106 consultation is the responsibility of the Federal agency and should be 4 conducted in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. While license applicants may have engaged 5 with the SHPO/THPO and Indian Tribes during the development of its environmental report, the 6 NRC is required to consult with the SHPO/THPO and Indian Tribes that attach religious and 7 cultural significance to historic properties that could be affected by the undertaking. Early 8 coordination with consulting parties is essential to the development of the plant-specific SEIS.

9 Once the NRC staff has identified the relevant consulting parties, the staff initiates NHPA 10 Section 106 consultation by letter, notifying parties of the scope of the undertaking and inviting 11 them to participate in the Section 106 process and provide comments and input on historic 12 properties and other historic and cultural resources. Consultation letters should be mailed to the 13 consulting parties in parallel with publication of notice of intent to prepare a SEIS and conduct 14 scoping in the Federal Register. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the consultation letters 15 should notify the ACHP, SHPOs/THPOs, and Indian Tribes that the NRC intends to comply with 16 NHPA Section 106 through the NEPA process. The following information should also be 17 provided in the consultation letters:

18

• location of the undertaking 19

• description of the undertaking 20

• definition of the APE 21

• how comments can be submitted 22

• when the scoping period ends 23

• details of scoping public meeting (if conducted) 24

• any environmental review milestones (e.g., expected issuance of the draft SEIS) 25

• an NRC Section 106 point of contact 26

• relevant maps of the direct and indirect APE.

27 B.2.2 Step 2: Identify Historic Properties 28 Identify and evaluate relevant historic properties within the APE. Review existing information 29 on historic properties within the APE. Use information provided by the applicants or licensees 30 environmental report, background research, records searches performed at SHPOs/THPOs 31 office, oral history interviews, ethnographic studies, information gathered through consultation, 32 field survey results, and site visits to identify historic properties. NHPA regulations require 33 Federal agencies to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify properties that the 34 undertaking may affect, and both listed NRHP properties and unlisted properties within the APE 35 may be relevant to Section 106 consultation.

36 In consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural 37 significance to identified properties, the NRC should apply the NRHP criteria (36 CFR 60.4) to 38 properties identified within the APE that have not been previously evaluated for NRHP eligibility.

39 Indian Tribes possess special expertise in identifying historic properties of religious and cultural 40 significance to them and assessing their eligibility. If the NRC determines that any of the NRHP 41 criteria are met and the SHPO/THPO agrees, the property shall be considered eligible for the B-4

1 NRHP for Section 106 purposes. If the NRC determines the criteria are not met and the 2 SHPO/THPO agrees, the resource shall be considered not eligible. For historic or cultural 3 resources that do not meet the criteria to be considered a historic property under the NHPA, the 4 NRC will assess whether there would or would not be any potential significant impacts on these 5 resources through the NEPA process.

6 B.2.3 Step 3: Assess Effects 7 Determine if adverse effects exist. Once eligibility determinations are complete, the NRC and 8 consulting parties work to determine whether the license renewal (initial LR or SLR) will have 9 adverse effects on the identified historic properties. An adverse effect occurs when an 10 undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that 11 qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 12 propertys location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association (36 CFR 13 800.5(a)(1)). Adverse effects may include physical destruction or damage to all or part of a 14 historic property as well as the introduction of visual or audible elements. For additional 15 examples of adverse effects see 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2). The NRC may propose a finding of no 16 adverse effect when the undertakings (license renewal) effects do not meet the criteria of 17 paragraph 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1).

18 No adverse effect. The NRC concludes no adverse effect on historic properties when no 19 historic properties have been identified in the APE or if historic properties are present, but there 20 will be no effect consistent with 36 CFR 800.16(i) (e.g., because effects will be avoided). This 21 determination should be documented in the draft SEIS in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11(e).

22 NRC staff should also identify and discuss the APE, historic properties and historic and cultural 23 resources within the APE, consulting parties, and summarize scoping comments received from 24 consulting parties. The draft SEIS should be provided to the SHPO/THPO, ACHP, Indian 25 Tribes, and other consulting parties for review when the draft SEIS is issued for public 26 comment. The draft SEIS is transmitted to all consulting parties with an accompanying cover 27 letter that summarizes the relevant NHPA Section 106 and NEPA findings.

28 Resolve comments on the draft SEIS. Based on comments received on the draft SEIS, 29 additional consultation may be needed. If the SHPO/THPO or any consulting party notifies the 30 NRC in writing that they disagree and object with the findings in the draft SEIS, proceed with 31 Step 4 below.

32 Other responses (e.g., concurrence with findings, comments for consideration, corrections) to 33 the NRC letters that accompany the draft SEIS are considered in the final SEIS. Based on 34 comments received on the draft EIS, the historic and cultural resources sections in the final 35 SEIS would be updated to include responses to consultation letters, SHPO concurrences with 36 determinations of eligibility and finding of effect, as well as address any additional concerns 37 raised by consulting parties. The final SEIS would be transmitted to consulting parties with a 38 cover letter that describes any changes made based on responses and points to those specific 39 sections of the final SEIS in which changes were made and to formal responses made in the 40 comment-response section of the final SEIS. The letter should clearly indicate that the NHPA 41 Section 106 consultation process is closed.

42 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4), if the SHPO/THPO agrees or does not respond by the 43 close of the 30-day review period, and no other consulting party objects, then the NHPA Section 44 106 process is closed, and the NRC may proceed with the action.

B-5

1 Adverse effect. If the NRC determines that license renewal would have an adverse effect on 2 historic properties, the process discussed under Step 4 should be followed.

3 B.2.4 Step 4: Resolve Adverse Effects 4 If the NRC determines that there is an adverse effect to historic properties, the staff would 5 continue consultation with the SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties to assess measures to 6 avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. Similarly, if a consulting party 7 disagrees with the NRCs determination and notifies the NRC in writing that it disagrees with the 8 finding and specifies the reasons for the disagreement in the notification, the NRC shall 9 continue to work with the consulting parties to resolve the disagreement or request review by 10 the ACHP.

11 As part of the resolution process, the NRC and the consulting parties can develop measures to 12 avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Such measures are typically documented in a 13 MOA or PA. The NRC may invite the ACHP to participate in resolving adverse effects when 14 (1) the NRC wants the ACHPs participation, (2) a National Historic Landmark (a historic 15 property that has been recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as possessing national 16 significance) will be adversely affected, or (3) a PA will be prepared.

17 If the NRC enters into a MOA as part of resolving any adverse effects upon historic properties, 18 then the NRC must reference the MOA in the draft SEIS for public comment. MOA or PA 19 signatories typically include the NRC, SHPO(s), THPO(s), and the ACHP, if it joined the 20 consultation. The NRC may also invite other parties to sign or concur with the agreement, such 21 as the applicant or licensee and Indian Tribes. The MOA or PA signatories have sole authority 22 to execute, amend, or terminate the agreement. Execution of an MOA or a PA completes the 23 Section 106 consultation and fulfills the NRCs obligations under NHPA Section 106 for that 24 undertaking. However, the MOA or PA must be fully implemented for the NRC to remain in 25 compliance with the NHPA.

26 B.2.5 Record of Decision and Issuance of License 27 The NRC must provide written communication to federally recognized Tribes who provided input 28 on the proposed license renewal, as soon as practical, after the NRC has issued the record of 29 decision. This written response should inform the Tribe of the NRCs final decision, describe 30 how the NRC considered the Tribes input, and respond to the Tribes comments.

31 B.3 References 32 36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 33 Part 60, National Register of Historic Places.

34 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 35 Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

36 CEQ and ACHP (Council on Environmental Quality and Advisory Council on Historic 37 Preservation). 2013. NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106.

38 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14172A044.

39 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.

40 National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.

B-6

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants February 2023 Revision 2, Draft Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal